In accordance with standing order 41(g) and the determinations of the Selection Committee, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the honourable members for Moreton, Aston, Shortland, Melbourne, Fowler and Dickson. These items will be considered in the Federation Chamber later today.
I move:
That the Federation Chamber order of the day No. 1, private members' business relating to the National Disability Insurance Scheme be returned to the House for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That the National Electricity Bill 2012 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That unless otherwise ordered, at the interruption of debate at 1.45 p.m. today the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration:
Appropriation (No. 1) 2013-2014;
Appropriation (No. 2) 2013-2014; and
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) (No. 1) 2013-2014.
Question agreed to.
Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
Since the last presentation I made on 18 March, the Standing Committee on Petitions has conducted three roundtable hearings in Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane. In the 43rd Parliament, Speaker, you would be aware of roundtable hearings that have been held on petitions which may have particular benefit from further explanation and discussion, rather than taking a sweep of all petitions received. For example, petitions may be heard because of the unique nature of their subject matter or to provide a particular clarification of the concern or of the ministerial response. This approach has enabled the committee to conduct more in-depth hearings with principal petitioners and/or with public servants.
As I mentioned in March, there is considerable benefit in the committee conducting roundtable meetings with public servants on certain petitions to draw out more about the subject matter and to discuss the ministerial responses. The first roundtable hearing, held on 20 March, was located here in Canberra, with public servants attending from two government departments having specialisations in the subject matter areas of the selected petitions.
The committee also discussed three individual petition issues with senior officers from the Department of Health and Ageing. The first related to a petition calling for the restoration of the extended Medicare safety net for obstetrics—two petitions which had a combined signature count of 2,755. The second petition matter, with 5,185 signatures, called for specific Medicare rebates to be introduced for an advanced radiotherapy treatment for certain cancers, called CyberKnife treatment. And the final petition relating to the Health and Ageing portfolio, with 5,081 signatures, requested the immediate full implementation of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program—a petition which was again discussed with the principal petitioner in Sydney.
Officers from the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities also appeared to discuss a petition of 10,364 signatures requesting an immediate ban on the importation of primates for research purposes.
These hearings with public servants are not an investigative or accountability exercise, nor are they to draw out comments on the merits or otherwise of the government's programs or administration. Rather, these hearings are a forum to explain the background of the subject matter, to clarify the current programs or policy and to detail any outcomes of new initiatives, results of reviews, or expected changes, if any. This forum provides the principal petitioner and any interested parties with further information on the government's framework of approaching the policy matter. The general public can view the hearing on the day, listen to the broadcast or read the dialogue published in the Hansard transcript.
All these petitions exhibited robust signature counts, but I want to emphasise that signature counts alone are not a determinant for conducting a public hearing. These petitions, particularly those from the health portfolio, covered issues with some degree of complexity, whether in terms of the subject matter itself or in the policy or process detail. For example, the process of analysing whether new technology items are eligible for specific Medicare rebates is quite complicated, as is the calculation of the extended Medicare rebate and the impact of policy changes on market behaviour. Hearings with public servants on these types of petition matters add particular value because they provide an opportunity to elaborate on the ministerial response and, importantly, to clarify processes or data.
The committee thanks the well-informed officers who participated in the hearing on 20 March. Next week, I will discuss the Sydney and Brisbane meetings, where the committee met with principal petitioners.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Review of administration and expenditure: No. 10—Australian intelligence agencies.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's oversight of the Australian intelligence community, the AIC, is a key element of our national security architecture. I am therefore pleased to present this review, which covers the 2010-11 financial year. The review examined a wide range of aspects of the administration and expenditure of the six intelligence and security agencies, including the financial statements for each agency, their human resource management, training, recruitment and accommodation. In addition, the review looked at issues of interoperability between members of the Australian intelligence community. Submissions were sought from each of the six intelligence and security agencies, from the Australian National Audit Office, or ANAO, and from the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, IGIS.
The submissions from ANAO and the six intelligence agencies were all classified confidential, restricted or secret and were therefore not made available to the public. As has been its practice for previous reviews, ASIO provided the committee with both a classified and an unclassified submission. The unclassified version was made available on the committee's website. Each of the defence intelligence agencies provided the committee with a classified submission. Each agency marked each paragraph with its relevant national security classification. This has enabled the committee for its 2010-11 review to directly refer in this report to unclassified information provided in the defence agencies' submissions.
In relation to the organisation of agency structures, the Director-General of ASIO, Mr David Irvine, told the committee about ASIO's internal reform program. He stated that the point of the reform program was:
… not simply to meet the demand for efficiency dividends and so on; it is to address what I think is a key responsibility of anyone in a position of leadership within the intelligence community today, and that is to make sure that the intelligence community is prepared for tomorrow.
One agency introduced a new and expanded organisational structure to ensure appropriate focus and risk management across all aspects of that agency's expansion in operational activities. Another agency combined two areas of its responsibilities into one so as to better focus on challenges in the current geopolitical environment.
Out of the six agencies, four reported having to accommodate legislative changes in 2010-11. In general, all agencies again stated their commitment to ensuring that their staff are informed of legislative requirements as they relate to agency functions and operations, and that where applicable they received targeted training to ensure understanding and compliance. Apart from ASIO, those agencies experiencing growth in their workforce characterised it as marginal and some agencies actually decreased their full-time equivalent staffing levels.
Now I come to my favourite subject: the efficiency dividend. The Director-General of ASIO told the committee that, in relation to the Taylor review target for staff, which was established post-September 11 to get ASIO to its full operational capability to meet current and future threats, he did not:
… believe we can reach the target without further funding. That four per cent efficiency dividend is gone forever from our budget. I do not believe we can reach that target until we get access to new funding, which may be a year or so or longer depending on the economy down the track.
Additionally, ONA stated:
The impact of efficiency dividends on small agencies can be disproportionate. ONA has been able to meet the increased annual efficiency dividend.
However, the additional 2.5% one-off efficiency dividend will put much greater strain on ONA's capacity to do its job, eroding gains that flowed to ONA from the Flood Report.
The Director-General of ONA, Mr Allan Gyngell, also told the committee that the 'new efficiency dividend will certainly impede our ability to provide the coverage which we have provided in the past'.
My time is running short, but, as I have said here in the past that I would come before this parliament and talk to it and inform it if the efficiency dividend and its continued implementation affected operability of the intelligence agencies, I believe that this report establishes that that is now happening—and that is completely unacceptable.
The agencies are tasked to protect our national security and I, frankly, find it astonishing that these agencies would have been effectively sequestered from funding to perform their tasks. I think it is disgraceful and it should be addressed. I thank the secretariat staff, Jerome Browne, Robert Little, formerly Dr Cathryn Oliff and Lauren McDougall. I commend the report to the House.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this report. I thank the chairman for his remarks. I will further develop them in the course of my comments but let me endorse his thanks to the committee secretariat for the work that they undertake.
Our committee, it would perhaps be helpful for members to know, is not involved in reviewing the security agency's sensitive work. We may receive informal briefings from time to time but we are not to inquire into activities that relate to their efforts to protect our security as a nation. But this report is, I think, pointing to where we are exposing ourselves to quite significant risks.
A point was made by the chair in relation to what is happening with efficiency dividends. Essentially, if I can put the argument simply, organisations after the Taylor review that were seen to require substantial additional funding to be able to carry out their multiplicity of tasks in relation to counter-terrorism, for instance, and maintaining our efforts in counter espionage, were not adequately resourced for the task. We are now in a situation, if you read the page 7 of the report, where the money is being stripped out as a matter of government policy through efficiency dividends, as they are called.
It is important to read the report as a whole and I would direct people to look at what is required in relation to visa security assessments on pages 14 and 15. ASIO is now dealing with something of the order of 34,000 security assessments in relation to individuals who have arrived in Australia without lawful authority. The Director-General makes the point that, given the number of people arriving, the requirement for us to conduct security assessments, which we have been refining down and down, nevertheless still represents a considerable allocation of the organisation's resources. If you go on and read page 17 you will see that ASIO is having to undertake increased numbers of counter-terrorism security assessments. They have increased by something in the order of 11 per cent.
The report is pointing to an agency that is faced with considerable demands for its services and its workload, and the organisations are seeing their funding contract. I am not here to argue that they should get additional funding but I will argue very strongly that we may have to look at the way in which this organisation is carrying out, particularly, the issue of visa assessments. They are receiving priority because there are advocates out there arguing these issues need to be dealt with quickly. I understand why people would say that but what we are seeing is the security assessments process being refined downwards—in other words, we are being exposed to potential increased risk—and the organisation is having to speed up its assessment in relation to an area which, in my view, does not have the same priority.
In concluding my remarks today I remind people that counter-terrorism has not gone away. We have got reports of some 200 Australians in Syria at the moment who are perhaps working with al-Qaeda and likely to come back to Australia. We have seen what has happened in Boston. We have seen what has happened in London. And we ask ourselves: 'Is it all over, 10 years since 9/11? Maybe we don't face a problem anymore.' I saw some comments that suggested that. I think this report demonstrates very clearly that those problems have not gone away, our resourcing is being diminished and we need to give it a better priority. (Time expired)
On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety I present the committee's report entitled Cybersafety for seniors: a worthwhile journey.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
As Deputy Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety I want to speak to the report of the committee's inquiry into cybersafety and senior Australians. I should start by acknowledging students of the MET School from Kellyville who are here from my electorate. Welcome to the national parliament; great to see you.
The speed of the information technology revolution has meant that many older Australians now find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide. Indeed, we have all spoken in this chamber about the pace and speed of change, and I know students at the MET School at Kellyville understand the internet and technology revolution. Fear of cybercrime is one of the reasons many seniors are not active online. During the inquiry into cybersafety for seniors the committee was told that it is imperative that everything possible is done to help every senior Australian become active online because, in the near future, seniors who are not online will become a seriously disadvantaged group as government and businesses are increasingly using the internet as their sole means of interacting with people. Although there are many seniors who are active online and find it a comfortable transition, there are many seniors who did not have the benefit of working with computers before retirement and now they fear the internet because of cybersafety issues. This is, of course, a generational issue. This generation which has not grown up with the technology and computers available to them will be superseded by every single generation which has.
Evidence was taken during the inquiry showing that education and training is the key to helping seniors move into the cyberworld with confidence and skill. This was similar to the committee's inquiries into cybersafety and the young, with education—from academics, from parents groups, from any sector and from the internet industry as well—being the key for all age groups. Every sector says to us that education and training are the best possible methods of improving the situation in relation to cybersafety, rather than heavy-handed government approaches. The committee found that, across the nation, public libraries and seniors' organisations have taken up the challenge to teach seniors about cybersafety. Several seniors groups and representatives from the public libraries addressed the committee at public hearings. Each told the committee that they cannot meet existing demand from seniors for cybersafety training due to lack of resources, but with increased funding they could do more training.
The Australian Federal Police very seriously told the committee that cybercrime targets everyone, and even cybersavvy people can become victims, so it is up to each individual to take the same degree of responsibility for their own actions when online as they do in everyday life. The AFP also said that keeping seniors cybersafe requires a multifaceted approach combining the right mix of law enforcement, policy and legislation, education and some level of user vigilance. There is no doubt that governments in jurisdictions across the world are still wrestling with the right formula for legislating the online space, for protecting people online and for providing them with the inherent legal rights that they have every day online, and that is still a work in progress.
Access to the internet was found to be a barrier for some seniors, particularly those who are housebound or who live on low incomes in remote places. Those living in metropolitan areas and larger regional centres who do not have an internet connection in their home can generally find free access to the internet in public libraries and various seniors clubs. The Broadband for Seniors initiative, run by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, provides free access to computers and broadband internet as well as free online training for seniors who are able to access one of the 2,000 Broadband for Seniors kiosks. These kiosks are in community centres, retirement villages, libraries and senior citizens clubs across Australia, but the committee has recommended that this worthwhile initiative could benefit from much wider publicity.
The committee found that when seniors experience cybercrime there is a lot of confusion about how to report the crime and therefore the committee recommended that a centralised user-friendly reporting and cybersafety awareness portal should be developed with links to relevant regulators. Indeed, access to the relevant regulation is a critical issue. If we are not getting the reports of crime then we are not able to deal with it effectively. The site should feature a dedicated seniors reporting tab backed up by a telephone service which links individuals to appropriate victim support, training and other advice. The committee notes that the government has recently launched a seniors helpline under its Broadband for Seniors initiative but believes that there would be merit in centralising reporting and support mechanisms for all cybercrime victims who need support or advice.
The committee also recommended that cyber awareness campaigns using clear and practical messages about cyber safety could feature on the cybersafety awareness portal. The committee recommended that it would be beneficial for everyone's cyber safety if the government were to establish a consultative working group with wide stakeholder representation to coordinate and promote government and industry partnerships and initiatives. (Time expired)
I also rise to speak on the Cybersafety for seniors: A worthwhile journey report following on from the deputy chair, the member for Mitchell. Throughout history there have been various revolutions—from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, from the age of Enlightenment to the Industrial Revolution—and we are now right in the middle of the digital age or information age. Information is doubling almost every six months, whereas earlier it took thousands of years for humanity's information to double.
Like all new technologies, in the wrong hands—be it a bronze sword or a spear—new technologies in the wrong hands can be dangerous. We do recognise that. However, used skilfully, the digital age—the internet—can bring enormous benefits to all Australians, particularly seniors. We heard in our inquiry, from around the country, the great benefits that come from people being skilled up, trained and offered the benefits of the internet, whether it be banking, looking at families or grandchildren or sharing information about hobbies.
Sadly, we also heard that Australians are targets for criminals. We are a wealthy country and we have a lot of superannuants who have money set aside for their retirements, and people around the world know this. Unfortunately, the internet means criminals can be right next door rather than come across the seas. This report is a timely reminder, but it indicates the great boon that comes with having a National Broadband Network and making the internet available for all Australians, particularly senior Australians.
I would like to commend the chair, Senator Bilyk, for her work, the deputy chair, the member for Mitchell, and all members of the committee, and commend the report to the chamber.
Just before the member for Moreton sits down: If he could assist me, I seem to have lost the member for Mitchell. The time allocated for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Moreton wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated at a later hour?
I am very keen to do so.
Order! In accordance with standing order 39 (d), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
My electorate of Canberra is truly fortunate to be home to over 80 diplomatic missions from around the world. The many diplomats and their families who call Canberra home, even for short periods of time, enliven our city. They share with us their diversity, their culture, their language, their food, their music and their art. They make Canberra a truly vibrant national capital.
I have been campaigning for a long-term strategy to manage Canberra's diplomatic estates for some time now. A long-term strategy will ensure Canberra's diplomatic estates are planned and developed in a sustainable way, benefiting both the diplomats who will call them home and the broader Canberra community. A long-term strategy will also allow for better coordination between the National Capital Authority, the Commonwealth and the ACT government. It will allow for better community consultation and for consideration of environmental and other needs, particularly the varying needs of a modern diplomatic community.
The management of the diplomatic estate was first brought to my attention by constituents in my electorate. They were concerned over a proposed development for a new diplomatic estate at Stirling Ridge. When I started to look into this proposed development, it became obvious that there was no long-term strategy or plan guiding the allocation of land for the development of diplomatic estates here in Canberra. Instead, there was an ad hoc process that resulted in land being designated as appropriate for diplomatic estates but then never being developed and new land—virgin ground such as Stirling Ridge—being proposed for development when the diplomatic estate was not full and in the absence of a long-term strategy. That is why I called for an inquiry into the allocation of lands for diplomatic missions in the ACT and why I am very pleased to be presenting the report of this inquiry and estate for the future.
The Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories undertook two key tasks in this inquiry. First, we compared the experience of Canberra with other national capitals, in particular Washington DC. The committee was impressed with the level of planning and coordination in the Washington model and its substantial use of free market methods in the allocation of land to diplomatic missions. Second, we explored various alternatives for allocating land to diplomatic missions, including more stringent enforcement of lease conditions and resumption of leases, use of medium- and high-density premises to house missions, subdivision of existing lands and the use of residential and commercial properties to house missions.
The committee has made three key recommendations. Recommendation 1 is that the government implements a range of new options for the allocation of land for diplomatic estates including strengthened policies and regulations surrounding diplomatic leases, the introduction of medium- and high-density options for housing chanceries, policies to allow the subdivision of existing sites within the diplomatic estate, a policy framework that allows more extensive use of residential and commercial properties to house chanceries along the lines adopted in Washington DC and the overall encouragement of a steady evolution towards a more commercial approach to this issue.
Recommendation 2 is that the National Capital Authority develop a long-term strategy for the allocation of land to diplomatic missions in the ACT. This strategy will be developed in conjunction with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Federal Police and the ACT government, and integrated with the national capital plan and the territory plan. Recommendation 3 is that the National Capital Authority withdraw draft amendment 78 to the National Capital Plan which is the proposal for the development of a diplomatic estate at Stirling Ridge. I am pleased to report that the NCA have accepted recommendations 2 and 3 which concern them directly.
I am confident that these recommendations will ensure that the future allocation of land for the development of diplomatic estates will be done in a way that enhances this city, that enhances the experience of diplomats posted to Canberra and that benefits all Canberrans. These recommendations will allow for greater flexibility and choice and reflect the options provided by the modern Canberra, not the Canberra of the 1950s.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee, particularly the chair, Senator Louise Pratt, and the committee secretariat for their excellent work on this inquiry. I would also like to thank the many residents and associations who invested significant time in advocating on this issue and preparing articulate and well-considered submissions for the inquiry. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the late Meredith Barnes from the Save Stirling Park group who was a tireless and passionate advocate on this issue until her final days.
I present the Imported Food Warning Labels Bill 2013 and explanatory memorandum. I move:
That leave be given to introduce the bill.
Question agreed to.
We are introducing this bill so that consumers can make informed choices about the potential health risks of purchasing and consuming imported food products. Australia's stringent regulatory environment producing our own food and processing our own food ensures Australia retains its favourable health status and our products' health, clean and green images. However, our foreign competitors can use chemicals not approved for use in Australia and processes with the highest levels of health risks—streptomycin on apples from New Zealand to combat fire blight; a pesticide for citrus totally banned in Australia; sewage from waste water going into prawns from fish farms in Vietnam. Australia's industries are placed at risk by the importation of disease and infections that would have devastating social and economic impacts as well as environmental impacts.
Having said those things, contaminants such as poisonous pesticides and weedicides are in all of these products coming into Australia. The process is being used. In some cases in Vietnam, there is sewage going directly into rivers, but it is being indirectly dumped into rivers in both Thailand and China, and water is taken out of the rivers and then put into the ponds. One of the reasons that our seafood, fish-farming and prawn-farming industries are non-competitive is that we must have pristine pure water not only coming in but also going out, which means it has to be processed three or four times before it goes back into the river. This is in contrast to countries that dump raw sewage and waste water into the rivers, then take water out of the rivers and put it into the ponds, and then just dump the water straight back into the rivers. It is impossible for us to compete on such a precipitously unlevel playing field.
We pleaded with the government not to allow prawns in from overseas. The government persisted in introducing the prawns from overseas, so we got white spot. Twenty-three tonnes of poison had to be dumped in the Darwin harbour to try and destroy the white spot. Very sadly, IHHNV is rife on the Great Barrier Reef now. We said, 'If you bring the prawns in, we'll get IHHNV.' Well, now we have got it, devastating our Great Barrier Reef.
As far as the risk to human health goes, it is very real and very immediate. A little boy died at Mackay a few weeks ago from hendra virus. There was another outbreak of hendra virus last week or the week before. Lyssavirus for the first time ever was found in horses. It is generally assumed that, if it can get into horses, it can get into humans. If you get lyssavirus, you die. If you get hendra virus, you have a one in three chance of dying. There are mutations of those diseases which become almost identical to the Ebola strain of that particular disease. We have not got SARS in Australia yet, or avian influenza, but if we have no restrictions and no warnings then these things will be consumed and we will get the people strain as well as the animal and plant strains in our Australian community.
Papaya fruit fly, citrus canker and black sigatoka have already come in, at a cost of $300 million or $400 million, if you add all of the costs of eradication. If foot-and-mouth disease comes in, the losses will be $3,000 million or $4,000 million a year. It would be similar with bluetongue. Some have said this is backdoor protectionism. Well, I will not be apologising to anyone if it is. I have compared our regime for prawn and fish farming with the regimes used by our competitors. There is the delightful, quaint aspiration in this place that we will be a food supplier to Asia. In fact, if you extrapolate the prawn and fish production in China, which is almost a vertical graph at the present moment, for 40 or 50 years, almost all of the world's protein will be provided out of China—and it does not need landmass, of course; these things can be grown out in the sea in plastic containers.
To give you an idea how unlevel the playing field is at the present moment: our interest rates are 2.7 per cent and the rest of the world's are below 0.2 per cent, which is propping our dollar up to twice its value so all of our competitors are at a 50 per cent disadvantage. On top of that, total support levels—tariff subsidies, if you like—are 41 per cent in the OECD and 4.5 per cent in Australia. So there is a 100 per cent difference on just two items. Not only that: our sugar is not allowed into the United States or into Europe and our beef is not allowed into China or into Europe. It is under 20,000 tonnes; it is almost invisible, the amount that is allowed into those countries. None of our product is allowed into the European Union or the United States—1,000 million people. And with beef to China and Europe: 2,000 million people. A third of the world's population live in those two entities, if you like.
We are also up against people who work for a disgraceful $5.02 a day, for example, in the Philippines, whereas our agricultural wage costs—quite rightly, and proudly—are $19.80 an hour. So we say that there is an extremely un-level playing field out there, and we will not be apologising for that whatsoever.
But anyone who votes against the proposal by me and my honourable colleague from Hobart here believes that we should eat apples in this country with streptomycin on them. They believe that we should consume citrus product that has carbendazim, which is a poison that is used extensively in the citrus industry in Brazil. There are traces of it in all product coming in from Brazil. All product coming in from Brazil will contain trace elements of that, and it is banned in Australia.
With cadmium levels, then Minister Truss raised the amount of poison allowed in from other countries so that we could allow peanuts to come in from Texas and China. His reason for putting Australians' health at risk was to help other countries to export product into Australia. A most extraordinary statement! If you have more cadmium consumption then you will have a much greater risk of some terrible diseases, which I am not going to go into here—they are very unpleasant and even the use of the words is very unpleasant. So I will not go into those diseases, even though I am familiar with the dangers from cadmium.
We have a procedure by which Australian standards are at one level and the world's standards are at another level. Surely a consumer is entitled to know that that item coming into Australia is an import and has that risk attached to it? We put that on every packet of cigarettes; why should it not be put upon these articles coming in from overseas, where the risk may be less but very real indeed?
Bill read a first time.
Debate adjourned.
Evidence emerged in 2011 of cattle being systematically tortured in Indonesia: their eyes gouged and their tails broken, repeatedly stabbed until the ground below then ran red with blood. Many beasts were even allowed to witness the brutal slaughter of other animals. In other words: the brutal slaughter that awaited them, even though scientific research tells us that cattle experience the emotion of fear every bit as much as humans do. One black steer was filmed trembling as he watched and waited, all the time seeing the terrible suffering of the animals before him. The fear was plain in his eyes.
At that time I introduced a bill to ban live exports, but, despite the unprecedented community uprising against the trade, the bill was defeated in this place, with just two votes in its favour. The only tangible outcome of the dreadful footage out of Indonesia was that the government introduced ESCAS, the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, about which the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry said:
These reforms give certainty to the community who made it clear they want better welfare standards …
In August 2011 Animals Australia revealed more shocking cruelty—this time the abuse of Australian sheep in Turkey. Live sheep were hoisted by their legs and left flailing in pain and stress until they were slaughtered while fully conscious, the end often taking several throat cuts, with a blunt knife. Then, in February 2012, more cattle torture was documented back in Indonesia's abattoirs including, in some cases, the butchering process beginning without anyone even checking that the animal was dead. In other words, Australian cattle were being carved up live, even though these abattoirs were covered by the government's ESCAS scheme.
In September 2012, Australian sheep were sent, in breach of regulations, to one of the most notoriously cruel livestock markets in the Middle East, the Al Rai market in Kuwait, where a local investigator witnessed at least 200 Australian sheep being sold by traders in the market. Cruelty was commonplace. For instance, one live sheep was dragged across the concrete, dumped on the body of a dead sheep and then kept fully conscious while its throat was sawed out with a small knife.
Then, in October 2012, a shipment of 21,000 Australian sheep was rejected by authorities in Bahrain and the exporter received fast-track approval from the Australian government to offload the sheep in Pakistan, even though that country had not previously been an approved destination for Australian livestock. Curiously, neither the exporter nor the Australian government apparently informed the Pakistan authorities that Bahrain had rejected the sheep for concern about the diseases. In any case, the sheep were ordered cold, with the result that many were beaten to death, their throats sawed at repeatedly. In some cases, they were simply dumped live into mass graves. Many of the buried sheep were still alive hours later.
ESCAS was intended to bring certainty, but, since the introduction of ESCAS, the cruelty has continued unchecked. For instance, video footage taken in a major Israeli abattoir just two months after it had been audited by the Australian government and approved under ESCAS showed Australian cattle being punched, kicked and beaten. It showed cattle unable to regain their feet being repeatedly shocked by electric prodders in their eyes, faces, genitals and anuses. It showed a routine failure of abattoir workers to check whether animals had actually died before commencing processing. Again, Australian cattle were likely being butchered alive. But the only action taken by the Australian government was to require a further audit of the facility, which concluded that the abattoir was operating in accordance with ESCAS standards.
Meanwhile, in January 2013, animal welfare investigators returned to the livestock market in Kuwait I referred to earlier, where the numerous ESCAS breaches had been reported to the Australian government. Nothing had changed. Australian sheep were still being sold and still suffering abuse. Just this month, shocking evidence emerged of live export cruelty in Egypt. Australian cattle had their eyes stabbed and their tendons slashed. One animal remained fully conscious and standing minutes after having its throat cut wide open. Again, the butchering process sometimes began while the animal was still conscious and alive. All this took place in closed-loop facilities claimed by the Australian industry to be state-of-the-art. Yes, the brutalisation of the Australian cattle in Egypt is being investigated under ESCAS. But the latest update from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is that one of the abattoirs in which the brutal footage was filmed has facilities and practices which meet ESCAS standards—the same ESCAS standards that the agriculture minister recently called:
… a once-in-a-generation reform of the live animal export industry to ensure animal welfare.
The very fact that evidence of live export cruelty continues to emerge is bizarrely twisted by the government into evidence that ESCAS actually works. Again, in the words of the agriculture minister, we apparently have in place 'a system that allows us to investigate those complaints and fix them'. In other words, any evidence of ESCAS breaches is taken to be evidence of ESCAS's success. No wonder the Australian people have no confidence in the live export industry and that, every time new footage emerges, my office is swamped by correspondence from people who simply cannot understand how we in this place have allowed the cruelty to continue. In the wake of the Indonesian revelations some two years ago, the member for New England spoke for a lot of people when he said:
… the industry will only get one opportunity to get this right …
But, since then, we have seen case after case of continued live export cruelty, including in Indonesia. There is simply no doubt the industry and, ultimately, the government have got it wrong. Surely they are out of last chances.
This is my fourth legislative attempt to curtail live exports, and each time I am met by a hail of reasons why banning or restricting live exports would be a disaster for farmers and rural communities. But that claim is patently false, and the industry and the government well know it—not least because less than 10 per cent of Australian sheep and eight per cent of Australian beef cattle are exported live. In fact, Australia's sheep and cattle meat industry is worth $16 billion annually, but live exports are worth just $730 million. That is just five per cent. Moreover, our boxed meat trade is booming, with exports to the Middle East up by 65 per cent over the past 12 months. In fact, meat exports to the Middle East are now worth $100 million more a year than the live export trade to that same region.
A report by Sapere Research Group, commissioned by the World Society for the Protection of Animals, determined that Western Australian abattoirs have sufficient spare capacity to process Australia's entire live sheep trade. So the capacity is there—capacity that would create jobs and build wealth because each sheep processed in Australia is worth 20 per cent more to the economy than a sheep exported. Furthermore, the Australian Agricultural Company is building an abattoir in the Livingstone Valley just south of Darwin which will have the capacity to process some 1,000 head of cattle per day, which will boost the regional economy and create jobs.
The export of processed meat is in Australia's economic interests. So, by peddling the fiction that Australia's live export industry has a bright future or indeed any future, the government is actually doing a disservice to the farmers and communities who will have to go through the inevitable transition away from live exports.
On 18 August 2011, my bill to phase out live exports over a period of three years was overwhelmingly rejected in this place. Had it been accepted, we would be 20 months into the transition process by now, and the farmers and those employed in the supply chain would have genuine certainty about their future. Instead we have this tortured circus where revelations of shocking cruelty are followed by dishonest crocodile tears from the government in the face of the mounting community outcry.
The live animal export trade must end and indeed it will, the only question being exactly when. Of course, we have the opportunity to end it here and to pass the bill to do so this very week. Those who do not take this opportunity are either heartless or gutless, or both. Thank you.
Bill read a first time.
In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
by leave—I move:
That notice No. 3, private Members’ business be amended by deleting the words “and promoting” from the long title of the bill.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I present the Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2013 and the explanatory memorandum. Establishing an independent Office of Animal Welfare is long overdue. It is long overdue from the point of view of improving the welfare of animals, obviously. It is also a long overdue promise from Labor. While the animal rights movement has been working hard to improve animal welfare for decades in Australia, the call for an office of animal welfare became very loud following the 2011 live export scandal. Former High Court Judge and patron of Voiceless, The Hon. Michael Kirby recounts:
On the ABC's Four Corners program in May 2011, we collectively learned the uncomfortable truth about live export to Indonesia. More than 500,000 Australian cattle are sent to Indonesian slaughterhouses each year, and many face brutal treatment. We watched these animals have their eyes gouged, tendons cut and tails broken, and we heard the guttural bellowing of intense pain.
Confronted by this disturbing reality, the Australian public demanded change from their political representatives.
In November 2011, 2½ years ago now, the ALP National Conference baulked at the motion calling for an end to live exports. This no doubt disappointed the millions of Australians who are concerned about animal welfare and who were appalled by the exposure of the cruelty involved in the live export trade. Instead, what gained the support of the ALP National Conference at that time was a motion calling for the establishment of an independent office of animal welfare. As a result, in November a year later, the federal parliamentary Labor Party caucus endorsed the caucus Live Animal Export Working Group to develop a model for an office of animal welfare. Its functions were proposed to include developing and reviewing domestic animal welfare standards, harmonising domestic laws and monitoring and reporting on surveillance and enforcement of domestic and live animal export regulation. The working party was directed to report back to caucus by the end of February 2013 with a model for an independent office.
In March 2013 the agriculture minister, Senator Joe Ludwig, informed Greens leader Christine Milne during question time in the Senate that he had received the report from the working party. But what has happened since that time? And where is the political will to deliver on the wishes of Labor's national conference? That is anyone's guess. In his response to Senator Milne, Minister Ludwig employed the time-honoured tool of buck-passing to the states. His lack of enthusiasm was palpable when he said:
I recognise that there is work to be done in this area but the primary responsibility for animal welfare issues does remain with the state and territories.
There are indeed complex constitutional issues involved when it comes to jurisdiction over animal welfare issues, but this bill shows they can be accommodated.
A handful of Labor backbenchers, including the member for Wills and the member for Fremantle, have been strong advocates for an office of animal welfare. Yet they appear to be voices in the Labor wilderness. On May 15, Labor and the coalition voted down a motion put by my colleague in the other place, Australian Greens animal welfare spokesperson Senator Lee Rhiannon, calling on Minister Ludwig to report immediately to parliament on what progress had been made to set up the office of animal welfare. The motion also asked the minister to commit to legislation to establish the office of animal welfare before the September 2013 election.
The failure to move on the ALP National Conference resolution has disappointed many, particularly as a costing obtained by the Greens from the Parliamentary Budget Office shows the establishment of this office would be virtually cost-neutral—$0.5 million in 2013-2014. There is nothing stopping the government from acting now to establish the office of animal welfare, except political will.
It is interesting to compare the inaction of the Labor government in establishing an office of animal welfare to its response in May 2011 after the Indonesian live export scandal broke. In the face of massive public dismay at the animal cruelty that had been exposed in the live export industry it took a mere five months for the government to announce a new regulatory scheme for live exports: the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, or ESCAS scheme. Yet we have seen 2½ years of feet-dragging by Minister Ludwig when it comes to the relatively simple job of establishing an independent office of animal welfare.
In recent months, Animals Australia have done more outstanding work to expose the cruel practices in many overseas abattoirs where livestock from Australia are slaughtered. These tragic developments are a further reminder of why we need the Office of Animal Welfare. The Greens and I back an end to live exports. An end to this cruel trade can deliver a win-win: we can lift animal welfare standards and increase the number of jobs in regional Australia by processing the meat here. The Labor government likes to trumpet its new system as transformative when it comes to protecting the welfare of live animals exported overseas, claiming:
Australia is the only country to introduce reforms that require specific animal welfare conditions for its exported livestock.
Yet the reality is that expose after expose shows that the system is failing animals.
It is clear that the shipment from Australia and the slaughter of livestock in overseas abattoirs cannot be controlled from a desk in Canberra. The Australian Greens have a bill to end live exports, the Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2012, currently being debated in the Senate. This is the same bill my colleague Senator Rachel Siewert and I introduced in 2011 to then have voted down by the old parties. I have also seconded the introduction of the Live Animal Export (Restriction and Prohibition) Bill 2013 by my colleague the member for Denison. Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon has also published a position paper, identifying five key issues the government must address to end the live export trade, grow Australia's meat processing and gain the benefits of creating jobs and expanding regional economies.
Processing animals in Australia protects them from inhumane treatment and ensures our laws and standards regarding animal welfare can be upheld. Because of the failure of the Labor government to act to transition away from live exports, a key function of the new Office of Animal Welfare is to review and monitor the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock and the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System and to undertake inquiries and prepare reports on these matters.
Recommendations of the office arising from this function must be responded to publicly by the minister. Other key functions of the office are to establish it as a centre of excellence for the collection and dissemination of information about animal welfare issues that impact the Commonwealth and to undertake inquiries, commission research and prepare reports about issues, including the effectiveness of Commonwealth laws that apply to the export of live animals and scientific and legal issues that arise in respect of the Commonwealth's animal welfare policy and the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and the Model Codes of Practice for Animal Welfare.
The office will seek to harmonise animal welfare laws of the Commonwealth, states and territories and will be handed an oversight role examining the activities and effectiveness of the Live Export Advisory Group and the Australian Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. The office will scrutinise the department of agriculture's activities in areas such as monitoring the effectiveness of the Commonwealth's animal welfare laws and the department's compliance with these laws. The office will also be charged with considering the effectiveness of the department's implementation of the Commonwealth's animal welfare policy.
To assist the office perform these duties to a high standard the CEO of the new Office of Animal Welfare will be guided by the advice of an Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. On this committee will sit representatives of animal welfare organisations, consumer groups, scientists and ethicists specialising in animal welfare issues, the department and commercial producers or purchasers of animals or animal products. The office's key functions—including reviewing and monitoring live export standards and the ESCAS system and reviewing and reporting on mechanisms capable of improving animal welfare at Commonwealth, state and territory levels—are supported by the ability of the CEO of the office to report and make recommendations to parliament which the minister is required to respond to publicly.
The abuse of animal welfare uncovered in the live exports trade is just one of many issues driving the Greens to establish an independent watchdog for animal welfare. Cruel practices undertaken as part of factory farming are motivating many Australians to campaign for improved conditions for animals. While animal welfare is the responsibility of federal, state and territory agriculture departments, experience shows it is often given short shrift. Charging departments of agriculture with responsibility for animal welfare has proven to be a failure. Their focus has been on assisting the very industries which put profits before the humane treatment of animals. This is very clearly illustrated by the fact that it has been animal welfare groups which have acted as the watchdogs and champions of animal rights, not agriculture departments. It has been Animals Australia and the RSPCA which have been so effective in exposing the string of scandals in the live export industry. I would like to congratulate these organisations, as well as tenacious bodies like Animal Liberation, the Humane Society International Australia and Voiceless, which have been relentlessly and strategically campaigning for the better treatment of animals in Australia.
Bill read a first time.
For too long Commonwealth funding on transport has been dominated by the road lobby and the pork-barrelling of the old parties. Rational transport decisions based on evidence and need have rarely been unaffected by the politics of marginal seats and the ideological blinkers of outer suburban backbenchers. As a result public transport, particularly rail transport, has been at best the poor second cousin to road funding. The private sector has been willing to encourage this obsession with roads because it has seen billions of dollars poured into construction, and into private profits, and many cases led to privatised tollways. This is despite some manifest failures of tollways in Brisbane and Sydney, where they have not been meeting their inflated traffic figures and have become white elephants.
The most recent manifestation of this tunnel vision is the Leader of the Opposition's retrograde views on Commonwealth support for public transport and his pledging of $1.5 billion for the East-West tollway tunnel right through my electorate of Melbourne. I said at the time that the coalition's support for the East-West tollway was another example of 19th century thinking from the Leader of the Opposition, but as a constituent of mine correctly pointed out it is far worse than that: 19th century Melbourne had a substantial rail and tram system backed by government and the private sector—something it seems that the Leader of the Opposition would no longer countenance. So it is perhaps more accurate to say that the Leader of the Opposition is living in a mythical fantasy land where freeways are not gridlocked and tollways can continue to widen and lengthen regardless of their impact on the communities they plough through and despite their failure to resolve congestion.
Yesterday we had further evidence of the failure of this tunnel vision with an extensive report in TheSunday Age on what has been, until now, a secret assessment of the Department of Transport. The report states:
Hoddle Street will remain a traffic nightmare even after the Napthine government's east-west toll road is completed, according to the Department of Transport.
A department briefing prepared for Roads Minister Terry Mulder says only a small proportion of the cars, trucks and buses clogging Hoddle Street are likely to use the tunnel as an alternative if there are no off-ramps to the city.
The finding was mirrored in a November 2011 ''Hoddle Street Study'', released under freedom of information laws. It reveals the department's own traffic modelling found ''no expected change to the traffic operation of Hoddle Street as a result of the new link''.
Rather, it suggested the situation on Hoddle Street, already one of Melbourne's most congested roads, would worsen. With the road already carrying more than 90,000 vehicles a day, it warned worsening congestion triggered by population growth would increasingly force vehicles onto surrounding roads as motorists searched for alternative routes, further clogging the inner north.
''As congestion increases, motorists will also choose alternative north-south routes that are not desirable from a community perspective, including routes such as Brunswick Street, Smith Street or Princess/Denmark Street where traffic will compete with pedestrians in shopping precincts or public transport along tram and bus routes or at rail crossings,'' the report warns.
''If we do nothing, people will spend more time travelling on all forms of road-based transport, eroding quality of life and impacting the liveability of Melbourne.''
This assessment backs up the early Eddington report and contradicts the coalition's claims for the tollway, claims that until now have not been able to be assessed because they refuse to release the business case for the East-West link.
People in Melbourne do not want a tollway cutting through their communities. Whether it is a tunnel or above ground, the East-West link will make Melbourne less liveable and create a rat's nest of on- and off-ramps in the inner city. Unfortunately, for federal and state government ministers and the Leader of the Opposition the inner suburbs of Melbourne are simply places you pass through to get somewhere else. For us, the people of Melbourne, it is where we live. Melbourne does not want or need this tollway; what it needs is investment in public transport.
Melbourne Metro is also a key part of the Greens transport vision for Melbourne, which also includes Doncaster rail, expanded east-west bus tram routes and improved train and tram timetabling. So, I welcome the government's decision to commit $3 billion of funding to the Melbourne Metro. This is a big win for my electorate of Melbourne, and something we have all been working for. But it will come to nothing if an Abbott government funds the east-west tollway instead.
Labor's commitment to prioritising Melbourne Metro over the east-west tollway rings somewhat hollow, given the recent decision of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities to fast-track environmental approval for the east-west tollway. The minister has been given virtually no information about the project, and neither have the Victorian public. He should have asked for more information or waited for an actual detailed proposal. In that respect he has not done his job here, which is to protect the environment and heritage—and that includes Melbourne's environment and heritage.
My colleague and leader of the Victorian Greens, Greg Barbour, has written to the minister asking for detailed reasons, and the Greens will obtain our own legal opinion as to whether his decision is even lawful under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. But, regardless, the minister cannot hide behind the letter of the law. He has been more than happy to look for creative ways—and I applaud him for this—to halt other environmentally destructive projects, such as alpine grazing, but here he has given the east-west tollway the green light instead of going the extra mile to stop this environmental vandalism.
The tollway will be a pollution nightmare and will wreck one of Melbourne's great natural parks. If Labor is serious about metro rail they need to back this bill before the House to Abbott-proof the metro rail funding and prioritise the rail project over the east-west tollway.
This bill, the Infrastructure (Priority Funding) Amendment Bill, will prioritise Commonwealth funding of rail projects identified by Infrastructure Australia over major road projects. Important exemptions are included in the bill for projects in relation to road safety, as well as exempting existing projects. As we know, major infrastructure projects have long lead times and require substantial investment. Commonwealth investment in infrastructure is increasingly important in determining which major projects proceed.
Infrastructure Australia was established by the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 to assist the Commonwealth in identifying and prioritising funding for major infrastructure projects. Despite this objective no requirement was placed on the Commonwealth in the act to follow the priorities identified by Infrastructure Australia. The bill will provide a simple but effective mechanism to ensure Infrastructure Australia can do its jobs effectively and is listened to.
I will briefly outline each element of the bill. Clause 3 gives effect to the provisions in schedule 1 of the bill, and item 1 of that inserts a new section 5A into the Infrastructure Australia Act. This section requires the minister to prioritise the funding of infrastructure projects listed on Infrastructure Australia's national priority list as ready to proceed in relation to rail, ahead of other infrastructure projects related to road, with the exception of exempted road projects.
For example, Commonwealth funding for the Melbourne Metro, which is listed as a ready-to-proceed project on the national priority list, would be accorded priority over funding for the Victorian east-west tollway, which is not listed as ready to proceed. Road projects that are exempted from this order of priority are defined in the new section as those designed to address an urgent or significant road safety issue or on which construction has already begun at the time this act commences. For example, Commonwealth-funded Black Spot Program projects or existing projects such as the Melbourne Ring Road upgrade would be exempt from the priority ordering in this section.
It is simply astounding that Commonwealth might fund the east-west tollway ahead of the Melbourne Metro rail. It is a question of priorities. Victoria's public transport system is under severe pressure and needs an urgent injection of Commonwealth funds. According to Infrastructure Australia, the east-west tunnel has not made the grade, yet the Melbourne Metro, which tops the Infrastructure Australia's national priority list, is being sidelined.
The east-west tunnel was Victorian Labor's idea, and some in Labor still spruik it. If Labor is serious about opposing this tollway, it needs to get behind my bill in case we have a change of government in September. There is only a fixed amount of infrastructure money the Commonwealth will give Victoria, and if billions go to a tollway we may never see the Melbourne Metro rail project built.
There was a lot of talk about time bombs, booby traps and locking in Tony Abbott when the budget came out. I would like to lock in the Leader of the Opposition to funding the Melbourne Metro. The Leader of the Opposition has said he will not fund Melbourne Metro but will tip in $1.5 billion to the east-west tollway. This bill, if supported by parliament, will ensure that no federal money can be spent on the tollway unless the Melbourne Metro rail project is funded first.
Bill read a first time.
In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
This motion relates to a historic, one would almost say monumental, change in Australian public life. It has been talked about by governments of both political stripes for the last 40 years. Now something has been accomplished. An increase in the Medicare levy from 1½ to two per cent means in practical terms, for a person on $70,000 a year income, less than $1 a day towards doing something about this fundamental need.
Last week I had a rare night at home, and I caught Jennifer Byrne's program on literature and books. She interviewed the Scottish crime writer Ian Rankin, the author of the Rebus books. He talked about his son's disability and the fact that he and his wife had established a trust—and they are on quite reasonable incomes. But at the end of it he said about his son, 'I hope that there are good and decent people around to care for my son.'
We cannot always have faith in good and decent people being around for individual cases. We need concerted public government action, and that is what this is about. We have a situation where—I can only speak about New South Wales—perhaps 20 or 30 years ago most of the people who we now care about in regard to this move were institutionalised. Their parents could have some faith, even though they had doubts about them being institutionalised and away from home, that, when they died, somebody would look after them. The reality is now that, for good reason, we have deinstitutionalised, and many of the people with disabilities are in their family home. An increasing reality in this country is that, as the population ages, as people are living to 80—and they say that in Britain one million people born after 2009 will live to 100—and as these people age, there is an increased problem of what they fear for the future of their offspring with disabilities. The reality is that, even though disabled people live less long than us, they are also living longer, so we have a massive, burgeoning problem in this country and in Western society.
That is what the government is doing in regard to these measures. We have a situation where, by 2019, 90 per cent of people affected will be covered throughout this country on individual, individualised, personalised measures to make sure that what the society provides meets their personal needs. It is not only the government that has undertaken this monumental change; it is our country. It is the lobbyists in my electorate and in every part of this nation.
I have to say that, for a variety of reasons—and I have said this before—our electorate of Werriwa has a disproportionate number of people affected because of the prominence of public housing and single parents, predominantly women, in situations where the male in the house cannot live with a disabled child and the problems it causes. Our electorate has more than the national average.
In closing, I just want to talk about two organisations. On a typical weekend, yesterday afternoon I went to the Association of Bhanin El-Minieh event in South Granville in my former electorate. I want to congratulate a number of people: Omaima Saraya, Hannon Wehbe, Sawsan Bkai, Laura Mafri and Mustafa Hamed, the president of the association. Their event yesterday was raising money not for an ethnospecific Lebanese event but for Spectrum, the main organisation in the autism sector—a public event which is more important for another reason.
I went to another event—predominantly Italian—on the weekend with a number of colleagues from both sides of parliament at a very good Liverpool organisation which was built up by volunteers and has its own 24-hour service for autism sufferers. Chris Hayes, the member for Fowler, made the comment that, when he was at school, he knew no-one with autism because they were hidden away in the back rooms of houses, they did not go to school, they did not engage in society and the education system did not do anything for them—particularly with the Lebanese community. The reason that is important is there is an even stronger trend in that community not to talk about these problems, that it is all because of God, it is because the family did something wrong, that you cannot be going out in society or talking about these kinds of things because they embarrass the family. I commend both those associations, being among many others in my electorate in south-west Sydney, for raising this issue and making sure that something is finally done about this fundamental issue in this country. (Time expired)
I congratulate the member for Robertson for moving this motion. While this was first debated in February this year, obviously there have been some major changes since then. It is important to reflect that more can always be done to assist the nearly four million Australians living with disabilities so that they do not feel isolated, secluded and left out of the opportunities that many of us take for granted. We all have a basic need and desire to live with dignity and to feel important, valued and respected.
We all want to play active roles in our families, in our working lives and in the broader community. Support for people with disabilities is not welfare; it is support to assist people to participate in the everyday life of our communities and our country. As I mentioned earlier this year, when speaking on the introduction of the NDIS legislation to this House, I would like to praise the people who were involved in the grassroots campaigns for people living with disabilities—their families, their friends, their carers and the support organisations—for their many years of hard work and effort, getting us to where we are today.
The Every Australian Counts campaign now has more than 155,000 supporters—and it is great to see Australians showing their commitment to people living with disabilities. The initial funding commitment in the recent federal budget through the increase in the Medicare levy of 0.5 per cent has been well received by Australians across the board, particularly those who have long campaigned for this kind of support. John Della Bosca, Every Australian Counts campaign director, said:
The Budget rights a wrong that has existed for decades. Australia has failed people with a disability and those who care for them. Tonight's Budget demonstrates that we are a nation that does what is right. Tonight's Budget makes the dream of the NDIS a certainty.
Over the past few years, I have spoken with a number of people in my electorate about the NDIS and I can remember having that discussion prior to being elected. Earlier this year I attended an afternoon tea forum on the NDIS at Lifestyle Solutions in Beenleigh. Lifestyle Solutions is a not-for-profit organisation, founded in Newcastle in 2001 with a vision to provide person-centred, flexible and responsive support services to people with disability. Over time, their support has extended beyond disabilities to include a range of support services for children, young people and adults across Australia.
At the afternoon tea there were a number of carers and people with disabilities who were eager to find out more about the NDIS and how it would assist them. I took the opportunity to speak with a number of constituents who told me they were looking forward to the extra support they envisaged would be provided by an NDIS. They said that they hoped the extra support and recognition might assist them to spend more of their time contributing to our community. They do not want to be recognised as somebody with a disability; they want to be recognised for their abilities.
Without the right support our workplaces and community organisations are missing out on some very bright and able individuals. The coalition supports this legislation from the beginning. We supported the work of the Productivity Commission, we supported the funding in the last budget and we supported the launch sites. In the future I look forward to hearing positive stories as a result of this historic change to the way Australians support their fellow citizens who live with these disabilities.
For the individuals in Forde: on 8 May this year an agreement was made between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments for the full scheme to be implemented from July 2019, with the transition to commence in 2016. Along with my coalition colleagues, I support the NDIS and will continue to place the NDIS above politics.
I rise in the House today to speak on the provision of disability services in Australia. I thank the member for Robertson for putting this on the agenda today. I note that the federal Labor government has introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme, now DisabilityCare. The Labor Party has made DisabilityCare become a reality. DisabilityCare Australia will be rolled out across Tasmania by 2019. The Productivity Commission's report into disability care and support in 2011 identified the way Australian governments respond to providing care and support for people living with a severe disability as 'unfair, fragmented, inequitable and underfunded'. It identified that people living with a disability had very little or no control over decisions about their own lives.
I was pleased to be joined by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform, the Hon. Jenny Macklin, and the Tasmanian Premier, the Hon. Lara Giddings, in Newstead recently for the official signing for Tasmania at St Michaels. The introduction of DisabilityCare is fantastic news for people with a disability, their families and carers. In our community it means that around 11,000 Tasmanians will receive the care and support that we all know they deserve through DisabilityCare Australia.
It is a huge achievement and truly a credit to our local campaigners, who have fought so hard to make sure that people with a disability in Tasmania have the support they need over their lifetimes. I pay tribute to Bill Shorten for his early work on DisabilityCare. I am really proud to represent a community that has spoken up loud and clear for disability care. There are numerous people in my own electorate who have lobbied me in this area, and I have heard their calls loud and clear.
Other eligible Tasmanian residents will start entering the scheme in July 2016. The cost of the full scheme in Tasmania is around $475 million in 2019-20. By 2019-20 the Commonwealth government will contribute around $245 million to the scheme in Tasmania. This will be about 51 per cent of the scheme cost.
The fundamental principle behind DisabilityCare Australia is that it is about what the individual with a disability can do. If a person has a permanent disability that impairs their ability to function, it is likely they will get support under DisabilityCare Australia. This support could include an individual plan or even include help to get access to a range of support, from education to finding community groups that meet their needs.
There is no list of what is in or what is out of the scheme because one person with a vision impairment or an intellectual disability might have different needs or circumstances to another person, even though they have the same kind of disability. In the middle of this year we expect DisabilityCare to launch transition agencies, which will employ about 30 people in Tasmania as staff or contractors. Staff will include qualified planners, who will work with people to develop their individual support statements; local area coordinators, who will help people with a disability to participate in their community and to access their other support needs through the NDIS; and financial managers, technical staff and administrators. In Tasmania, the offices will be in Launceston, Devonport and Hobart.
Depending on life's chances, any one of us could be living with a permanent disability that significantly reduces our ability to independently care for ourselves. On average, every 30 minutes someone in Australia is diagnosed with a significant disability. The services available for people should not be determined by how they acquire their disability. National DisabilityCare will give all Australians the peace of mind that, if they have or acquire a disability that leaves them needing daily assistance with everyday life or they care for someone who has a disability, they will be supported. This is what Labor governments do—we support the vulnerable who need a helping hand.
Earlier this year I joined my parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the aisle in standing up in this place and declaring support for a national disability insurance scheme to assist some of our nation's most vulnerable people. I am grateful for the opportunity to stand here once again and applaud the bipartisan approach to this policy. As we all know, the standard in this place is to focus on our divisions and our disagreements. This is despite the fact that every member is elected to this parliament with a genuine desire to make our great country greater. Every so often an issue comes along that rises above politics and we stand here shoulder to shoulder and declare that the issue is bigger than any of our partisan differences.
The provision of a strong level of protection of the services for those with a disability is one of those issues. The National Disability Insurance Scheme has developed as a result of a strong grassroots campaign, with Every Australian Counts and DisabiliTEA events receiving support from all corners of our society. My electorate of Bennelong possesses many great examples of community organisations that have given of themselves tirelessly over many decades, well before these campaigns commenced. These efforts deserve repeated recognition in this place.
Since my election to parliament, I have served as patron of Achieve Australia, who provide support and various services to approximately 550 local people with disabilities. Achieve's efforts help their clients to become independent through employment opportunities and assisted accommodation services. Minimbah Challenge runs respite programs for over 60 people with disabilities, encouraging individual independence and autonomy. The Ryde Area Supported Accommodation for Intellectually Disabled, or RASAID, has given thousands of hours of support whilst also working to secure long-term accommodation. I have spoken many times in this place of the efforts of the parents of RASAID and the amazing courage and resilience they show on a daily basis. North Ryde Community Aid & Information Centre hosts morning teas, lunches and special outings for those with mobility issues. Catholic Community Services, North Sydney, helps school leavers to find work through their Transition to Work program. ESTIA Foundation provides 24-hour respite care for young adults with physical and intellectual disabilities.
Unfortunately, time constraints prevent me from individually recognising and thanking every person and organisation who has worked hard to assist people with disabilities in Bennelong. The best way for us as policymakers to show our appreciation is to continue supporting the bipartisan approach to the NDIS policy to ensure this important issue is kept above politics and to work with our local communities in recognising the great efforts of those around us in helping those most in need. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly said that the NDIS is a policy whose time has come. It should give all Australians immense pride that the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme has cross-party support at both federal and state levels of government. All of us in this place want the NDIS to be a success. We stand side by side, ready to work together with all government jurisdictions to implement a productive and efficient policy that provides the best protection for those most in need.
As a nation there are a lot of things that we can indeed be proud of—in particular, initiatives that we have taken to ensure that the quality of life of the people that live within Australia is up to a standard that we would all like for ourselves.
But one of the areas that we have not done so well in is the way we have responded to the needs of the 460,000-odd Australians who live each and every day with a severe disability. And it is not only them who face the hardships each day; it is equally their family members and carers, who are locked into a lifetime of disruption to their normal life as a result of taking the time to care for those people with a disability. So the introduction of a national disability insurance scheme for all those people is something I very much welcome. As others have said time and time again, it is long overdue, but it will indeed mean a life-changing transformation for those people with a disability and for their carers and family members.
The commitment by the government means that in about seven years time there will be something like $19.3 billion allocated by the federal government towards meeting the needs of those people with a severe disability. That means an additional $14.3 billion over that period. It comes partly from a half of one per cent rise in the Medicare levy. As others have pointed out, that equates for most people to an increase of about a dollar a day. Not surprisingly, I have had very few objections to the increase in the Medicare levy. I am not surprised because I believe that Australians are fair-minded people who understand that the commitment of about a dollar a day is justified when you consider the benefits it will bring to those people who need the assistance. Other speakers have also made the point that it could at any time be any one of them or their family members who are the recipients of that support. So, again, I am not at all surprised to see that there has been what I believe is wide-scale support for the new funding that will be provided and few objections to the levy.
For South Australia it is very important because in that state, which I represent, some 33,000 South Australians will benefit from these changes. Currently there has been a commitment to get trials underway for children under five years of age. By the years 2014 to 2016 the trials will extend to children up to 14 years of age and after that, in the two years between 2016 and 2018-19, the trials and the scheme will be rolled out to all people in South Australia with a disability. I commend the Weatherill state Labor government for being quick off the mark to support the federal government's National Disability Insurance Scheme and to do so by making a state commitment of some $760 million by the year 2018-19. That will mean that by 2018-19 the commitment by the state government to supporting people with a disability will have risen from $135 million in 2002, when Labor came to office, to $760 million—almost a sixfold increase to support families with a disability. The services will of course be determined over the years ahead, but broadly they will include services like therapy, respite, supported accommodation, equipment, care and the like—services that will make a life-changing difference for those families that for too long have suffered with the burden of disability.
While speaking about disability, I believe the other area that, as a parliament and as a nation, we have also neglected for too long is dental care in this country. I believe it is the next area of reform that we as a nation need to tackle. I think the fact that we have had few objections to increasing the Medicare levy to pay for a necessary health service demonstrates that if we use the same kind of model for dental care we may also in the future be able to achieve the reforms we need so that people across Australia receive the dental treatment that they are looking for.
I rise to speak on the motion from the member for Robertson on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, NDIS. At present, approximately four million Australians have a disability. The NDIS truly is a once-in-a-generation reform to deliver a better deal for people with a disability, their carers and their families. I wholeheartedly support the NDIS, which has similarly received very strong support from all sections of the Ryan community, and I have seen this support firsthand at many of the DisabiliTEA events held in my electorate.
The proposed rollout of the NDIS has been anything but smooth and, as with so many proposals from this Labor government, we are still waiting on the final details. Australians with a disability and their carers want the confidence that the NDIS means a permanent change in the way that our country supports people with a disability. Last year a disability levy was discussed at the July Council of Australian Governments—COAG—meeting and was supported by premiers across the country. At that time the Prime Minister rejected the idea, but less than 12 months later the Prime Minister suddenly changed her mind and decided that an increase to the Medicare levy was acceptable.
While the coalition has supported this measure insofar as it is a practical contribution to the rollout of the NDIS, I do note that there are significant ongoing concerns about how the NDIS will be funded. The government has passed the increase to the Medicare levy, but has not outlined how the remaining 60 per cent funding shortfall will be provided. While the levy will come into effect this year, the coalition wants to see the DisabilityCare Australia Fund established to hold the proceeds of this levy to ensure that all the proceeds are allocated to the NDIS.
Australians still lack detail on who exactly will be eligible for the NDIS trials, as mentioned by the member for Robertson's motion, and who will be eligible for the NDIS when it is fully implemented. It is essential that the assessment tools that the NDIS Launch Transition Agency will use to determine participant eligibility are released. This is so that people with a physical impairment, sensory impairment or intellectual impairment know whether they are in or out. I have been contacted by many constituents who suffer from significant physical disabilities that require them to spend thousands of dollars each year just so they can walk and drive. As one of my constituents has noted: they cannot claim their disability expenses on tax or access services through private health insurance, and they do not receive government welfare. They just want to know whether they will be eligible for the NDIS or whether they will continue to fall through the cracks. Therefore it is absolutely critical that all elements of the NDIS required for its launch are legislated in the current parliament.
While the NDIS framework legislation has passed the parliament, the final NDIS rules should also be released. Furthermore, concerns continue to be raised with me about Australians who acquire a disability after the age of 65. People are rightly concerned that while they will pay taxes during their entire working life, if they are unfortunate enough to acquire a disability after they turn 65 they will not be eligible for support through the NDIS.
There have been significant steps taken to date to support Australians with a disability. The Premier of Queensland, Campbell Newman, reached an agreement earlier this month so that the NDIS can benefit tens of thousands of Queensland families when the scheme is fully implemented from 1 July 2019. I note also that last year the Queensland government announced an extra $868 million for disability services over the five years to 2018-19—the biggest single increase in disability funding that this country has ever seen.
The coalition wholeheartedly supports the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We want it to happen, and we want it to happen in this term of parliament. The NDIS is a program supported widely across my electorate of Ryan and across Australia. It has laudable aims to truly make a difference to the most vulnerable in our community, and everyone in this House wants to ensure that we roll out the NDIS appropriately and efficiently to give hope to Australians with a disability and their families and carers.
I would like to add my voice to those in the chamber who are supporting DisabilityCare, and I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about the need for this scheme and the benefits of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I want to add my voice to what is a growing consensus about this groundbreaking reform that will change the lives of so many people. It is truly a reform whose time has come and a reform that the government is very proud to be delivering.
I want to reflect on a rally where I spoke earlier this year in Melbourne. It was an NDIS rally, and I was joined by my constituent and vocal NDIS advocate Millie Parker. It was a very humbling experience, because Millie spoke about how lucky she felt that she had acquired her brain injury through a road accident, where her rehab and other needs were paid for by the Victorian TAC scheme. She drew comparisons with other women who acquired their brain injuries through domestic violence, and for whom rehabilitation and other support services were costly and hard to find.
Millie has been a tireless champion of this reform. Our local community is very proud of her as, I think, is the nation, and I thank her and the many thousands of others who have made an important contribution to where we now stand. But I must say it is truly humbling when someone who has had such a severe impact on her life from an accident might say that she was lucky to have acquired it in one way rather than another. It does highlight the cruel lottery that has been the case for those people with disabilities in this country looking for our help.
Other constituents to lend their support to DisabilityCare were Altona residents Ann and Barry Darwin. Ann is deaf, and she spoke of the costs over the years of saving for each time that her hearing aid needed to be replaced. Ann worked as a pharmacy technician in a public hospital and she needed that hearing aid for work. For Ann it was not optional to have that hearing aid, and given that it needed to be replaced every two to three years at a cost of $2,000 each time, fitting that into the family budget was difficult.
At this time it is estimated that in Gellibrand around 2,900 people will benefit from DisabilityCare, and over 17,000 across Melbourne's western suburbs. Many of these people are on low incomes, and struggle to make ends meet when paying for therapy, and equipment and technology required for day-to-day life is an additional burden. DisabilityCare will bring to an end the tragedy of services denied or delayed, and instead will offer people with disability the care and support they need over their lifetimes. As I said at the beginning, it will end the cruel lottery that besets people today, where the care and support they receive depends on where they live or how they acquired their disability.
The rights of people with disabilities, their families and carers, are at the heart of the NDIS and the heart of this bill. The bill that has just now been passed by the parliament will implement a nationwide, demand-driven system of care tailored to the needs of individuals, and established on a durable, long-term basis. We know that this is unlocking the potential of those with disabilities, who have the capacity to contribute so much more to the community if only the right supports were available. This means that people will be able to access early intervention therapies and supports, where these supports will improve a person's functioning, or slow or prevent the progression of their disability over a lifetime.
I am proud that Labor is delivering this reform. We have, over history, been the party of great reform, and people with disabilities, families and carers have been forgotten for too long. It was Labor that listened to their concerns, Labor that put forward the legislation, Labor that negotiated with the states, and Labor that has put it in the budget. Labor has always fought for those who, for many reasons, have been unable to fight for themselves. And every Labor person across Australia should be very proud of DisabilityCare as a reform that will outlive us all.
I particularly want to pay a brief tribute to two amazing women who worked tirelessly on this reform, in addition to those I have mentioned in my electorate. They are Prime Minister Gillard and Minister Jenny Macklin. Both have championed this reform right from the start. The community is never going to forget the role that you have played in making DisabilityCare a reality. I also want to pay tribute to my ministerial colleague Bill Shorten, whose role was instrumental in getting this off the ground when he was a parliamentary secretary for disability services.
I look forward very much to July 1, the launch date, with hope and optimism for the future—the day that we put rights and needs of Australians with a disability first. Thank you.
I, too, welcome the motion and the spirit of bipartisanship which has existed throughout the entire debate in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I appreciate the opportunity to make the point that members of the coalition have made previously—that the coalition stands as one with the government when it comes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We believe that it is an idea whose time has come, and we are committed to making sure that it is implemented—not only by this parliament but also by future parliaments. We recognise that there is a long way to go in terms of the implementation of what is a terrific idea.
We support the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and we are on the public record expressing our support for the Medicare-style levy, which will be required to at least partially fund the early stage of the implementation of the NDIS.
I take up the member for Gellibrand's reference to life's lottery, which applies in this instance. I believe sincerely that those of us who have been in a position in this great country to be able to earn a good income would not really begrudge putting something aside to make sure that people with disabilities and their carers are well looked after. Those of us who are in a comfortable position recognise that providing some additional funding towards the NDIS is something that is reasonable and responsible in the circumstances. It is in every sense, then, a general insurance-style premium in that regard, where money is put into the system. You hope you personally are never required to use of any it but you recognise that if at sometime later in your life either yourself or your friends or family acquire a disability, there will be strong support in place from the federal government to look after them and their carers as well.
I do not want to give the impression through this debate or any discussion in the broader electorate of Gippsland that the NDIS is a done deal. There is still a long way to go in terms of the implementation. A lot of work is still required in getting the detail right. Once we do establish the trial sites—and I welcome the government's announcement in that regard—I am sure we will find some very difficult moments as we try to decide exactly how the system is going to work. It is complex and we have not really grappled with the full decision yet of how the program is going to be completely funded as we roll it out across the nation. There will be a lot of questions for members of not only this current parliament but also future parliaments.
I hope that we can continue to maintain the spirit of bipartisanship we have seen over the last couple of years on this issue and make sure that when these inevitable problems do arise that we do not resort to party political lines, that we manage to maintain that same strong sense of bipartisanship to develop a system which works for all Australians. I strongly endorse the position of the Leader of the Opposition that there should be a committee which is jointly chaired across party lines to ensure the implementation of the NDIS is a great success. This will be a reform not just for the Labor Party but also for the Liberal Party and the National Party and the Greens and the Independents to deliver in that spirit of bipartisanship.
I also caution that we must not use the prospect of the rollout of the NDIS as an excuse not to do anything in the area of disability services—not to roll out other improvements in the ensuing three or four years. We are still quite a long way away from the full rollout of the NDIS and there are problems now in our system There are problems where the support for people with disabilities and their carers is crisis driven. In many cases it is only when the carers themselves are about to give up that they are able to access respite and be given the assistance they need in their own communities. So there is a desperate need across the electorate of Gippsland for improved respite services.
Last week I met with a mother who has two adult children with profound disabilities. I spent an hour talking with her, gaining a little understanding of the challenges she faces 24 hours, seven days a week, 365 days a year. For this lady, just a little extra help in terms of respite services would allow her to have more of a normal life with her husband; for them to recharge and then deal with the great complexities of their lot in life dealing with two adult children with disabilities.
We cannot allow our wait for the NDIS to define all of our actions in this space. We need to make sure we are still supporting carers and people with disabilities in the coming years before the rollout of the entire scheme. On that note, I had the great fortune of attending the opening of a new facility in Sale on the weekend at the George Gray Centre. The George Gray Centre has provided support for adults in my community for more than 40 years. I had the opportunity to say a special thank you to the staff, the board members and the volunteers who are already doing such a great amount of work in supporting people with disabilities and their carers. We need to continue to work with that sector to ensure we support them in whatever way possible. (Time expired)
I rise to support the motion on the National Disability Insurance Scheme put forward by the member for Robertson and I commend this 43rd parliament particularly for the bipartisan spirit and the spirit of the contributions from both sides of the chamber in such an important area.
I would like to commend the efforts of all the campaigners who have worked so hard in the lead-up to this, particularly those in the Every Australian Counts campaign, who have carried out an incredibly effective grassroots campaign that was educational, informative and passionate, and really moved the Australian community to a stage where there would only be a few people who do not see the benefits of bringing in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It does not seem so long ago that the Productivity Commission reported to the Labor government on what needed to be done in this area. I want to note some people who have made contributions. The member for Gellibrand commented on Minister Shorten's particular passion for this area, and I note as well the contributions from Minister Macklin and the Prime Minister.
The Productivity Commission report revealed the needs of people with disability across Australia, their families and their carers, and how their needs were not being met. The Gillard Labor government saw that we needed to act quickly and nationally to do what we could to remedy this distressing situation, and that this would also bring economic benefits. Nowadays Medicare is accepted by all Australians. It would be ludicrous to think of any new government trying to dismantle Medicare, and it will not be so long before we think in the same way about DisabilityCare. I know that we still need to sort out a few things, but the good thing is that DisabilityCare will be up and running in only 33 or 34 days. There are still some nuts and bolts to be sorted out with some states, but the reality is that it will change lives significantly by 1 July.
Recently I had the pleasure of joining the Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the Premier of Queensland, Campbell Newman, the Minister for Disability Reform, Jenny Macklin, and many local community workers in my electorate at Autism Queensland's school in Sunnybank Hills to watch Queensland sign up with the federal government to implement DisabilityCare. I would particularly mention a young school student called Sandy Porter, a year 12 student who stole the moment by saying, 'This is what the nation is all about.' He gave a letter to the Prime Minister, a letter that brought her to tears when she referred to it in introducing the legislation. It included a photograph of the Prime Minister. He and his school friends had written about how the scheme would make a difference in their lives. It is all about dignity; it is all about control; it is all about a plan for the future rather than responding to circumstances. People like Sandy Porter will now have some control. I must also mention his mother, Fiona Anderson, who has been doing a great job as the Queensland head of the Every Australian Counts campaign.
At the event I also met with the president of the Spinal Injuries Association, David Riley. He lives a few hundred metres or so from my electorate office, but we had not met before. It was great to have a chat with him. I seem to have a lot of peak bodies located in my electorate, and another I would like to mention is the Endeavour Foundation. It is one of Australia's largest non-government disability service providers, supporting more than 3,350 people with disability across 230 locations throughout Australia. It is one of the many disability services organisations that will step up and take a leading role in DisabilityCare. With all respect to the full-profit organisations who have put their hands in the air and jumped in to provide services, I would ask the minister and the government to look at the long-term, not-for-profit organisations and charities that have been in this field for 100 years plus. They are not always the super professional organisations, but I would hope they will be given the chance to be leading organisations in DisabilityCare. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:
(1) the time and order of business for Tuesday, 28 May 2013 being as follows:
(a) the House shall meet at 12 noon;
(b) the Federation Chamber shall meet from 12.10 p.m. until 1.45 p.m. and from 3.30 p.m. until 10 p.m., and standing order 193 (Members’ Constituency Statements) shall be suspended;
(c) during the period from 12 noon until 2 p.m. any division on a question called for in the House, other than on a motion moved by a Minister during this period, shall stand deferred until the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance; and
(d) during the period from 12 noon until 2 p.m. if any member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House, the Speaker shall announce that she will count the House at the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance, if the Member then so desires; and
(2) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
This motion has been discussed with the Manager of Opposition Business and he agrees with this motion. It will enable a maximising of time for sittings of the parliament and is moved as our own contribution to the productivity in this parliament.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the time for the meetings of the Federation Chamber for this week being varied as follows:
(1) on:
(a) every day that the Federation Chamber meets in the morning, the meeting shall continue until 1.45 p.m.;
(b) each day that the Federation Chamber meets in the afternoon the meeting shall resume at 3.30 p.m.;
(c) Thursday, 30 May 2013, the Federation Chamber shall meet from 3.30 p.m. until 5 p.m. or the adjournment of the House, whichever is the earlier, and
(2) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
I commend the resolution to the House.
Question agreed to.
The Labor government has introduced its sixth budget. As we say, we have grave concerns about that budget. It has betrayed the trust of the Australian people because on more than 500 occasions the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and a range of others in the government promised a surplus. This year that promise has been broken. There will be no surplus this year. There will be no surplus next year. There will be no surplus the year after. A balance will be delivered in 2016. If anyone is around four years time, that will be when Labor delivers its first budget surplus—after what was previously described as a 'temporary' deficit in 2008. If a temporary deficit in 2008 looks like being seven deficits in a row, that would have made World War II very temporary. It went for six years—less than the deficit period of the Labor Party. But still their bravado, their chutzpah shows no limit.
I could not believe this. I had to reread it and then I sourced the document. The Treasurer on 22 May last week at a doorstop in Melbourne said:
No other government in our history has done what we have done in this recent Budget, …
He is right. I do not dispute that. No-one has done what this Treasurer has done in the recent budget! He is absolutely right. But then it gets better. He continued:
… which is bring the Budget back to surplus—
Well, he hasn't done that yet!
No, that has not happened. But then, to be fair to him, he says, 'over time'. I am glad he put that condition on it. The member for Batman would welcome that. It just goes to prove that, even after deliberately misleading the Australian people on hundreds of occasions, the Treasurer still has the gall on 22 May—yes, this year, 2013—to say emphatically:
No other government in our history—
in the history of the world, ever, throughout time—
has done what we have done in this recent Budget, which is bring the Budget back to surplus over time …
Fair dinkum. That is what he said.
Labor have never delivered a surplus and never will. It is not in their DNA. That was best illustrated by the carbon tax package, when they raised the tax and then spent all of the money and more, and the mining tax package, where they raised the tax and then spent money against it, and more. If, on individual taxes like that, the government not only go to spend it but actually go to spend more, then that would say to you this is not a government that is capable of living within its means.
So there is a clear sign that the Treasurer is delusional, and I think I have some basis for saying so. Last week, he was asked about the Parliamentary Budget Office report into the structural position of the budget. There were two reports released last week on the structural position of the budget. They happened to come out on the same day that I was giving a response to the budget at the Press Club—but I will give the Parliamentary Budget Office the benefit of the doubt in that. And then there was this working paper from the Treasury that was released that day. That was a pretty rapid turnaround, as the Treasurer announced that he had asked Treasury to do that just a few days before and had to backfill, and then said he had asked them some months before. We have been asking for it for two years, but that was lost. So we welcome the structural papers. But this is what the Treasurer said about the structural balance report from the Parliamentary Budget Office:
I've had a brief look at that material from the Parliamentary Budget Office and what it shows is that the structural deficit started as far back as 2001-02 and really accelerated under the final years of the Howard Costello Government …
This guy is a comedian. Wayne Swan should be a stand-up comedian. He is wasted in politics! He is the Jerry Seinfeld of modern-day Australian politics. He is in his own league. Where he gets this figure from, that 'the structural deficit started as far back as 2001-02', is just beyond me. I was looking carefully at the chart on page 2, and it actually shows structural surpluses all the way throughout the coalition government. So now, not only is the Treasurer content to say he is delivering the best budget in history, not only has he spent years claiming that deficits were surpluses, but he is now trying to claim that surpluses were deficits—because, under Labor, deficits have magically become surpluses over the years and, under the coalition, in his view, a surplus really is a deficit. What logic. Everything is roundabout. Everything is the other way around. Maybe he could compete with Mem Fox, writing children's literature, fanciful stories—a book titled When the Deficit Became a Surplus and the Surplus Became a Deficit, by Wayne Swan. How absurd.
This report shows that every year under the coalition there was a structural surplus and every year under Labor there is a structural deficit. It also happens to be the case under this report that it is quite clear we got the budget back into good shape. No-one in Australia in May 2007, our final year, when Peter Costello delivered the last coalition budget, for a moment suggested the surplus should have been bigger. No-one held up their hand and said: 'Hang on, don't give us tax cuts! Really, you should be hoarding that cash and having larger surpluses.' Wayne Swan was so opposed to that so-called looming structural deficit that he embraced the tax cuts at the 2007 election and then delivered them. Of course, he was wise beyond his days. The Treasurer had the view that somehow he foresaw the huge surge in the terms of trade.
There is a terrific graph on page 8 of the Parliamentary Budget Office document that shows the massive surge in the terms of trade, which then benefited the government because it created a cyclical variation, which in turn illustrated that it would have a deficit on top of the tax cuts, a structural deficit. That graph shows you how lucky Labor has been. The terms of trade just keep going up. In fact, in June 2012—and from the budget papers in the years beyond—you can see the terms of trade way beyond anything the coalition had.
This revisionism, this new way of approaching the history not just as it occurred but the history as it is written, from the Treasurer is quite amazing. But it does not stop with his interpretation of events. It is even better, as evidenced in this budget itself. The Treasurer said, 'I am proud of this budget; I am proud of all the numbers.' And so on.
I said on budget night that we will unpeel this onion. We are going to do it piece by piece. Another piece came off today. We were questioning how on earth it is possible that you can have revenue forecasts for traded carbon permits out of Europe at around $6 to $7 a tonne and yet the government is forecasting revenue at over $12 a tonne going up to $28 a tonne. How is it that the government in the Treasury papers completely ignores the market pricing of carbon permits in Europe but manages still to say that it is going to proceed with it and, in fact, it is going to end up with $38 a tonne by the end of the decade? How do they do that?
We had climate change officials appear before Senate estimates today. A report says that the department's deputy secretary, Steven Kennedy, told a Senate hearing in Canberra this morning: 'The projection method, as I understand it, is a straight-line method.' This is an extraordinarily new development in economic modelling—the straight-line method, where there is a market. Let us get this right. Dr Kennedy said: 'Although it was common for budget forecasts to be based on market trends'—no, you don't want to do that! Don't think about the market for a moment. We consider the market when it comes to the Australian dollar and we consider the market on commodity prices, but when it comes to carbon trading—'No, leave the market behind.' Dr Kennedy said:
… although it was common for budget forecasts to be based on market trends, Treasury officials—
that is a buck pass in the great Yes Minister tradition; it does not talk about department of climate change but Treasury officials—
had opted to draw a line between market prices in 2014-15—about $5.60—to the $38 projection in 2019-20 contained in the Gillard government's initial carbon scheme.
But he said questions about "the pros and cons" of the modelling needed to be directed to Treasury.
Aha!
Aha! That is where it is at. I see—the department of climate change has nothing to do with the forecast revenue about climate change. No, that is Treasury. Treasury has come up with this figure of $12.10. That is quite interesting. It is interesting because you saw the hot potato travel faster than a speeding bullet from Senate estimates across to the Treasury building, so when Treasury appear they can explain it. But what is more revealing is that we now have a new economic model in Australia called the straight line. The straight line comes about like this. You lick your finger and then you draw a line upwards. That is how you do it. A fantastic new form of economic modelling: the straight-line model! It is pretty simple. You can use a ruler, you can wet your finger, and have rising revenue. Rarely do you wet your finger and have falling revenue—no, that does not suit the government's case. This is a new economic model that only goes in one direction.
This is a classic example of why this budget just does not stand up. They knew we were looking at this. They knew we had been looking at the modelling in relation to the mining tax. We got it right on the mining tax. We will get it right on the carbon tax. At some point someone has to tell the truth about the state of the budget. But, whilst Labor is in office, you will never get the truth, whether it be the historical truth or the truth about what is real today.
In the absence of any government speakers in support of their budget, let me make some more contributions on behalf of the opposition in the hope that there may be a more realistic assessment of the budget's presentation Tuesday a week ago than we heard from the Treasurer.
The Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014 and the cognate bills before us are really all the evidence anyone needs to demonstrate this government's chaotic mismanagement of our national economy. It is of course going to be Australian families that will end up footing the bill. In this budget the government delivers to families taxes at least $25 billion higher over the next four years. There are more taxes on super and on their income through increased Medicare levies, there are cuts to promised family benefits, there is the abolition of the HECS upfront discounts, there is a cap on self-education expenses, and there are perhaps 10 or a dozen more.
The Treasurer is always full of excuses as to why the government is in such a lamentable position. They have been so unlucky to be in government when everything is going wrong around them! It is all beyond the government's control! We hear all the lame excuses: 'The dollar's too high,' 'The resource boom has slowed,' 'It's the GFC' and 'The revenue has collapsed.' Those are all the kinds of excuses that the Treasurer used on budget night and has used again subsequently.
In fact, the revenue in last year's budget did not collapse as the Treasurer has said. It was actually up by six per cent. Revenue went up, not down! In this year's budget the revenue is forecast to grow another seven per cent. Most businesses would be happy to settle for a six or seven per cent growth in their revenue. It adds up to more money than any Australian government has collected in history. This budget will collect more tax than any other budget in Australian history. The revenue raised will be $80 billion more than in the last year of the Howard government—$80 billion more. Labor spending $120 billion more than was spent in the last year of the Howard government. So this government does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending crisis.
The Treasurer has also complained that the dollar is too high; but that was one of the only forecasts in last year's budget that was actually confirmed by the figures Tuesday week. The dollar was precisely, on average, the value that the government had predicted: US$1.03. That was one of the rare things that they actually got right. And now the government is trying to blame it for the failure of their budget strategy.
Over 500 times, going back as far as 2010, the government promised that there would be a surplus in the 2013 budget. The Prime Minister herself made that promise on at least 165 occasions, but each one of those 165 commitments were broken like so many of the other promises that she has made to the Australian people. For the fifth consecutive time the budget handed down last week has a deficit, a whopping $19.4 billion.
The original promise was a surplus of $1.5 billion. But three weeks before the budget the Treasurer finally owned up to the fact that he would miss his target as a result of revenue drops of $7 billion. Two weeks before the budget, it was $12 billion. And as little as one week before the budget it was $17 billion, and then on the night it came in as $19.4 billion. Who knows where it will really be by the end of June?
With this year's forecast deficit, it brings the government's record to $192 billion in cumulative budget deficits—the biggest budget deficits in our nation's history. When they first brought down a deficit budget it was supposed to be temporary; six budgets on, it is still in deficit and this budget forecasts at least another two deficits before they finally break even. But since they cannot get their estimates right for even a week, who could believe them in three years time?
The budget confirms that the government gross debt will exceed $370 billion at its peak, way beyond anything we have ever known before in our country. When the credit card limit is next raised—and it will be the fourth time under this government—it will have to be to a number around $400 billion. Is there really any end in sight at all? That is the debt Australians are going to have to pay back. Government debt is no different from the debt that householders or businesses face. The banks expect their interest, and they expect the debt to be paid back. It is all about waste and out-of-control spending.
The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and this government inspire a lack of confidence. The central theme of the budget now that the government has lost all interest in surpluses was that the budget was to 'grow jobs and grow the economy'. But the budget has failed its first test. The budget forecasts indicate higher unemployment at 5¾ per cent, and lower growth at 2¾ per cent.
Labor's plan to return to surplus in three years is simply not credible. The potential for a black hole in future budgets is enormous. There are just so many time bombs in this budget. There are so many commitments that have been made that are not funded. And let us also remember that there are still $28 billion worth of taxes promised in the last federal budget that have not even been legislated.
Here we are with four weeks of sittings of parliament left, and Labor still has $28 billion worth of tax increases from the last budget that have not even been passed by the parliament—we have not even sighted the legislation for some of them. So they cannot get last year's taxes in place—and many people believe that they are not being put in place because they simply cannot be administered; they will require new taxation returns to be lodged by thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Australian taxpayers—and that legislation still has not been introduced, yet the government has banked the revenue as though it was all being collected. It is counted on the revenue side but it has never been legislated and it has never been collected. This is an example of the way in which this government is leaving behind big name promises and big launch occasions, while the programs are actually not properly funded.
We hear about the Gonski report and what a great revolution it is supposed to be for education—but this budget actually spends $300 million less on school funding over the next four years. So if there is going to be more money under Gonski, it is not provided for in this budget; it is another time bomb waiting to go off when somebody else has to pick up the trouble. And what about the National Disability Insurance Scheme, something all Australians support? This budget does include a 25 per cent increase in the Medicare tax levy but that only funds 40 per cent of the NDIS. There is no sign in this budget as to where the other 60 per cent is going to come from. This, too, is a time bomb, waiting for someone else to have to deal with it.
There has been deceit also in relation to Labor's commitments in relation to infrastructure. On the day before the budget, we were told in the morning newspapers that the $100 billion centrepiece of the budget was going to be expenditure on infrastructure. When the announcement was made on budget night, it was not $100 billion; it was just $24 billion over five years. That compares with $36 billion over six years in the previous package. So Labor has actually significantly cut road and rail funding. And many of the projects announced are barely funded, if indeed there are any funding commitments for them at all. For example, the Melbourne Metro link rail project was announced as a $3 billion scheme but the four-year estimates in the budget only allocate $75 million. The rest is simply not funded. WesConnex in Sydney is a $1.8 billion commitment for Labor—but with so many strings attached that it will never go ahead. Of that $1.8 billion, in the first four years only $200 million is allocated. The rest is not funded. And it is a similar story with the $5 billion Cross River Rail tunnel in Brisbane. Despite the billions required for the project, only $100 million has been allocated—and then with conditions that Labor knows the state government can never meet. It is irresponsible budgeting, but it is also plain dishonest. It is about rhetoric and spin. When it comes down to it, the money is simply not there. It is a time bomb sitting around for future budgets.
There is no new money for projects like the Bruce Highway, beyond what has already been announced many times over. The government is spruiking $4 billion for the Bruce Highway but we know that much of that is not new money—in fact, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport admitted before the budget that only $2.4 billion of that is actually new money. It short-changes the Bruce Highway—and his own promise—by at least $2 billion. Under Labor, communities along the highway will play an anxious waiting game. They will be waiting to see which one of the projects announced has not been funded by the government; which one of the required roadworks that the government claims to support will not in fact be funded. It is the same story with the Pacific Highway: there is no new money at all in this budget, which still leaves Labor $2 billion short of the funding that is going to be required to finish the project. By contrast, the coalition is already guaranteeing the extra $2 billion needed—and that is on top of the $3.5 billion currently tied up in this government's dangerous game of charades with the New South Wales government over funding shares. But it goes on. Labor announced further work on the Ipswich Motorway, which is a long way off. There does not seem to be any actual funding for this project in the four-year estimates at all. Then they said they are prepared to meet only half the cost of the Ipswich Motorway upgrade, despite the fact that the former Prime Minister promised faithfully the people of Ipswich and the southern suburbs of Brisbane that the federal government would meet 100 per cent of the project cost.
When you look at this government's budget, you see that it is simply collapsed all around but perhaps nowhere more dramatically than the mining tax. Revenue from the mining tax, personally and secretly negotiated by this Prime Minister, has collapsed from an estimated $22.5 billion to just $3 billion over the next four years. The actual collection so far is 95 per cent below the estimate. As a result, many of the projects that were to be funded through this sharing of the boom have had to be abandoned. The words 'sharing the boom' do not appear anywhere in the budget this time around. The Labor government has killed the boom with its taxes and its IR changes, and with its red and its green tape, all sending a message to the world that Australia is closed for business. As a result of the collapse of the mining tax, the Regional Infrastructure Fund has been largely abandoned. Many projects will have to be abandoned because the revenue stream does not exist.
What other projects is Labor lining up to announce before election day? Does Labor intend to borrow more money to fund them or are they just an empty mirage? The budget was honest enough to strip $2 billion from future projects which were supposed to go to regional Australia. Minister Crean has gone but so has the money. The Independents from northern New South Wales agreed to back the mining tax because it was going to do great things for regional Australia. In reality, most of the money has been spent in the city, and for most regional communities these promises have been only a mirage.
Another area where the budget collapsed is obviously the carbon tax, set at $23 this year, $24 in a couple of months and $27 next year. But the carbon price has collapsed, and the revenue from the tax is simply not there. The tax has destroyed jobs, has done nothing for the environment and now the promised revenue is not there either.
In this budget, the government talks about making $43 billion in savings, but they use the word 'savings' very broadly. Of the $43 billion, $25 billion will come from new or higher taxes, with more taxes on superannuation, self-education, 457 visa fees, Medicare offset changes, cuts to R&D concessions, monthly reporting for smaller companies and increased Medicare levy. This government's expenditure is simply out of control and Australians are being forced to pick up the bill. Is it any wonder voters are looking forward to 14 September, just like kids look forward to Christmas Day, 25 December?
During the budget week, the Australian public gained an important insight into Australia's main political parties, their values and the qualities of the leaders that will take our country to the next election. It was a week when the curtain was pulled back on the Gillard government. Behind the smoke and the mirrors and the spin there was nothing apart from broken promises, bad policies and record debt and deficits. Whereas the Howard government used the budget before the
2007 election to establish a platform for Australia's long-term future, including the establishment of the Higher Education Endowment Fund to create world-class institutes of learning, the Gillard government has chosen to play political games and lay traps in the event of a change of government.
This government is so obsessed by its own survival and on attacking the Leader of the Opposition that it has lost sight of the national interest, if it ever understood that concept. Whereas John Howard and Peter Costello paid off Labor's debt, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are happy to pass the burden to future generations. The Howard government paid off $96 billion in net debt, saving the country over $8 billion a year in interest payments. In 2007, the incoming Labor government was left with zero net debt, a $20 billion budget surplus and money in the bank. Yet in 2014-15, the Rudd-Gillard government's net debt will peak at $192 billion. Eight point four billion dollars will be spent servicing the interest on Labor's debt—money which could otherwise be spent on education, health or defence.
On 165 separate occasions, the Prime Minister confirmed that the government would deliver a surplus this year. 'No ifs, no buts; failure is not an option,' the Prime Minister trumpeted. Despite announcing seven successive budget deficits, the government expects us to believe that it is not its fault. This government does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. Let us be clear. If re-elected, this Labor government will not deliver a surplus, not in 2016 or 2017 or any time thereafter. The Treasurer is like the traveller lost in the desert, stumbling off in different directions, chasing the mirage of a surplus that suddenly disappears just when it seems to be in reach.
The Australian people want a mature government that will make their lives easier, not harder. They want a government that will provide a stable economic environment so that they can raise their families, grow their businesses and live their lives without an incompetent government needlessly interfering. As the Leader of the Opposition made clear in his budget in-reply speech, should the coalition win the election there will be no nasty surprises and there will be no lame excuses. We will ensure that government is not at the forefront of everybody's everyday concerns. The Australian people do not want sleepless nights worrying about the next policy disaster from this incompetent government that increases taxes, constantly meddles with superannuation and savings and breaks promise after promise. We will restore the bonds of trust between the Australian people and the parliament that have been so treacherously broken by this wretched Gillard government, and we will make sure that the Australian government once again lives within its means.
After five years of wasteful spending and miscalculations, misjudgements and gross mismanagement, the grim reality of this government's recklessness is becoming clear. The government has been forced to slash spending, and this budget emergency is of its own making. As usual, its priorities are skewed. For example, the government's decision to cut funding to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade comes at a time of growing uncertainty within the region as increasing levels of prosperity have enabled the expansion and modernisation of Asia's militaries. The recent displays of nationalist sentiment in our region, driven in large part by unresolved territorial disputes, have added a dangerous and unpredictable element to Asia's strategic make-up.
In a rapidly evolving strategic environment, a prudent government will always hope for the best while planning for the worst. On every measure of national security the Prime Minister has failed. From failing to attend meetings of the National Security Committee of cabinet and sending her bodyguard instead to slashing the country's defence budget, the Prime Minister's priorities do not reflect the national interest. This year, defence spending will fall to historic lows not seen since 1937. Ensuring that Australia has the capabilities it will need in an increasingly complex strategic environment cannot be achieved overnight. It requires long foresight, planning and commitment.
Having significantly weakened the Australian Defence Force, the Prime Minister is now set on reducing the other arm of Australia's national security, our diplomatic corps. This budget will see further cuts to DFAT of one per cent in real terms. Its share of total government expenditure is expected to decline to 0.31 per cent by 2016-17, representing a one-third reduction in funding when compared to the final year of the Howard government.
Whereas funding for diplomacy and defence is on the decline, spending on foreign aid continues to grow, reaching 1.4 per cent of total expenditure in 2014. If Australia's national interests are to be advanced, we must ensure that all three arms of Australian foreign policy apparatus are properly aligned: defence, diplomacy and development.
In her speech to the National Security College at the Australian National University, the Prime Minister stated that this:
… will be an era in which diplomacy will be critical as we and our friends and partners in the region strive to master the complexities and new dynamics of a multipolar world.
She said the government would:
… increase our diplomatic footprint abroad, and increase the expertise of our professionals working in the Asian region.
If diplomacy is as critical to Australia's fortunes as the Prime Minister states, why is she cutting funding to record lows? Once again, spin has triumphed over substance for this government.
The hollowness of the Prime Minister's words is matched only by the false promises and motherhood statements of her Australia in the Asian century white paper. The government indicated that it would open an Australian embassy in Mongolia as well as additional consulates in China, Thailand and eastern Indonesia. Without funding or even a time frame, such an aspiration is more akin to fantasy.
The government's record gives little reason to hope that such an expansion of Australia's diplomatic network will ever be achieved. Only 12 months ago, the government promised to establish a new mission in Senegal. At the time, Foreign Minister Carr stated:
Expanding our diplomatic footprint in Africa sends a clear signal of the Government's commitment to building a long-term and credible Australian partnership with the countries of Africa.
One year later, this new embassy has been added to the Prime Minister's pile of scrapped policies and broken promises. Long-term planning is a concept this government is yet to understand, let alone implement. Given its disastrous handling of the budget, the government is struggling to keep the lights on at Australia's existing missions, let alone open new ones.
In the lead-up to the budget, the government announced that it would close Australia's embassy in Hungary as part of its need to find further savings. Its failure to advise the Hungarian government of its decision before leaking the fact to the press shows it has learned nothing since its incompetent mishandling of the live cattle issue with Indonesia. The government's decision to close the Australian embassy in Hungary follows years of public concern about the level of Australia's overseas representation.
The Joint Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's inquiry into Australia's overseas diplomatic representation found that there are strong reasons for on-the-ground Australian diplomatic representation. Such representation facilitates a deeper understanding of a country, allowing quicker and more informed responses to changing circumstances. It provides the ability to develop long-lasting networks which in turn enhance Australian influence and the ability to effectively promote an understanding of Australia's position on international issues. Such relationships enhance Australia's trade and other interests and allow for the provision of effective support for Australians travelling overseas.
The report quoted then secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Dennis Richardson, as saying:
Closing a mission saves very little, the reason being once you have got a mission up and running your running costs are quite low. It might cost you $25 million over three or four years to open a post, but if, 10 years later, you were to close that post you would probably only save about $2 million a year.
Is this what it has come to for this government? The hole in this country's finances is now so large that it is scrounging for loose change.
The committee also drew attention to the risks inherent in closing overseas posts. The Lowy Institute too suggested that careful strategic consideration should be given to closing embassies, because turning posts on and off is really damaging to us as it causes enormous resentment. I would have thought that the last thing this government needed was more resentment at home and abroad. The coalition has announced that, should we be elected, we will undertake a complete review of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to ensure that Australia's overseas diplomatic network reflects our country's wide range of national interests in the 21st century.
Having made a habit of breaking its solemn promises to the Australian people with its litany of spin and deceit, the Gillard government is now making a similar name for itself overseas. As part of its campaign for a seat on the United Nations Security Council, the government promised to increase the Australian aid budget to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2015-16. It was a promise made to developing countries in particular, in order to win support for the government's UN Security Council bid. At the last budget, in 2012, this commitment was pushed back to 2016-17. In this year's budget, the time frame has been pushed back again, to 2017-18. With the vote undertaken and the seat secured, the government has felt free to break the very promise that was central to its campaign. At the bottom of the government's Security Council campaign brochure, it read:
Australia, we do what we say.
At least Australia did until the Gillard government came to office.
The decision in the budget to defer the target date to 2017-18 follows the stripping of $375 million from the aid program to help cover the blow-out in the government's border protection costs. In doing so, the Gillard government makes itself the third-largest recipient of Australian aid.
The Prime Minister's failures unfortunately extend well beyond diplomacy. According to the budget papers, funding for Austrade, Australia's export promotion agency, will be cut by $1.9 million. Australian businesses who are reliant on exports have a right to feel aggrieved. Between Foreign Minister Carr, the country's dilettante-in-chief, and Minister Emerson, who mistakes media appearances for actual achievement, there has been a complete indifference to the interests of Australian exporters.
Rather than hide behind excuses, the government should go out and finalise the free trade negotiations started by the Howard government. Since the launch of free trade agreement negotiations with China in 2005, 18 rounds of discussions have been held without result. This government's lack of action stands in stark contrast to the action of New Zealand, which concluded a free trade agreement with China in 2008 after just three years of negotiations. Since then New Zealand's good exports to China have trebled, with more than 90 per cent of its goods now entering China duty free.
The government's disregard for bilateral free trade agreements and the benefits they provide to Australian exporters and investors is exemplified by the statement of the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, Craig Emerson, that a free trade agreement with China is 'overrated'. This is despite a joint feasibility study finding that a free trade agreement could have boosted Australia's real gross domestic product by approximately $24 billion had it been concluded for the period 2006 to 2015.
The government's failure to conclude a free trade agreement with South Korea has likewise resulted in the loss of real export income. The failure to conclude this agreement at a time when the United States has concluded a free trade agreement with South Korea means, for example, that the United States is now capturing a large part of the beef market into South Korea, at the expense of Australian beef producers. I recently met with representatives from a mineral sands company in South Australia that had been supplying the South Korean market with its value-added processed product for use in high-end manufacturing in technology. The signing of the South Korea and United States free trade agreement has resulted in this Western Australian company losing its competitive edge. Its product is now being sourced from the United States, which is undertaking the processing of the raw product and then delivering it into South Korea. So we are losing an advantage that we had over the United States.
Until the Australian government concludes this agreement, more local companies will lose their market share. When the competitiveness of our exports is lost, so too are Australian jobs. Compared with Canada, for example, which has signed free trade agreements with nine countries and has entered into 19 sets of free trade agreement negotiations, covering 74 countries, since 2006, the Gillard government has been missing in action. Rather than assisting Australian exporters, the Gillard government has made it worse by imposing an economy-wide carbon tax, a tax that our competitors are not imposing on their economies.
This budget is more proof of the government's focus on headlines rather than outcomes. The widening chasm that exists between its foreign policy rhetoric and reality was recently picked up by Richard Woolcott, a former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In a speech to the University of Melbourne law school, Richard Woolcott drew a comparison between the Gillard government and the former Soviet Union:
The fact is that we are not doing as well with our Asian engagement as the regular rhetoric and diet of spin emerging from ministerial offices would have the public believe …
This budget shows the government rhetoric for what it is: nothing but hollow spin from a government bereft of new ideas. It has proven what we all know, and it starts at the top—the Prime Minister herself admitted she does not have an interest in foreign affairs. Foreign and trade policy under a coalition government will be designed to protect and project Australia's reputation as a prosperous economy and a virtuous nation. (Time expired)
This budget again confirms that the government has a spending problem and a forecasting problem, not a revenue problem. Under this Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Penny Wong, this government spent $192 billion more than it raised in the past five years. Expenditure as a percentage of GDP has remained higher under every year of Labor than it was under the last two years of the Howard government. Revenue for 2013-14 is projected to be $80 billion higher than it was at the end of the Howard government, yet spending this year will be $120 billion higher. The most up-to-date figures, released last Friday, show that $304 billion in revenue was raised through to April. This compares to $284 billion at the same time last year—an increase of more than seven per cent. Not many households, businesses or workers would be bemoaning this type of increase.
The hits to revenue the government constantly blames for its mismanagement are in fact hits to pollyanna forecasts. The government have consistently treated their most inconsistent forecasts about revenue growth as gospel. They lock in spending at those levels and then cry, 'Woe is me!' when the forecasts are never realised despite revenue continuing to steadily grow.
It must be highlighted that the terms of trade remain extraordinarily high—15 per cent higher than at any other time during the Howard government. Labor has wasted this mining boom. In fact, what you see this morning in today's paper is evidence that Labor is prematurely killing off the mining boom. We see a front-page article: 'Gas boom at risk from rising costs.' It says:
AUSTRALIA is missing out on a $100 billion surge in the resources boom as exorbitant costs … force global companies to reconsider their investment plans.
Workplace disputes and overlapping "green-tape" regimes are being blamed for driving up costs at major gas export facilities, as new research from McKinsey & Company shows the nation has lost a crucial pricing advantage when shipping gas to Asia.
Company executives are … warning that Australia faces a narrow "window of opportunity"—
and are calling for—
"significant national leadership" to lift productivity and improve industrial relations.
You will not get this leadership from this government and this budget. You see in this budget, despite the developments I have just referred to, despite the evidence on the ground, claims that the mining tax will raise just $200 million this year and will somehow miraculously raise $2.2 billion in 2016-17. It simply cannot be believed.
The ultimate symbol of budget chaos occurred in the weeks preceding the budget. On 21 April, the Treasurer whined about a supposed sledgehammer hit to revenue of $7.5 billion. A week later, the Prime Minister bemoaned a $12 billion hit to revenue. Then a week after that Senator Wong complained that it was a $17 billion hit. What perception does this leave with the business sector, with investors? What does it leave with households when you have this chaos, this weekly change of massive amounts from $7.5 billion up to $17 billion in the space of two weeks, rewriting the revenue downgrade?
Labor will have delivered 12 deficits from its last 12 budgets. The last Labor surplus was in 1989. As the business community has observed, Labor has lost control of the nation's finances. Despite all the talk about belt tightening and fiscal consolidation, the budget papers shows that spending continues to increase not decrease. Table 2 on page 75 of budget paper No. 2 shows that government spending over 2012-13 and 2013-14 actually increases by $2.2 billion. So much for belt tightening. The same table also reveals $464 million of spending in the category of 'Decisions taken but not yet announced' for 2012-13. Without doubt, this will form part of Labor's election slush fund—hundreds of millions of dollars hidden in the budget papers for later announcement in the run-down to an election.
This is the government that says it is being prudent with the nation's finances. These problems should have been anticipated. For more than three years we have called for the budget papers to include an update on the structural state of the budget. In the 2009-10 budget there was such an update. It showed a structural deficit at that time of around four per cent of GDP, about $50 billion. This was an embarrassment to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. As a consequence, we have not since seen any structural deficits produced in budget papers. That piece of work back in 2009-10 showed that the budget would return to structural balance in 2015-16. It showed that the budget would be restored to a position of structural surplus of two per cent of GDP by 2020.
In other words, it showed that the government would stop spending more than it was raising. Up until now, our calls for an update have been ignored—obviously for crass political purposes. This has been a continuing embarrassment. But if the government had put this in the public arena, it would have imposed some pressure on this government to do what it should have done over the last few years—that is, live within its means, not spend revenue that it has not received.
It took the establishment of the Parliamentary Budget Office, under the leadership of Phil Bowen, to bring some added transparency to the budget. To its credit it heeded the call, and last week produced the structural analysis that has been so lacking under this Treasurer. The analysis shows that in the period between 2006 and 2008 the budget was in structural balance. It then plunged to a structural deficit of up to 4.25 per cent of GDP by 2011-12. This followed the unnecessarily high levels of stimulus spending that, in so many respects, has caused the problems that we now confront. It shows that in 2016-17 the budget will remain in structural deficit by up to 1.5 per cent of GDP.
This is a far cry from the earlier assessment by the Treasurer in 2009-10. What has happened to the 2015-16 structural surplus that that budget paper laid out some years ago? What has happened is that this government has lost control of the finances. This government has not been able to manage the spending requirements to fit within the revenue that has come into this country.
In his Treasury note on Friday, the Treasurer said that some months ago he asked his department to finally update the structural position. By pure coincidence, we are told, it was released on the same day as the Parliamentary Budget Office's analysis. It begs the question: why wasn't it included in the Treasurer's 2013-14 budget papers a week earlier? Is it because it estimates that under current policy settings the budget will possibly remain in structural deficit through to perhaps 2021-22? Unbelievable! Treasury says that even in 2012-13 the budget was in structural deficit by up to four per cent of GDP.
It is worth noting that both the PBO and Treasury assume that the structural balance will improve in the future, but all of this analysis depends on very heroic assumptions—heroic budget assumptions that the terms of trade are basically going to flat-line for several years at a level 15 per cent higher than the peak in the Howard government years. I have been involved in commodities for half my professional life and I know that what goes up comes down, and for this budget to assume flat-lining of the terms of trade at still record levels for many years to come is simply irresponsible in the extreme. To budget and plan on that basis is going to put the country in a very vulnerable position. And that is what this government has done and is doing.
So you can never assume that things will get better under this government. They always promise that things will get better in the future. They promised budget surpluses this year and in coming years; instead we get a $19.4 billion deficit—the fifth biggest in our history—and an $18 billion deficit for 2013-14. The budget papers reveal that the government will breach its $300 billion debt ceiling within the forward estimates. In fact, gross debt is expected to approach $400 billion during the forward estimates. Despite this, the government lacked the courage to increase the $300 billion debt limit in these bills, as it has done in previous budgets. It is too ashamed to have a debate in this place about debt. It would prefer to leave its mess for others to clean up. That is the Labor way. It was what Paul Keating did in 1976. At the last election Julia Gillard promised that net debt would peak at less than $90 billion. The budget reveals that net debt will now peak at over $191 billion—a blow-out of more than 110 per cent.
Australia is facing a sea of red ink as far as the eye can see, with unrelenting deficits, and a debt ceiling about to be breached. What Labor has created is a budget emergency. It is time Australia had a government that lives within its means. We need real solutions to take pressure off households and strengthen our economy so that over time there is more to go around for everyone. To this end, if the coalition gets the privilege of government on 14 September, we will build a stronger, more productive and diverse economy, with lower taxes, more efficient government and more productive businesses that will deliver more jobs, higher real income and better services. We will get the budget back under control, cut waste and start reducing debt. We will help families get ahead by freeing them from the burdens of the carbon tax to protect Australian jobs and reduce cost-of-living pressures, especially rising electricity and gas prices.
We will help small businesses grow and create more jobs by reducing business costs, cutting taxes and cutting red- and green-tape costs by more than a billion dollars every year. We will create stronger jobs growth by building a diverse, world-class, five-pillar economy by building on our strengths in manufacturing, innovation, advanced services, agricultural exports, world-class education and medical research as well as boosting mining exports. We will build more infrastructure to get things moving, with an emphasis on reducing the bottlenecks on our gridlocked roads and highways.
We will deliver services, including health services—much better health services—by putting local communities in charge of hospitals and improving cooperation with the states and territories. We will deliver better education by putting local communities in charge of improving the performance of local schools. We will deliver stronger borders, where the boats are stopped with tough and proven measures. And we will take direct action to reduce carbon emissions inside Australia—not overseas. We will deliver strong and stable government that restores accountability to deliver a better future for all Australians.
Sadly, those measures are not happening at the moment. There is no hope in this budget. There is no coherent strategy to create jobs and growth and to restore an appetite for risk and investment. The forecast surpluses are a mirage, because there is level of fundamental dishonesty pervading key elements of this budget. The revenue forecasts are blatantly overoptimistic. Claims of revenue write-downs are a nonsense, with revenue up 7.2 per cent, and the budget greatly underestimates, by many billions of dollars, the real cost of illegal boat arrivals, the collapse of the carbon price and the collapse of the mining tax revenue. The budget has embedded within it a $370 billion debt landmine with a continued record rate of growth of debt threatening our AAA credit rating.
As the architects of all these problems, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are not the people to fix it. There is another way. The government must stop taxing, borrowing, spending and regulating and start living within its means. The growth and role of big government must be displaced by fostering robust growth of our millions of small and large businesses and restoring consumer confidence to spend. Government must once again provide a measure of certainty and stability and encourage an appetite for risk and investment. The coalition's plan for government is designed to deliver such a change.
In rising to speak to these appropriation bills I acknowledge the sort of atmosphere in which this is occurring. I look at the speakers' list and, to my absolute amazement, there is not one government speaker to speak in favour of the Labor Party's budget. I think that speaks volumes for the Labor Party itself, particularly the backbenchers, whose dismal faces we saw on budget night when the Treasurer delivered this document. It was one of despondency and despair. Indeed, the government could not even fill the galleries and, when it was completed, aside from a hug from Ms Gillard for Mr Swan, that was it—everybody left. Now they seem to be leaving the budget as the forlorn and abandoned orphan that it is.
But why am I not surprised? The document itself was a very poor and tawdry document in presenting itself to the Australian people as a way forward. So much of the expenditure is not only into the future—as we have seen as a practice by this government—but some of it is also two elections henceforth. There are projections over 10 years—which, instead of being a method of having proper transparency, is used as a tool to say, 'Look what we are promising and look what we are going to give,' but in fact it is so far in the never-never that one can put no faith in the projections at all.
That brings to one's mind the fact that this is a government that has always erred in presenting figures that are by far the most optimistic that could possibly be conceived. This is in contradistinction to what used to happen under the Howard government when Mr Costello was the Treasurer, when he would take a very conservative view about estimates of revenue so that, in the event that they changed, it was a change for the better and indeed a surplus or a larger surplus than had already been anticipated was able to be announced. Whereas this government, since it came to office in 2007—both under Mr Rudd and under Ms Gillard, but with the constant of Mr Swan—has continually taken a very optimistic view of what the revenue might be and then proceeded to spend the money without it ever coming in. It is time that we saw a return to living within our means. Perhaps we are going to return to handbag economics. That means you can only spend what is in the handbag and not tie future governments to expenditure which, quite frankly, the Australian people may not wish.
There was a lot of talk about the money that is being provided in this budget for the NDIS, which is a policy which is being supported by both sides of parliament. I hear shibboleth which the Labor members use when they are talking about it such as, 'This is what Labor governments do.' But, in truth, it is the philosophy of the Liberal Party and the National Party, where we follow the philosophy of individualism, which means that every individual matters. That means everybody, not just the right in the land or ordinary folks getting along; it means people with a disadvantage or a disability. They are part of us and they are our responsibility.
The principles of free enterprise define for us what is the business of government, and it is to do those things that the private sector cannot or will not do and provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. That surely is people with a disability. Tony Abbott has described it as 'an idea whose time has come'. This means, quite frankly, that the NDIS is right in line with the things in which the Liberal Party believe. So to try to claim it as something that belongs to one side of politics simply is not true. For a long time, Mr Abbott has offered to hold a joint committee with the Labor Party to oversight the rollout of the NDIS because there is so much detail which is yet to be determined.
It is very disappointing that people over the age of 65 will not be covered. That is in the bill. That means that somebody who has a catastrophic accident, who is over the age of 65, who becomes a paraplegic will be treated in the aged-care sector, whereas somebody who is 64 would be treated by the NDIS provisions. Perhaps I should not be particularly surprised by the fact that older Australians are being discriminated against by the Labor government, because they do it perpetually.
When I brought in a private member's bill to ensure that those people who were 70 and who remained in the paid workforce received their superannuation entitlements, I remember that the Labor Party—the Labor government together with Mr Oakeshott, Mr Windsor and Mr Wilkie—voted against that bill and voted it down. That was in 2011. Subsequently, Mr Shorten said he would bring in a bill to remedy that situation. The only problem is the bill did not do that, even though he put it in his second reading speech and put out a press release to that effect. All his bill did was change the age from 70 to 75. Consequently, I drew this to the attention of the Speaker and suggested it might go to the Privileges Committee—and that did not happen, of course. But some little time later, Mr Shorten brought in some amendments that made his bill just like my bill, except that the provisions in his bill do not start until 1 July 2013. There are still many older Australians in the paid workforce who are not receiving their entitlements. But, surprise, surprise: Mr Windsor, Mr Oakeshott and Mr Wilkie voted for the bill this time because the government brought it in—even though it was not as effective as my bill would have been, which would have made a remedy to the situation in 2011. I am not surprised that there is continuing entrenchment of disadvantage for people who are over the age of 65 and of course that is of great concern to me as shadow minister for seniors.
If one goes to the budget figures, one will see once again that there are many projections there which are, quite frankly, never going to come to fruition. To call the figures rubbery is the best description I can think of. The Treasurer is responsible for a rubbery budget with rubbery figures that cannot be relied upon—that is the real message from this budget that has been brought down. One good example of why I call them rubbery figures relates to the question of superannuation.
This particular budget will increase the concessional cap from $25,000 to $35,000 for people over the age of 60 beginning in July 2013, and from July 2014 for people over the age of 50. The problem with this is that a previous budget announced that the cap would rise from $25,000 to $50,000, but that was never enacted. However, that did not stop the Treasurer, in fact, banking the difference between the revenue to be received as a saving—because he is no longer promising the $50,000 cap but reducing it to $35,000 and claiming that it is a saving because in a previous budget it was put in at $50,000. So you can see how rubbery figures are.
With regard to the question of superannuation generally, fairly recently in my electorate we had a round table discussion with senior and mature-age Australians, who were in both the accumulation stage and the draw-down stage with their superannuation. It was very interesting to hear that people are now feeling more and more concerned about the safety of their superannuation investments—and it is an investment of their wages because the money that is taken by way of the superannuation guarantee charge is in fact the wages of people paid into a superannuation fund, and a concessional rate is paid on that money. The interesting thing, of course, is that it works so long as people have confidence and they have to have confidence that future governments will not steal their money. Yet, we have seen announcements by this Labor government of a theft of some people's superannuation, which the government glibly say will only affect 16,000 people. But if one goes to an excellent article written by Mr Henry Ergas some two or three weeks ago, you will see that by 2050 those provisions alone will mean that it will apply to 20 per cent of people with superannuation.
People are starting to doubt whether or not their money is safe. That is what came out of that round table discussion. One employer, a mature-age worker but still in the paid workforce, who employs a range of age groups said that, whereas there was concern from mature-age workers about their superannuation, he was quite alarmed to hear that younger people on his payroll were concerned that they were compulsorily having to put their money into a superannuation fund that some future government, two or three decades on, might choose to steal. Now if you undermine the beliefs that people have that their money is safe then you start to undermine the whole system, and that is precisely what this Labor government has done.
There are so many issues that are raised with me, as I go around Australia during seniors forums, where I find that people are so well informed that their questions and statements echo many of the things that are debated in this chamber. They do their research, they are prudent, they are suffering enormously from the cost of living and they understand that this next election will be a referendum on the carbon tax. They understand that the carbon tax is a cascading and compounding tax which affects every aspect of their life. They understand that electricity is what makes the difference between being a First World country and a Third World country. They understand that when the carbon tax is placed on electricity it cascades onto the price of everything else. They know that it impacts on the cost of lighting, refrigeration, air conditioning and getting petrol into the family car, which Ms Gillard said would never be impacted by the carbon tax. Yet how do you think the petrol gets out of the tank in the ground and into the tank in the car? It is electricity operating pumps that allows the petrol into their car. Even when they pay the bill at the cash register, electricity is involved. Every aspect of their life is affected by it.
I will end on this saddest note, one comment I heard from a young family. We have heard of older people who remain in bed when they do not need to be there simply to stay warm. But this concerns a young family who left the outdoor solar lighting in the garden during the day and would bring it in at night and put it in the bathroom and toilet so that they did not have to turn on the light. That is not the Australia that Australians were brought up to believe was their inheritance. That is not the Australia that our men and women fought in World War II to bequeath to subsequent generations. The carbon tax is something that robs individuals of their ability to enjoy their birthright and it will be abolished should we be successful in winning the next election.
I rise to follow my good friend the member for Mackellar after her terrific remarks on the budget bills that are before the parliament, which are consistent with the previous budgets that the Treasurer of this government has handed down because they are built on debt, deficit and deceit. There is a consistent approach from this Treasurer, which is to spend more money than he receives every year. There is another consistent approach of this Treasurer, which is to claim that it is always somebody else's fault.
This year we saw the shenanigans in the lead-up to the budget with the predictions by the finance minister, Senator Wong, who was sent onto Sky AM Agenda on the Monday morning to explain that there was a $7 billion budget revenue write-down. Just a couple of days later the Treasurer was out there saying it was a $13 billion budget revenue write-down. A couple of days later Senator Wong was back on Sky AM Agenda saying that actually no, it was a $17 billion budget revenue write-down. This was all within the space of a week!
The truth is, as has been so well articulated by the Leader of the Opposition in his budget in-reply speech and by the shadow Treasurer at the National Press Club last week, that revenue in Australia has grown in fact in the last 12 months. We saw the lecture from the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the budget on what we can only describe as 'Johnanomics'. The average wage earner, John, as she described him, expected his income to grow by 12 per cent in a calendar year and, low and behold, it only grew by 7½ per cent and the advice that the Prime Minister gave John—through her Johnanomics lesson—was to borrow for the gap 'because your income will come back, the expected income will return, so don't worry about it and just keep borrowing until it does'. I think the shadow Treasurer summed it up nicely later that day when he said the best advice he could give to John was not to trust the Prime Minister and to vote Liberal. I think on 14 September that is advice that the Australian people should take heed of.
With this budget we have seen a debate about the forecasts that the Treasurer and the minister for finance have signed off in their budget bills. They are responsible for the budget. Of course they are as their names are on the front page of the budget papers—documents that Treasury and Finance are obviously heavily involved with, as are all government departments, but in the end the content of the budget is a matter for decision by the Treasurer, by the Prime Minister and by the minister for finance. So the claim that somehow they have no influence, and that it is all about independent forecasting in the budget papers, does not pass the sniff test and certainly was not the history under the Howard and Costello government. You are right, as a government, to take the best advice available, and we say the Treasury offers that advice, but it is also within the realm of the Treasurer to give indications to the Treasury about what he would like the forecasts to come out with, depending on the decisions that the government wanted to make.
If you go back to the Howard and Costello government, you saw year after year budgets which underestimated revenue. They took a cautious approach to their estimations and when there was additional money that came through the door—through taxation revenue because the economy had performed better than expected or because China had grown more quickly and our terms of trade had improved better than what we had expected—you had a situation where for budget after budget in the 2000s there were tax cuts which were paid for out of budget surpluses. The Labor government likes now to make all these grand claims that somehow the Howard and Costello government were responsible for the fact that we are now in deficit and that they spent too much during the so-called boom years, although even at their highest peak the terms of trade were some 14 per cent lower than what they are under this government.
The truth is, as Peter Costello said on the 7:30 program just recently, even before the boom years began he had delivered five surplus budgets. He delivered five budgets under which he was able to live within his means—a government living within its means. Then, during the times when there was additional revenue because the government was prudent and conservative in its forecasts, it had additional money to be able to allow some extra headroom for tax cuts to make the cost-of-living pressures on Australians that little bit easier. The government was able to ensure that businesses could get on and create opportunities, knowing that ultimately it is business and the entrepreneurial desires of our countrymen and women that grow our economy and make us a better country—not government, as those on the other side would have you believe.
Contrast that with the last 5½ years of the Rudd and Gillard governments and you see just what a difference there has been. Of course there were revenue reductions during the GFC; no-one has ever argued the point. The Treasurer would have you believe that the coalition did not support action at the time; we did. But on the second stimulus package we said it was too much, and we were proven right. It was too much. The then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, was the first off the blocks to say that we needed a banking guarantee. The Treasurer, appropriately, followed suit. We supported the first stimulus package when it was announced.
But we did not support the breadth of the second stimulus package—that is the truth and the history. The Labor Party will try to reinvent the history and try to have you believe that we did not support any action; we did. We said the second amount was too much because the second stimulus package had programs such as overpriced school halls, and pink batts in people's roofs which burnt people's houses down and cost double to take out as they did to install—without any ministerial responsibility for that, I might add. We were proven right.
What has been a bigger issue for this government in its budget management has been that it never underestimates what revenue will come through the door. Take the mining tax, which Senator Matthias Cormann has done such a terrific job at exposing what a fraud it has been. It has increased the sovereign risk for companies making investment decisions in Australia—companies such as BHP Billiton with its Olympic Dam decision, which has had such a devastating impact on my home state of South Australia. It is a tax which was estimated to raise some $4 billion this financial year. It was a deal that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister did with the big miners, days after the now Prime Minister knifed the former Prime Minister, and as one of the things she had to fix because the government 'had lost its way'.
This tax in this financial year has raised some five per cent of expected revenue. Interestingly, 100 per cent of expected revenue that the government banked on has been spent. So they have spent more money than they have received; spent it before they got it; and spent it from what they themselves described as a volatile tax. They sell this tax as being virtuous because it will move with the movement in the commodity price. They say this with a straight face. They put in place a payment to families off the back of this mining tax's so-called 'expected revenue', which does not exist. So they have to borrow money from our children's future to hand it to their parents. They do not even have the grace to send the bill to the children when, ultimately, that is what they are doing.
We have a responsibility here for those who are living and for those who are yet to join us. If we leave a massive debt we will have an intergenerational debt issue, which we already have, which the next generation—the schoolchildren in the gallery today—will have to deal with when they enter the workforce. They will have to pay more tax than need be because this government cannot find a way to live within its means. It is always someone else's fault. They have never taken responsibility for the utter failure of their forecasting; their utter failure to be a government that does not waste taxpayers' money; and their utter failure as a government that cannot live within its means.
The other example in the budget papers that highlights the inability of the government to manage this budget is the expected revenue over coming years from the carbon tax. The so-called price on carbon apparently is a market based mechanism that just happens to move in a linear fashion between 2015-16 and 2020 to reach the price the government needs in 2020 to achieve its target. It moves up by a perfect increment each year in a so-called floating market price—what a joke! That is what the so-called road to surplus is based on. We all know that that is a fiction, as it was a fiction the 500-odd times previously when this Prime Minister and Treasurer had said that they would deliver it.
In South Australia we are seeing the diabolical double of a bad federal Labor government and a really bad state Labor government. Business confidence is at a real low. Investment in South Australia is at a real low. The impact of the Olympic Dam decision—the much hyped, much promised 10-year expansion of the Olympic Dam project—is still flowing through and having consequences.
We do not see any relief for South Australia in the budget papers and in these bills. The only relief we can see for South Australian people is that in September they will have an opportunity to change the government, and I urge them to do that. We have a plan—a real solutions plan—which will help to encourage business again. It is a plan to take the red and green tape burden off Australian businesses to allow them to get on and create opportunities.
In South Australia—as the member for Boothby, at the table, knows—we are a small business state. We need small business to be successful. We do not need the retailer in the main street of Mount Barker to continually tell me how difficult it is now to run his business. We do not need the combination of federal and state governments creating additional half-day public holidays, making it impossible for restaurants to open on New Year's Eve. Talk about a decision that has had an absolute impact on the cultural and economic opportunities in our state!
That half-day public holiday decision, supported all the way by this federal Labor government, had a massive impact on our restaurateurs, our bars and our pubs over the last Christmas season. It was so badly thought through and had such an impact that it will take time, and should be repealed as soon as it possibly can be.
We have a plan in South Australia to upgrade the Darlington interchange, something the member for Boothby has fought for passionately for years—you can barely have a conversation with him without him raising the prospect of this being upgraded and all the benefits it will have for people coming in from parts of my electorate in the beautiful McLaren Vale and Happy Valley, bordering on the Boothby electorate. It will make the lives of those people so much easier if a coalition government is elected. It was disappointing in this budget not to see an announcement from the minister for infrastructure for the second interchange on Bald Hills Road in Mount Barker. This is something I have been fighting for in my community for some time. It is my No. 1 priority. I took a plan to the last election for half funding of that, with the state government to commit the other half. The state government has opened up a lot of areas for development around Mount Barker, and it is only right that those people get the opportunity to improve the infrastructure to make their lives easier. It is something I will continue to fight for.
What I will fight for every day between now and the next election is to give Australian businesses the confidence of a government that knows what it is doing; that does not change its mind every couple of days; that does not tell the electorate it will not have a carbon tax and then inflict a carbon tax on them, lifting their cost of energy and their cost of doing business; that does not regulate their workplaces to such an extent that people cannot have the flexibility required to ensure they can create jobs; that encourages entrepreneurs and small business people to grow; and that does not attach people for success. This government refuses to support its small business community. This is why I was also pleased at the Leader of the Opposition's announcement to put off the increase in superannuation for a couple of years to give small businesses that extra bit of time to adjust in a difficult economic environment. The coalition has a real solutions plan and a five-pillar approach to our economy to ensure that jobs can be created, that real wages will be lifted and that we will return to an era where government will once again live within its means and create a better and stronger economy for all Australians and for future generations.
I rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014 and cognate bills. I do not always speak on budgets, and I do not always speak in the House on budgets, but I have witnessed many over my near 40 years in public life. I have to say that few have disappointed me as much as this budget has. I want to talk about it in context, because I think it is a budget of enormous lost opportunity. If you listen to the arguments from the Treasurer you would believe that this is a difficult environment in which to budget and a difficult environment in which to meet all of your expectations, and that the government should be excused for not being able to meet realistic expectations of what government should be able to achieve.
In my youth I used to sit at the feet of my late father. He was an economist. He had a master's degree in economics. He was employed by Labor governments up until 1949, implementing rather oppressive policies in relation to price control. It convinced him that governments intervening in relation to budgetary issues really do not have very much idea about what should be done and how it should be achieved. He used to talk to me, and to a lot of others, about how he believed that there were different approaches to budgeting. He used to speak of the Liberal Party and its philosophy in terms of creating wealth and generating opportunities for people to be able to use their full potential. He used to say that the coalition were experts in baking a bigger cake. He used to say of our political opponents that their only expertise in relation to the cake was the way in which they could cut it up.
This budget says much of that. I was here with the Whitlam government. They were full of good intentions. They wanted to deliver more for people, for families. They wanted to deal with a lot of issues in relation to infrastructure, and sewerage was one of the major issues which was pushed. Neither of these ideas were what one would regard as inappropriate, but the government did not have the money to pay for them. They were not thinking about how to generate the money in order to pay for them. It may be forgotten that they went out and borrowed more money in order to pay for them. They went to Mr Khemlani to get help in borrowing the money from Iraq, as I recall. It is very interesting to me, as one who watches these matters, that over time some members of the Labor Party who witnessed what they did in those early seventies came to a view that it was a mistake: their names were Hawke and Keating. They set about to reform budgetary processes to help make Australia more productive. They even instituted some changes to industrial relations to make business more productive. They did not do all that was necessary—and I am glad of that, because they left something for John Howard to do—but they recognised that they had made a major error of judgement. What I would have to say about this government is that they have forgotten all that Keating and Hawke had learnt. This is evident in the budget that is before us.
I have talked to people about visions. This is a government that would like you to think that they are visionary, but I suspect that they are more a government that is having visions—and you understand what I mean when I say that. When you do not know how you are going to pay for it, when you do not know how you are going to implement it, it is fine to have a vision but you do not get a great deal from it. I think about the visions. We have a vision in relation to a very fast train—I think this is the best example. It is a vision in which the government said: 'We're in government for another six months, but we can deliver a very fast train. It might take 40 years and $120 billion, but we have a vision. Give us credit for having a vision.'
We have a plan in relation to education. I walk around the corridors and I see it: we are going to have a Gonski. I do not think anybody knows what a Gonski is, but we do know and understand that a Gonski is really about spending more money on education. It is not necessarily about getting better outcomes in education—I have not heard as much emphasis on improving standards and outcomes, but I have heard about spending money. We have a budget which is about implementing a Gonski. As I understand it, the budget is in fact ripping more money out of education than it is putting in. It is certainly taking it away from higher education, ostensibly on the basis that schools will get more. In fact, when you study the budget itself there is no immediate appropriation, no real increase for schools now. There is a vision, and it is sometimes forward. The vision is outside the period of what we call the forward estimates.
We all have a vision about what we would like to do to help people with disabilities. When you ask us, 'Do you want to help people with disabilities?' I want to help people with disabilities and their carers. Tony Abbott wants to help them. He is even prepared to raise money personally to help them, something in the order of $700,000 or $800,000 through his Pollie Pedal. This is real and substantial effort, but when it comes to the proposals we have a vision to implement a new regime, recommended by the Productivity Commission, which we are going to implement in some regions. If you are lucky enough to live within a particular region, you will get to try it. We are prepared to raise extra tax money by way of a levy. That is fine, but we are only prepared to raise half of what it will cost to implement it. This is another vision. If you get the impression that I am unimpressed with a budget that does not outline how the money is going to be raised to implement the measures that the government wants to take credit for, you are right. I am extremely disappointed as a result of that.
I am a member who has an electorate with some very significant needs. I am fascinated that the visions now have extended to my electorate. Over a long period of time there have been proposals for governments to address the major infrastructure need for Sydney, and that is to move traffic, particularly heavy transport traffic, around Sydney. At the moment there are roads like the M7, which was built by the Howard government, and earlier roads like the Cumberland Highway, Villawood Road and Silverwater Road, and they all direct traffic to one point on one community road through northern Sydney: it is called Pennant Hills Road. I knew Pennant Hills Road when it was two lanes, one in each direction. This is the major infrastructure route to get traffic around Sydney. People have talked about it for a long time, but we had Labor governments in New South Wales for some 16 years who were not prepared to address it. We have a federal Labor government that now finds that when its seats on the Central Coast are at risk and residents are held up, it may be time to look at it.
The Prime Minister even went to the Central Coast last week and with Mr Albanese, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, and Deb O'Neill—I notice they left out the other member, Mr Thomson, but maybe that is understandable—was there to affirm the federal Labor government's $600 million plan to ease congestion and to cut travel times on the M3:
That's real money for real projects that will make a real difference.
Yes, real. This is to take some 700 trucks a day and 75,000 cars off Pennant Hills Road. The centrepiece of their plan is $405 million to bring forward construction of a much-needed, long-talked-about missing link. Gee, I was glad! This is something of substance. I started going through the budget documents to try and find out what the substance was, but I could not find any money appropriated in the immediate forward estimates. In fact, what I find when I start reading the budget documents are statements that tell me that there will be 'mega transport projects' that have a 'dedicated private finance component' and 'We will leverage the private sector for a mega infrastructure project such as the M2 to F3 link.' When I go over the page and start to look for some further information it tells me that the government is investing $400 million to allow a missing link to go to market and be constructed, and the project will be delivered in consultation with the New South Wales government. But I cannot find any money. When I look for the money I find that it is in 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19—not even in these immediate forward estimates. I say to myself, 'Here are my people again having to worry—
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Berowra will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
I rise to inform the House of a rather unfortunate contribution by the Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation to one of the local newspapers in the Hughes electorate, the Sutherland Shire Leader. An article published on 30 May this year exposed the fact that the Menai Swim Academy, a small swimming centre in my electorate, is being slugged with an increase in their electricity costs of $10,000 in this financial year alone, directly attributable to Labor's toxic carbon tax. The minister attempted to downplay the punitive effects of his beloved carbon tax by creating the impression that small businesses such as the Menai Swim Academy were able to apply for grants under the Community Energy Efficiency Program and that this was all a terrible scare campaign of the coalition.
However, the only problem is that small businesses such as the Menai Swim Academy are simply not able to apply for any grant under the Community Energy Efficiency Program. Either the minister was not across his brief, or he was wilfully attempting to mislead local residents and trying to cover up the shameful fact that Labor's carbon tax—the largest and most damaging carbon tax in world, one that is set to increase even further in the coming weeks—will force up the costs of children's swimming lessons. I call on the minister to apologise and to start admitting the damage that his carbon tax is doing. (Time expired)
I rise in the House today to mention a remarkable woman in my electorate of Bass, Faith Layton. I was most pleased to officiate at a ceremony last week at Self Help Workplace in Launceston where I presented a life membership to Ms Layton. Self Help is a government and community supported employment business service, employing and training people with disabilities. Ms Layton served on the board of Self Help Workplace between 1979 and 1992, 13 years, including a term as chair from 1986 to 1987. Last week, Self Help recognised her contribution to improving the lives of those with disability through a life membership of Self Help Workplace.
For over 50 years, Self Help Workplace have been able to make a real difference in the lives of people with a disability by providing meaningful and productive employment. Currently employing more than 50 people, they are the largest employer of people with a disability in the greater Launceston area. It was indeed a great pleasure for me to have the great honour of presenting Faith Layton with her life membership.
Several weeks ago I joined Bennelong health care professionals at Ryde Hospital to celebrate International Nurses and Midwives Day. Nurse May Wong has inspired her peers by providing the highest level of care to her patients for over 20 years and she was a very worthy recipient of the Ryde Hospital nurse of the year award. During the presentation director of nursing Shirley Castri-Crode read out the following poem and I would like to share it with the House:
You will never be bored, you will always be frustrated.
You will be surrounded by challenges, so much to do, so little time.
You will carry immense responsibility and very little authority.
You will step into people's lives for a moment and you will make a difference.
Some will bless you, some will curse you.
You will see people at their worst and at their best.
You will never cease to be amazed at people's capacity for love, courage and endurance.
You will see life begin and you will see life end.
You will experience resounding triumphs and devastating failures.
You will cry a lot, you will laugh a lot,
and you will know what it is to be human and to be humane.
To all the nurses and midwives across Bennelong and around the country, we thank you for your selflessness, your love and your caring spirit.
As members of the House will be aware, 2013 is a very important year for this city, the centenary of Canberra. And while Australians and Canberrans are celebrating this important milestone, the coalition is planning to devastate Canberra should it be elected in September. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition proposed moving government agencies from Canberra to Tasmania. A few weeks before that, he was in favour of moving Public Service jobs from Canberra to Geelong. And who can forget the coalition's grand strategy leaked earlier this year to relocate entire Commonwealth departments from Canberra to Karratha, Darwin and Cairns. The truth is that over 60 per cent of the Commonwealth Public Service is already located outside of Canberra.
It was the vision of Sir Robert Menzies to 'build up Canberra as a capital in the eyes and minds of the Australian people'—and so he did. Robert Menzies created a capital worthy of this nation and he moved to consolidate government agencies in Canberra, and now the party he led plans to destroy that vision. In this, our centenary year, the coalition is promising nothing but pain and suffering for Canberra. Remember 1996, Canberra!
Last Saturday I was delighted to be involved with the Mother's Day school fete held at Ashgrove State School with my federal colleague Jane Prentice and the Premier of Queensland, Campbell Newman, and Councillor Geraldine Knapp. This is an important day on the school calendar. The storybook themed fete was a huge success and I felt like I had tumbled down a rabbit hole into Wonderland. The dedicated fete committee were fundraising to implement significant upgrades to the school's facilities. The rainy weather in Britain recently did not dampen the spirit of the crowd or the children's excitement for carnival rides. With the aim to join nearly 300 schools across Australia the funds raised will go towards implementation of a Stephanie Alexander kitchen garden, which changes the way that children think about food through learning how to grow, harvest, prepare and share seasonal food. The funds raised on the day will also go towards much-needed fencing upgrades and new computers for the students.
I wish to congratulate Patrick Murphy, the principal, as well as the fete committee of Joe Waite, Emma Kirkland, Hillary Wilde, Karen Bond and Rachael Anderson on such a wonderful event this year and for continuing such a fine tradition.
I was also pleased to attend recently the Kelvin Grove Creative Festival, held in the urban village at QUT, with my colleague Counsellor Vicki Howard. The festival featured market stalls, art and performance and brought together a wide range— (Time expired)
I am becoming increasingly concerned about the ongoing and, in fact, increasing demonisation of the coal seam gas industry in this country. I was even more alarmed when only last week I discovered that the Newcastle Trades Hall Council, the peak union body in the Hunter region, had entered into a formal agreement with the organisation known as Lock the Gate to ensure that they remain totally opposed to the coal seam gas industry in the Hunter Valley.
The coal seam gas industry does bring concerns, and certainly we cannot allow the development of extractive processes which threaten our watertables, our air quality and things that threaten in turn our sustainable industries in this country. But coal seam gas is a fledgling industry which can bring great wealth to this country with a minimal footprint—certainly a footprint much less than we have seen put forward by industries like open-cut coalmining. It also poses an opportunity to address our looming gas shortage in this country and will open up new export markets through LNG. These projects should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Some will be acceptable. Some will not. But let's not demonise the industry and rule out every project. (Time expired)
SPC Ardmona is an iconic fruit brand well known in Australia for nearly 100 years. A few weeks back, tragically, the orchardists who supply that cannery were informed that either all or most of their contracts were to be cancelled, that there was to be no more supply of local fruit into that industry. This is because of the extraordinary competition from the imported fruit that comes in these days—mostly from China and South Africa, with tomatoes from Italy. There are over 1,000 jobs that are immediately jeopardised in the factories themselves and also in the immediate downstream transport sector. Obviously, as well as the actual tree pruning and picking and packing, the orchardists themselves are now staring down the problem: do they pull their trees out right now or go into the cost of trying to spray them? Either way there is a biosecurity disaster.
Twenty-seven days ago this government was asked to look at an emergency safeguard action. It is an executive decision they can make right now to give 200 days of protection through higher duties on the imported product to give the local industry a fair chance to recover. I urge this government to look urgently at the application made and passed on from Minister Ludwig on 30 April. This emergency safeguard action is WTO consistent and it is within the law of this nation to bring in such an action. That way we might have a fruit industry into the future.
I rise to congratulate a wonderful school in my electorate, Our Lady of Lebanon College, which celebrated its 40th anniversary last week. I had the pleasure of joining them for a mass and then morning tea in the new primary school hall, which was funded under the Building the Education Revolution. The school was founded by Sister Juliette Ghorayeb and Sister Constance Bacha of the Maronite Sisters of the Holy Family in January 1973. They opened their doors for the first time with just 115 students. They now have over 1,200 students and six building blocks surrounding the initial site, which started just 40 years ago. The motto of the college—'To know, love and serve'—is mirrored in the outstanding services delivered in supporting and nurturing its students. They are well and truly a feature of the Harris Park community, very strong as a centre of faith and learning. Many of the college's past students are now local community business leaders, and I have no doubt that the college, under the guidance of the sisters, will continue to provide this calibre of service far into the future. I once again congratulate them on their 40th anniversary and wish them and the sisters—Sister Constance, Sister Margaret, Sister Marlene and Sister Madeleine—success into the future. I thank them for their work.
I would like to thank and congratulate the Boonah and Fassifern Valley community for throwing yet another fantastic annual agricultural show celebrating no fewer than 113 years of showing. There were concerns that a date clash with the much larger Ipswich Show would result in lower crowd numbers and fewer exhibitors, but that was not the case. The show welcomed 100 new exhibitors and gate takings increased by 10 per cent over last year, proving that small towns can pull it together when we have to and run a good show.
This year boasted 220 heads of stud beef, 40 heads in the dairy section, 300 prime beef entrants, over 200 in the pigeon and poultry judging, 420 entrants in the dog show—get that—420 entries presenting cooking and a strong showing in the horticulture and fruit and vegetable sections. Thank you to all of those who competed in the celebrity cook-off; regardless of my disastrous tiramisu crepes looking better than they tasted, I did end up taking home the silver there. I also had the opportunity to judge the fancy-dress calf competition, where I had to decide between the enormous talent of the progeny of the Fassifern Valley!
Deserving congratulations to our committee: Jim Harvey, Anthony Neibling and the whole Show Society. Thanks a million for what you do. The future of the agricultural society is in great hands in Boonah.
The Canberra community recently lost one of its true champions with the passing of Chris Peters AM. Sadly, Chris passed away following a very long illness. Chris Peters was the head of the ACT Chamber of Commerce and Industry, but he was so much more. As I joined with hundreds of my fellow Canberrans at the Albert Hall in April to farewell Chris Peters, we heard many speakers share Chris's incredible work and community spirit. I had the pleasure of knowing and working with Chris for many years and I was deeply saddened by his passing. In a very moving service, members of the Canberra community talked about Chris Peters's tireless commitment to making Canberra a much better place.
Every so often we have in our midst someone who stands head and shoulders above the crowd in terms of their contribution, and Chris Peters was one of those rare individuals. Not only did Chris make a major contribution to Canberra's business sector, he had an honorary doctorate from the University of Canberra and was a long-time supporter of the arts, including the music school here in Canberra and the Canberra Symphony Orchestra. Chris is also credited with establishing the Canberra Institute of Technology Vocational College and was made a member of the Order of Australia in 2004. It was therefore fitting that, at his service, the speakers included the ACT Chief Minister, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, the Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Public Trustee for the ACT and Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston. Chris once said that his greatest achievement was uniting the business community to help after the 2003 Canberra bushfires—
Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I move:
That the House express its deep regret at the death on 23 May 2013, of Hazel Hawke AO, place on record its appreciation of her long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to her family in their bereavement.
Today this House meets in sadness at the passing of a wonderful Australian, Hazel Hawke. Hazel died peacefully last Thursday, surrounded by family, as she finally succumbed to the complications of dementia. She was a remarkable Australian. As a kid growing up in Depression-era Perth and through the four decades she spent alongside her then husband, Bob, Hazel was always up to meeting life's challenges, even when the ride was a roller-coaster, and she met those challenges with her intellect, her character, her grit and her determination.
Being married to a driven and complex man was not always easy, but through the sorrows and imperfections of Hazel's family life we loved her all the more, and we deeply admired the independent persona she forged, both at Bob's side and also beyond his shadow. It is no accident, I think, that Hazel entitled her autobiography My Own Life, because Hazel Hawke lived and thrived in her own right. That is why, when Bob Hawke retired from parliament in early 1992, the Labor Caucus moved not only a vote of thanks for his service but also for Hazel's contribution to the party and to our nation.
Hazel was a most beloved prime ministerial spouse. She was a woman of deep compassion, common sense and sharp intelligence. But, like my own parents, like so many of her generation, Hazel was born too early to benefit from the expansion of university places that began in the late 1950s. Indeed, had Hazel been born 20 or 30 years later, she might just as easily have ended up in public life in her own right.
Hazel was distinctly Australian in her manner and her sense of humour. When being told her diagnosis was Alzheimer's, her very down-to-earth reply was, 'Bugger, bugger, bugger.' No self-pity was evident, and Hazel quickly turned her mind to how she could use this change in her life to make a difference for other people. That was just as she had done for so many other issues throughout the decades.
Hazel was a tireless advocate for our youngest and most in need, an embrace that began with her own grandchildren and which spread to every corner of our land. She walked with Indigenous people on the journey of reconciliation before many others did. She was a passionate supporter of the arts, children's television and the protection of our precious natural habitat. And she was no mean gardener herself. Indeed, I think no place was more special to Hazel Hawke than her own garden or the beautiful garden at the Lodge where she spent so many happy times.
But Hazel did not just adopt easy or respectable causes. She also embraced the tough issues that few people wanted to talk about: AIDS awareness, women's reproductive rights and domestic violence. Indeed, Hazel showed incredible courage and candour in describing her own painful choice as a young woman in the 1950s—the decision that made possible Bob's study at Oxford and thus, perhaps, his entire career. It was these experiences that impelled Hazel to become a quiet warrior for women's rights, joining with other like-minded people such as Quentin Bryce and Wendy McCarthy—the great generation of Australian feminists who blazed the trail for women like me.
Hazel was often described as gutsy. We saw it so often in the many painful moments of her own personal and family life, and we saw it in a different way when she stepped up before a crowd of more than 2,000 people in the Sydney Opera House to play a Mozart piano concerto. Classical music fans will know how hard that feat is, especially for an amateur who could only practice in her spare time. But Hazel applied herself with fierce determination, leaving her audience stunned and grateful. This was Hazel Hawke at the very peak of her life in 1990, and this is how she should be remembered—as a vivid presence in Australian public life, as a woman who lifted the spirits of a nation and brought a touch of warmth and humanity to the Hawke years, and as a woman who had more than her fair share of misfortune but who only redoubled her courage and grace in response.
Hazel entered that long autumn of her life knowing she was deeply loved and admired, and I hope she retained some sense of that love to the end, because she was deeply loved, by her children, Susan, Stephen and Rosslyn; by her six grandchildren; by Wendy McCarthy and many other friends; and by Bob as well. To them and to all those Australians who saw the best of themselves in Hazel go our deepest sympathies.
I rise to support the fine words of the Prime Minister. It is absolutely right that this parliament should remember Hazel Hawke, who was an adornment to our national life. She was a person of great dignity, of fundamental decency and of total unselfishness.
MPs' spouses, if I may say so, are the conscripts of public life. They are stuck in it whether they like it or not. Hazel won universal plaudits for her handling of the ups and downs of being Mrs Bob Hawke. The public loved her, especially for her courage in facing up to Alzheimer's. Many MPs' spouses identified with her and drew inspiration from her. As Bob Hawke said: she was both a mother and father to their children because of his long absences from home.
She was a woman of extraordinary dignity, a woman of great capacity, a woman who will be much missed. On behalf of the coalition I extend our most profound condolences to the Hawke family.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate is made an order of the day for a later hour.
I associate myself with the comments of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the passing of this great Australian and I seek leave to move a motion.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
I inform the House that the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, and Minister for the Arts will be absent from question time today, as he is travelling back from Lebanon where he represented the Australian government at the ordination of Father Tarabay. The Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth will answer questions relating to his portfolio and in relation to agriculture, fisheries and forestry.
The Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, and Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy will be absent from question time this week as he is attending an OECD meeting in France. The Minister for Defence will answer questions relating to foreign affairs, trade and competitiveness, and the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth will answer questions relating to tertiary education, skills, science and research.
The Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation will be absent from question time this week for personal reasons. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government will answer questions on his behalf.
Finally, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Minister for Tourism, and Minister for Small Business will be absent from question time today as he is addressing the APPEA Conference in Brisbane. The Minister for Defence will answer questions on his behalf.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that massive projects have been shelved at Olympic Dam, Port Hedland and James Price Point and that $150 billion worth of new investment is now in jeopardy, why is the government persisting with a carbon tax, a mining tax, the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and other disincentives to invest and employ?
From the Leader of the Opposition we continue to hear misrepresentation about the circumstances of the Australian economy. It is remarkable to me that he is audacious enough to come into this parliament and talk about the Olympic Dam when he was so exposed on national television as making false claims about the Olympic Dam and not even bothering to read a few pages put out by the company, which accurately went to the issues about the Olympic Dam investment—all of it emblematic of the Leader of the Opposition's approach, which is that you seek to whip up fear but you never bother to acquaint yourself with the facts.
To the Leader of the Opposition: we in this nation have a resilient and strong economy. The government have worked hard to ensure it is resilient and strong and we have focused on jobs and growth. I would refer the Leader of the Opposition to reports in today's newspapers about how difficult it will be under his proposal for Australian businesses to increase company taxation and the way in which that will flow through to the things that ordinary Australians use, particularly the mortgages that they have on their homes.
I am pleased that under this government we have seen falls in interest rates, which means that, for the average mortgage, Australians are $5,500 a year better off. Their mortgage repayments have been reduced. The Leader of the Opposition talks about business certainty. What he really means is that if he is ever Prime Minister it is certain that Australian businesses would be paying more tax and, in accordance with today's newspaper reports, that would mean interest rates for families and small businesses would go up. So to the Leader of the Opposition, who is keen to give economic lectures but never actually analyses his own policies, I would say: it is bad for the Australian economy for him to put up company tax and it is bad for the Australian economy for him to reduce the amount of money in superannuation funds.
The Prime Minister will return to the question.
These are things that would hit working people and the resilience of our economy hard. In the meantime, the government will keep doing what we do, pointing out the risk that the Leader of the Opposition poses to jobs and growth, while we go on harnessing jobs and growth in the interests of working Australians.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Order! The Manager of Opposition Business might be finished very early today if he is not careful.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Sturt was yapping throughout that entire answer by the Prime Minister, from the beginning to the end. I ask you to draw his attention to standing order 65.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. He does not want to tempt fate at the first question. The member for Corangamite has the call.
My question is to the Prime Minister. What is the government doing in response to Ford's announcement last week? And how is the government making sure that communities and manufacturing industries affected by this decision are treated fairly and not left behind?
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister has the call and has the right to be heard in silence.
I thank the member for Corangamite for his question—and the circumstances of 1,200 Ford workers are no laughing matter. The workers involved are clearly still dealing with the stress and shock which comes with being told late last week that their jobs will not be continuing after October 2016. This is a very serious matter, and I can assure the House it is taken very seriously by the government.
As a result of our view that working people in these circumstances must be treated with dignity and respect, the government has already announced that for the individual Ford workers involved—the nearly 1,200 workers who now know that their jobs will not be continuing—we will roll out the most intensive form of employment assistance, working with them to help them find another opportunity beyond their jobs at Ford.
What I can certainly say about those working people is that they are highly skilled; they are proud of what they do because they are so highly skilled. You meet people who have got their skills in the automotive industry in so many other walks of life, and we will work with them to seize a new opportunity.
Second, we understand that this announcement by Ford has implications up the supply chain for those who work making the components that Ford uses, which is why we have already announced that we will add to a current program—a $30 million program—an additional $10 million of investment from the federal government and $2 million of investment from the Victorian state government to work with those component companies in the supply chain to keep diversifying their opportunities to sell their products.
We understand that this is a serious matter for the communities of Geelong and the greater region—and, of course, I am asked this question by the member for Corangamite and this is of very great significance to the area he represents in this parliament. It is also of very great significance to the area of Broadmeadows and associated areas in Melbourne's north and west where people who work at the Broadmeadows plant live. So we have allocated $30 million, joined by $9 million from the Victorian government, and we call on Ford to make a sizeable contribution in order to assist with getting new opportunities and new sources of growth into those regional economies.
We will keep working with local communities, with Ford workers and with suppliers. I am very determined, despite the shock of this news for those people, that no-one is left behind and that the government works with them to seize a new opportunity for the future.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her statement to Ford workers in January last year that giving $34 million to the company would:
… see the number of jobs grow. There will be an additional 300 jobs as a result.
Given the company cut 330 jobs only six months later and is now ceasing manufacturing in Australia altogether, costing 1,200 jobs at Ford, when will the Prime Minister visit Ford again to personally apologise to those workers for telling them— (Time expired)
Thank you very much. To the member's question: first, as she should know, that $34 million investment was to secure work on the models that are going to be produced by Ford up until October 2016, so we made that commitment to secure the jobs of working people not only at Ford but up the supply chain and it was the right thing to do. I understand that the member for Indi has a different approach: she wants to rip at least half a billion dollars out of industry support and up to $2 billion dollars out of industry support—that is, she is advocating a plan that would be crushing for the Australian automotive industry.
The Prime Minister will return to the question.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: the question was not about reiterating the misleading statements the Labor Party has made but answering the issue about the $34 million.
The member for Indi will resume her seat. The Prime Minister has the call and will be relevant to the question before the chair.
I was asked about apologies. I think the member for Indi should apologise, along with the Leader of the Opposition, for their plan to cut assistance to the automotive sector by $500 million. They should apologise for standing for a plan that would cut in half assistance to 2015. They should apologise for standing for a plan that puts at risk the jobs of every auto worker in this country—that is, 50,000 direct jobs at Holden, Toyota and dozens of suppliers and a further 200,000 jobs in related industries. The member for Indi and the Leader of the Opposition should apologise for that.
On this side of the parliament, unlike those opposite, we stand for jobs and growth. We stand for working with manufacturing to ensure that it is a source of strength for the Australian economy into the future and we will not endorse the opposition's plans to cut to the bone, including cutting industry assistance to the bone, and potentially seeing tens of thousands of Australians thrown out of work.
My question is to the Treasurer: Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government is making the economy stronger? How do these strengths position us to make the right choices for the nation's future?
I thank the member for Banks for his question, because our budget is all about putting jobs and growth first. Of course, the results are in. From day one we have always supported jobs and growth, and the consequence is an economy that is 13 per cent larger than it was at the end of 2007. There have been 950,000 jobs created during this government's period in office, but we face a transition in our economy and that transition brings with it challenges. There are the challenges of the higher dollar—and we have seen the consequence of that at Ford for the workers there and their families. But this government will do everything within its power to assist those affected with the consequences of that decision that has come from Ford.
We on this side of the House do have a commitment to supporting the workforce in these areas. But the budget I brought down over a week ago gets the big economic decisions right and, in particular, the long-term sustainability of the budget so we can make the right investments for the future to secure prosperity.
Of course one of the big decisions that this government has taken is paid parental leave, which is now rolling out to 280,000 Australian families. They are benefiting from paid parental leave because we have a responsible and affordable paid parental leave scheme which stands in very stark contrast to the scheme put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, who wants to pay $75,000 to the families of millionaires.
We have seen some commentary about this in the papers today from the banking industry. They are saying that, because the Leader of the Opposition is going to jack up company tax, they are going to jack up interest rates; they are going to jack up their margins; they are going to put up mortgages for the average Australian family—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
The question to the Treasurer had nothing whatsoever to do with the Leader of the Opposition, and the government should stop being obsessed about the opposition in their answers and answer the question.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call.
This was a question about growth and jobs and the right choices the government must make to support growth and jobs. In jacking up the company tax rate, the Leader of the Opposition is going to slug Australian companies, and the banks have said very clearly they are going to jack up interest rates between 10 basis points and 25 basis points. This should not be news to the shadow Treasurer over there, because he had this to say: 'Any additional taxes you put on banks they just pass straight through to consumers.' Perhaps he should have told that to the Leader of the Opposition, because what we have here is a fair commitment to support families when they have children. In particular, we support them in the early stages when they have children with an additional $2,000. The Leader of the Opposition is going to rip that away. The Leader of the Opposition is going to rip away the schoolkids bonus and the Leader of the Opposition is going to jack up interest rates, slugging Australian families yet again.
My question is to the Minister for Transport. What advice did the Minister for Transport seek about the impact of the government's changes to vehicle emissions standards on the long-term viability of Ford's Australian manufacturing operations, given that Ford identified this as one of the reasons for ceasing manufacturing in 2016? When did he receive the advice and what action did he take as a result of the advice he received?
I thank the honourable member for his question; I have waited for three years to get one. When I finally get one it is one that seeks to take advantage of the loss of employment for working Australians in Geelong and Broadmeadows. If he had had a look at Ford's statement and what they actually had to say, he would see that what Ford was speaking about was the emissions targets internationally and the European system in terms of emissions standards that were there.
What I have done as the minister, as I have done across the board, is consult with Ford, Holden and Toyota at face-to-face meetings and work through it with them in an entirely appropriate way. If you speak to Ford they will confirm that is the case. We have worked in a cooperative way, in a way which secured change in the industry—change that is needed in a carbon constrained world—but in a way that was consistent with maintaining jobs. That is what we have done for each of the three companies.
Hence you have seen major support for the transition in terms of some export vehicles in Toyota, such as the changes that we have made with regard to, for example, the Ford Territory. If you actually had a discussion with Ford, which clearly the shadow minister has not, they would confirm that not only did we receive the appropriate advice from my department and appropriate advice from the bureau that looks at these things in terms of transport and regional economics, but we also sat down with the managers and operators at Ford, Holden and Toyota, and—something you would never do—we also sat down with the workers and their representatives. That is something you would never do because any job loss is just an opportunity for you. What we have done is engage in appropriate consultation. We have provided the appropriate support, unlike you and your policy—
Use of the word 'you' is inappropriate.
That would cut $500 million out of assistance and would lead to job losses not just directly but in all those component areas as well that create some 200,000 jobs throughout the country. That would be absolutely at risk—
Opposition member interjecting—
The nong opposite says we did nothing. We consulted with industry; and Ford does not say, as you would suggest, that that is a reason for their closure.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, it was good that you and Minister Albanese were on the Central Coast confirming the budget announcement of the F3-M2 link and the extensions to the F3. While transport issues are very important to us on the Central Coast, the No. 1 concern for residents of the Central Coast is the security of our water supply, which almost ran out a few years ago. Will the government support my private member's bill to secure the water supply for communities on the Central Coast, or will the government side with foreign mining interests?
I thank the member for Dobell for his question. I did have the opportunity to be on the Central Coast talking about $600 million of infrastructure investment which will benefit people as they move along the Central Coast and do the drive into Sydney for work—getting rid of 22 sets of traffic lights. I think people understand what a difference it will make to a journey to not have to stop and start 22 times.
But the member does raise with me a different issue, and that is the security and quality of water supplies. I do acknowledge that this is of concern to people on the Central Coast, and more broadly, it has particularly been of concern as the coal seam gas industry has got going in Australia and spread. I believe it is important for us as a government—indeed, for us as a nation—to find the right way of balancing mining, and the economic investment and progress and jobs that mining brings, while ensuring that our natural environment is protected for the future.
The approach that we are taking is different from the one that the member advocates in his private member's bill. So we are taking a different approach and not endorsing the member's approach in his private member's motion. The approach we are taking has been to ensure that, under federal environmental protection legislation, you can have water issues triggering federal laws and federal assessments. We have also made sure that the best of scientific evidence is available not only to us but also more broadly to the community, through having an expert scientific committee that will look at the assessments of the way in which underground water and mining coincide and the implications of one for the other.
To the member for Dobell: I am not in a position to agree to the private member's bill that he is putting forward. We do not think that is the right course. But it is an important issue that he raises, and so we are legislating so that these water issues can be the subject of in-detail federal government environmental assessments.
My question is to the Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and Disability Reform. Will the minister update the House on how the government is building a fairer future for families in this country? What would it mean for families if these important reforms were eroded?
I thank the member for Greenway very much for her question and for the way in which she stands up for the interests of young families, especially young families in her electorate of Greenway.
This government is all about building a fairer Australia and making sure that we provide support to families when they need it most. That is why this government delivered Australia's first national paid parental leave scheme, which has seen so many parents able to take time off work to spend that precious time with their newborn babies. And it is why this government has introduced the schoolkids bonus—making sure that parents get support when their kids go back to school and helping to pay for school books, uniforms and all the things that kids need at school.
We have made the right choices to support families. By contrast, those opposite just want to claw back the schoolkids bonus. They would take $15,000 out of the pockets of an average family over the school lives of their children. That is what this Leader of the Opposition would do. At the same time that he wants to do that, this Leader of the Opposition wants to pay a wealthy mother $75,000 to have a baby—$75,000 to have a baby, while he rips away $15,000 out of the pockets of an average family. That is the sort of choice in front of Australian families today.
The way that the Leader of the Opposition is going to pay for his rolled-gold paid parental leave scheme is by jacking up a new levy on business. The banks have been out there today telling everyone exactly what is going to happen if this Leader of the Opposition gets his way. The banks will be out there increasing the cost of mortgages and increasing credit-card costs. As the Treasurer has already indicated—and the member for North Sydney knows this is true—the member for North Sydney has been heard saying, 'If you put an extra tax on the banks they will just pass it through in increased costs to consumers.' The member for North Sydney knows that his Leader of the Opposition is going to put an extra tax on the banks, and up will go the cost of credit cards and up will go the cost of mortgages at the same time that they rip away money from families.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of the US Congressional Budget Office carbon tax assessment, which stated last week:
… such a tax would have a negative effect on the economy. The higher prices it caused would diminish the purchasing power of people’s earnings, effectively reducing their real … wages.
… … …
Investment would also decline, further reducing the economy’s total output.
Why is the US protecting their economy from a carbon tax when her government is doing the opposite?
Here in Australia we can actually judge the impact of carbon pricing by what has happened. We can judge the impact directly by what has happened since carbon pricing came into effect. What we know is that, since carbon pricing came into effect, we are seeing reductions in emissions—that is, it is working to cut carbon pollution; we have seen the number of jobs grow—158,000 jobs have been added to the economy since the introduction of the carbon price; and we have seen investment continue not only in resources but also in other sectors of our economy.
We know what the impact on cost of living is. That is already being experienced. In stark contrast to the fearmongering of the Leader of the Opposition during the days of carbon pricing, when he claimed that there would be an astronomical increase in the cost of living, what has actually happened is exactly what was predicted—which means of course that when we have put in place tax cuts, family payments increases and the pension increase, these have assisted families and, particularly for many families in low- and middle-income situations, they have received more assistance than they need to deal with cost-of-living impacts.
So there is no need to theorise about all of this; we actually know what carbon pricing means in our economy. It means economic growth continues. It means the number of jobs continues to grow. It means investments continue to grow. It means that the cost-of-living impacts are exactly what was predicted, which means that many millions of families are in fact better off.
What is less clear and less known, of course, is the impact of the opposition's so-called direct action policy, where there can be penalties put on firms which would inevitably be passed through to consumers and hit their cost of living, and where you do not know how big the impact will be on our economy as a result of the uncertainty that will be generated. What we do know is that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister who asked the question are promising a world of uncertainty for Australian businesses and families whereas, under this government, Australian businesses and families know that carbon pricing is working and that none of the fear campaign led by the Leader of the Opposition has in any way come true. The Leader of the Opposition has been unmasked as simply not credible whenever he speaks about carbon pricing.
I have a supplementary question. I refer the Prime Minister to her answer to the previous question and ask whether she is aware that the 2016 European forward carbon permit price is actually $5.42, and how she reconciles that fact with the budget estimate that the 2016 carbon price will be $12.10. How can the budget papers be believed when— (Time expired)
I thank the shadow minister for his question because it does give me the opportunity to say that, during the last parliamentary week, we listened to any amount of nonsense from the opposition about budget figures. What has happened in the week since is that the Secretary of the Treasury has verified that, had the pre-election fiscal outlook been delivered on budget day, then the same set of numbers would have been delivered. For all of the opposition's false campaigning—
It's got the same assumptions.
The member for North Sydney!
Mr Hockey interjecting—
No, you're not; you're not helping the House.
For all of the opposition's fearmongering and ridiculous nonsense in the lead-up to the budget and budget week itself, it is now no longer possible for the opposition to pursue these claims because the Treasury secretary has verified—
Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. Is the Prime Minister aware that the $5.42 figure was from her own officials today?
The member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call and will be relevant to the question.
In being relevant to the question, I was asked about budget numbers and I am making the point that, despite the ridiculous claims of the opposition, what has been verified is that the numbers would be the same as the PEFO numbers had the pre-election fiscal outlook been delivered on budget Tuesday. That now gives the opposition nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Now is the time for it to put out its cuts to the bone. Its last refuge, of waiting for PEFO, is now gone. If they are hiding those cuts, Australians know what to conclude: they are so deep and so hurtful that they do not want Australians to know the truth.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley is warned!
My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the government making the smart investments to support our schools through the National Plan for School Improvement?
I thank the member for Parramatta for her question and for all of the support that she provides to schools in her electorate. She has been, I know, very engaged with the school-improvement agenda and the better-funding agenda, for New South Wales schools and schools around the country, that the government is committed to. As this parliament now sits, I think it is very important we recognise where the debate about school funding and school improvement is up to. The government is absolutely committed to making sure that our schools are in the top five in the world by 2025. That means we want our teachers, classrooms and children to be properly resourced, not just now but for generations to come, so that they can have the money necessary to pay for literacy and numeracy coaches, specialist staff and the equipment that they need.
I am very pleased that I was able to enter into an agreement with Premier O'Farrell, who knows that the current funding model is broken and who did not want to see his schools falling behind. We have, since entering into that agreement, heard a lot of ridiculous claims about what the agreement with New South Wales means. We have been told that Barry O'Farrell has been conned and that it is a very bad deal. Fortunately, Premier O'Farrell has answered that, and answered that directly. Then the Minister for Education in New South Wales went on his own campaign of myth busting and has made it very clear that the extreme claims being made by the opposition about our school-funding agenda are simply untrue. The minister in New South Wales, a National not a Liberal, has mythbusted the opposition's claims about indexation. He simply said it was wrong to suggest indexation—which is determined by average government school recurrent costs—under the present model would be as high as that claimed by the shadow minister for education. He has gone on to say that the deal in New South Wales with this government is better than the status quo and better than anything the shadow minister for education has indicated he is prepared to offer. He has said very clearly schools are better off under this government and, of course, that is true.
What we do know as well is that the Leader of the Opposition, and many in the opposition, are going in hard behind the scenes to try to prevent other conservative states signing up to a plan that is better for schools and better for children. One asks: what type of person is it who would lobby behind the scenes to see schoolchildren denied the best possible funding for their classrooms? Despite that negativity and those bullyboy tactics, we will get on with the job of ensuring we improve every classroom for every child. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the statement today in Senate estimates by climate change departmental officials that Treasury had ignored market prices for market traded carbon tax revenue forecasts and instead chose a straight-line method that shows revenue going up and up and up even though the market is going down and down and down. Given that the government has used market prices for commodities and currencies and so on, Treasurer, where has this novel new straight-line methodology come from and can you name the economists that support it? (Time expired)
I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. Here they go again, attacking the Treasury and attacking Treasury officials. We have seen it for weeks and weeks and weeks. They go out there and attack Treasury officials because that is going to be their smokescreen for their failure to put forward any detailed, costed policy for the future. Now when the Secretary of the Treasury went out last week, he ripped away the last remaining fig leaf from the shadow Treasurer and made it very clear that the forecasts that are in the budget are the forecasts of our professional advisers, the same people who advised those opposite when they were in government. And this question is simply at piece with their continued attack on the professionalism of the Treasury because they have never forgiven the Department of the Treasury and the department of finance for blowing the whistle on their $11 billion hole after the last election. All that this is about is sour grapes, but it is something much more than that—
On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the Treasurer was asked about his groundbreaking new straight-line methodology for estimates forecasts of the budget. He says to stop attacking the Treasury, but he is obsessed with—
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call and will return to the question before the chair.
This is an out-and-out attack on the Treasury, on the professional advice that they provide to the government, because they will not put forward costed policies as we go through to the next election because they know if the Australian people know what they are going to do no-one would ever vote for them. And that is what this is all about: hiding very big cuts which will go right to the bone and trying to get through an election campaign without detailing in a costed way their policies. They now have a secure bottom line. There is nothing to stop those opposite, if they think the government is spending too much, to detail how much they will cost. There is nothing to stop it right now from walking into this House and doing that in the context of these figures which—
The Treasurer will be relevant to the question.
It is very clear what sort of agenda we are dealing with here. It is an agenda to attack the Treasury and its professional officials. The fact is the shadow Treasurer is referring to projections in the forward estimates, and it is entirely professional for the Treasury to do it that way.
On a supplementary question, given that the climate change department secretary said questions about the 'pros and cons of the modelling needed to be directed to the Treasury' and given that the Treasurer said 'no other government in our history has done what we have done in the recent budget', Treasurer, when will you deliver an honest budget?
The question is out of order.
My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Will the minister update the House on how the government is investing in all Australian schools to build a smarter and fairer nation and what would be the impact if the government's record investment did not flow through to our schools?
I thank the member for Bass who, like Labor members on this side, has seen such incredible investment in education in his electorate: $86 million, 25 classrooms, seven libraries, seven science or language centres refurbished, four trades training centres, eight schools benefiting in Bass, 7,200 families benefiting from the Labor schoolkids bonus that Mr Abbott wants to take away. So the budget did make a clear choice about investing in a national plan for school improvement. We choose to invest $9.8 billion in the future. Add that to states' investment and you will get over $14 billion in additional investment in schools around Australia linked to the reforms that we know make such a big difference in schools. So I welcome the Tasmanian Labor government's decision to allocate some extra resource funding in the state budget for school reforms. If they agree on a national plan for school improvement with the Commonwealth with the amounts that we put in here, Tasmanian schools would see about an extra $400 million in funding over the future for things like literacy and numeracy coaches, homework clubs and the like, things that are entirely geared to making sure that Tasmania has got a well-trained, well-educated workforce for the high-skilled jobs of the future.
I am asked about the impact on this investment and what happens if it does not flow, which of course is the policy of those opposite. The fact is that Tasmanian students will not get that support under Mr Abbott's proposals at the moment. There has been a lot of confusion about the opposition's views on education and the National Plan for School Improvement but I could not help but notice their discussion paper called Building a strong, prosperous Tasmania. The Leader of the Opposition put together a working group, went down to Tasmania and listened to the community to come up with a vision for the future.
On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the minister was not asked about the opposition's policies at all. He certainly is not responsible for the Tasmanian state or the Tasmanian package. He has to answer the question he was asked or sit down.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The member for Bass got to ask his question and the minister has the call.
So it was a paper called Building a strong, prosperous Tasmania. I had a quick look at it. Now who would be surprised that, following a consultation by the Leader of the Opposition, there is not one mention of education or schools in this paper at all—not one? The link between education and prosperity has not dropped into their thinking over there.
Dr Jensen interjecting—
Order, if the member for Tangney wants to stay till after question time!
If we want a fairer and smarter nation, we know that one of the surest ways to get us on that path is to invest in education, and that is what the debate in this parliament is about, that is what Gonski is about and that is what our plan for the future is about: investing in a national plan for school education so that the kids in our schools get good jobs in the future, not about cutting education to the bone like Mr Abbott wants to do.
I have been advised that we have in the gallery today Baroness Sheila Hollins, a member of the House of Lords, with her husband, Martin. We welcome them to question time.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his comment to the National Press Club on the day after the budget: 'We brought a super profits tax in at precisely the time the super profits disappeared.' If so-called 'super profits' have disappeared, on what basis has the Treasurer decided to forecast that the mining tax revenue will increase over 1,000 per cent from $200 million this year to $2.2 billion in 2016-17?
We have now had a repeat of the attack on the Treasury forecast, this time from the shadow finance minister. Let the Hansard record another attack on the Treasury by the finance spokesman and another attack on the Treasury by the shadow Treasurer today. Why is this happening? This is happening because they want to erect a Trojan Horse which will cover up the fact that they are not going to have their policies costed and detailed and put before the Australian people before the election. What they are doing is following the Campbell Newman playbook. The Campbell Newman playbook was: don't tell the people of Queensland what you are going to do before the election. Then, if you get elected, you have an audit commission. Then you sack 14,000 people and you hack away—
Speaker, on a point of order: page 569 of the Practice indicates that ministers should not engage in irrelevancies like comparing opposition policies. There are four suggested solutions. I must say it has the clang of an empty vessel.
Order! The member will resume her seat. It was an abuse. The Treasurer has the call.
The MRRT is forecast to raise $5.5 billion over the forward estimates. How much would the opposition raise? Zero, absolutely zero! So for them to turn their noses up at MRRT revenue also shows how irresponsible they are and how they are driven by ideology. That ideology is very simple: get stuck into working people and get stuck into the benefits that working people receive from government, which is exactly what they are about to do by ripping away the schoolkids bonus.
Look at their paid parental leave scheme. They are going to give $75,000 to millionaires and rip away the schoolkids bonus from people on modest wages. What does that say about their priorities?
The Treasurer will return to the question.
I will tell you what it says about their priorities. They are quite happy to get rid of the MRRT, which is a tax on super profits and works as it should: when they go up, it taxes; when they go down, it does not. We just happen to have had in the second part of last year the biggest drop in commodity prices that we have seen in many, many years. But that does not mean to say that an MRRT or a PRRT is not an important tax to have in our system to make sure the Australian people get value from the minerals they own 100 per cent. Those opposite do not have that belief. They think these are owned by the companies themselves and the individuals. They are quite happy to give them a free go. We on this side of the House will always do the right thing by people on low and middle incomes and we will keep doing it.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister outline the government's consultative and responsible approach to investing in transport infrastructure? Why is it important that we make the right choice to build infrastructure for a stronger economy and what would be the impact of not doing this?
I thank the member for Moreton for his question. He is a big supporter of infrastructure projects like the Ipswich Motorway and the Cross River Rail in Brisbane. We are investing real money for real projects to make a real difference to communities right across Queensland—projects like the Cross River Rail, recommended by Infrastructure Australia because it stacks up; a project that will take 14,000 cars off Brisbane streets and allow an extra 17,000 people to travel on the rail network during peak hours. It has benefits for western and northern suburbs of Brisbane as well as the Gold and Sunshine coasts. It is a smart investment for our future that will keep our economy strong.
This did not come out of nowhere. This took two years of negotiation, a 2,000-page submission from the Queensland government, face-to-face meetings between ministers as well as discussions between our respective departments. What happens when you have an agreement between different levels of government is that you have an exchange of letters. I have here a letter from Scott Emerson, the Queensland minister. He asked for the project to be delivered as a PPP: we agreed. He asked for $715 million from each level of government: we agreed. He asked for 50-50 funding towards the availability payment: we agreed. He asked for the Queensland government to cover the operating costs: we agreed. He asked for the Australian government to guarantee private sector debt: we agreed. He had a final condition, that the project be subject to concessional treatment with the Australian government payments, and we agreed.
Each and every ask: we agreed. The state asked and we delivered. They got exactly what they asked for. I table the letter from Minister Emerson and I table my response, agreeing to the position, on behalf of the government. We have had a position, as a result of the opposition's intransigence and statements to the Queensland government, whereby they put their political interests before the interests of people in Brisbane and those who are stuck in congestion in South-East Queensland. We have firmly put our position on the table. The Queensland government agreed and we are in a position to move forward. But the opposition says, 'Don't fund any public transport.' So the Queensland government, in spite of the fact that the MOU had been agreed to by both departments, has now walked away from that project, meaning that there will be gridlock in Brisbane and South-East Queensland in the coming years.
Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has talked about the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane. What other infrastructure investment is the government making in this year's budget across Queensland and why are these the right choices?
I thank the member for his question. We are investing in rail projects as well as road projects. We are investing in the cities and in the regions in projects like the Moreton Bay regional rail link in Brisbane, which is under construction thanks to funding being brought forward, and under threat by the opposition's 'no to public transport' policy. They have made it clear that where a contract is not finalised they will rip that money and that project back. We have put $2½ billion into the Ipswich Motorway, including additional money for the next section in this year's budget—but there has been nothing from those opposite. We are putting $5.7 billion in total into the Bruce Highway, including the $4.1 billion 10-year plan; nothing, and no commitments from those opposite. We are putting over $300 million into the Warrego Highway; from those opposite, absolutely no commitment whatsoever.
You wonder why they have such an objection to public transport. I was thinking about this, and I went back to one of his role models, Margaret Thatcher, who said in 1986:
A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure.
Those opposite have an elitist approach to anything that the word 'public' is in. They do not like public schools, they do not like public transport, they do not like the public. (Time expired)
Mr Christensen interjecting—
The member for Dawson is warned, and he is denying his colleague the call. The member for Stirling has the call, if his colleagues will assist him!
My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that since Friday five boats carrying 300 people have already been intercepted off Christmas Island, with over 10,000 people arriving illegally in Australia this year alone. With the rate of arrivals increasing, does the Prime Minister stand by her forecast that spending on border protection will fall by 50 per cent over the forward estimates?
During the course of question time we have spoken about the budget numbers and the Secretary of the Treasury's verification that had the pre-election fiscal outlook been produced on budget night it would have had the same figures in it. Yet again, we have the opposition attacking Treasury. Why are they doing that? They are doing that because on many occasions they have engaged in this game of saying that they cannot be clear with the Australian people about their cuts to the bone until they see the pre-election fiscal outlook during the formal campaign period. Unfortunately for the opposition, that excuse has now just been shattered. The opposition now know that the numbers in the budget are the numbers that they should be working against.
For every expenditure that the opposition says it wants to engage in it should nominate a saving. When it repudiates $5.5 billion of mining tax revenue, where is the matching cutback? When it repudiates more than $20 billion of carbon pricing revenue, where is the matching cut? That is the position that the opposition is in, so before any other opposition spokesperson comes to the despatch box and points to budget numbers they should have the honesty and the decency to verify when the Australian people will hear from them and where their cuts to the bone will fall. How much out of Medicare? How much out of hospitals? How much out of schools? How much out of family payments?
The Prime Minister will return to the question. The Prime Minister needs to be relevant to the question.
That is the task for the opposition, not these continuing disgraceful attacks on Treasury.
My question is to the Attorney-General. What action has the government taken to support a more open and tolerant society and to respond to threats of hate speech in Australia?
I thank the member for Robertson for her question. Around one in five Australians have told the Human Rights Commission that they have experienced race hate talk such as verbal abuse, racial slurs or name calling. More than one in 20 Australians say that they have been physically attacked because of their race. These are concerning statistics, and I am sure they will be of concern to all those in this House. Our government is committed to standing up against racial hatred in Australia. We believe that speech based on racial hatred must not be tolerated. Racist hate speech is a threat to the dignity of individuals, to communities and, ultimately, to the security of the Australian people. We all know from bitter experience what hate speech can lead to.
In 1994 the Keating government introduced hate-speech provisions into the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. In introducing these laws the then Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, was clear about their purpose, saying:
The Racial Hatred Bill is about the protection of groups and individuals from threats of violence and the incitement of racial hatred, which leads inevitably to violence.
… … …
No Australian should live in fear because of his or her race, colour or national or ethnic origin.
For almost 20 years these provisions have served these noble purposes, helping to protect Australians and everyone in the Australian community by making hate speech unlawful. The provisions have been used in a number of serious cases, including to prevent Holocaust deniers from publishing their poisonous falsehoods. Freedom of speech is also a value that the Australian Labor Party holds dear, and that is why our laws against hate speech contain broad defences to ensure that open debate and political communication in our country are not unnecessarily constrained.
In April this year, the Prime Minister demonstrated our government's commitment to stand up against hate speech and discrimination by signing on behalf of our nation the London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism. The declaration commits its signatories to take meaningful legislative action to combat not only anti-Semitism but also discrimination against any minority, and in particular the declaration commits parliamentarians to legislate effective hate crime legislation and make illegal incitement to racial hatred. We already have such laws in Australia in the form of the hate speech provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act, and I welcome the decision of coalition members to follow the Prime Minister's lead in signing the London declaration. I very much hope that this means that we have bipartisan support for laws that already prohibit hate speech in our nation. (Time expired)
Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. I note in the minister's response his reference to both national matters and concerns and also international matters as we proceed on this very important issue in concert with others. Are there programs that the Human Rights Commission have engaged in regarding hate speech, of which the Attorney-General is aware?
I thank the member for Robertson for her supplementary question. I was indicating in my previous answer that we have laws against hate speech in our country. They are laws that have been there since 1995 and they have very well served our nation. I hope very much that we will have bipartisan support in our country for these laws.
In addition to these laws, as the member for Robertson asked, we have a number of programs that the Human Rights Commission administer. These are part of national strategies that we have to combat racism in our community. They are programs such as 'Say NO to Racism' and 'Stand up Against Racism', and they are accompanied by various forms of media campaign.
It is heartening to see that the kinds of messages that the Human Rights Commission have been putting out for several years, with the assistance of a number of sporting figures in our country and sporting codes in our country, are, it seems, being taken to heart by Australians. I point in that regard to the kinds of incidents we have seen on public transport. I can point to some incidents in Melbourne where passengers have stood up and condemned the racist language they heard directed against fellow passengers. That is the kind of attitude we want to see from Australians, where people stand up and say no to racism. (Time expired)
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
In accordance with standing order 51, I wish to raise a matter of privilege. The matter concerns the possible giving of false or misleading evidence to a committee, in this case the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The giving of false or misleading evidence to a committee is a long recognised category of contempt. The success of parliamentary committees depends on their ability to receive truthful evidence.
On 10 March 2012, Mr Tom Burbidge, representing Lockheed Martin on the Joint Strike Fighter program, gave evidence in connection with the aircraft. There were a number of areas where he gave false and misleading evidence, including relating to the performance of the aircraft and in relation to its weight. These statements are directly contradicted by reports from the independent Director of Operational Test and Evaluation from the US Department of Defense, appointed by the US President and confirmed by the US Congress. I present papers in connection with this matter, and ask you to consider giving precedence to a motion in connection with the matter.
I thank the member. I point out in this instance, given it was a matter within the committee, in accordance with practice of previous Speakers such matters must be in the first instance brought to the attention of the committee and dealt with there before they will be considered by the Speaker. That is the advice I am providing to you today. I thank the member for bringing the issue to the House.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedingsand I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Defence Force Discipline Act 1982—Judge Advocate General—Report for 2012.
Education and Care Services Ombudsman, National Education and Care Services Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioners—Report for the period January to June 2012.
Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform—National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and related bills; and Senate Standing Community Affairs Legislation Committee—National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 [Provisions], National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 1) 2012 [Provisions] and National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 2) 2012 [Provisions]—Government response.
Productivity Commission—Report No. 61—Compulsory licensing of patents, 28 March 2013.
Sydney Airport Demand Management Act—Quarterly report on movement cap for Sydney airport for the period 1 January to 31 March 2013.
Debate adjourned.
I present the Auditor-General's progress audit reports Nos 36 to 38 for 2012-13, entitled Commonwealth environmental watering activities: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; Administration of grants from the Education Investment Fund: Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education; and Indigenous Early Childhood Development: children and family centres: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
Pursuant to standing order 17(a), I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable members for Barton, Page and Shortland to be members of the Speaker’s panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker.
I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 7, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill. I do so with some interest as I believe aged care is one of the great challenges that confronts this nation. Particularly in an area such as the one that I represent, the difficulties of caring for our older Australians are somewhat magnified. Nine per cent of our population is aged 70 years or older. By 2050 over 3.5 million Australians are expected to use aged care each year. At the moment there are about 8,000 outlets providing aged-care services across Australia. By 2050 it is estimated that aged-care expenditure will be three per cent of GDP. Our population is living longer and living with more health conditions than ever before.
Aged care is a highly regulated industry and I have got to say that the impact of red tape and the burden of compliance are threatening the viability of aged-care facilities across the country. Across the nation only 40 per cent of aged-care providers are operating in the black and I suspect that in my electorate a number of providers facing financial difficulty would be somewhat higher than that. There is an increasing demand for aged care but the pressures on the aged-care sector are making it particularly hard. The $1.6 billion cut from the aged-care funding instrument, ACFI, under these reforms has placed it under substantially more pressure. Indeed, in the last financial year the average aged-care provider in my electorate believed they are about $100,000 worse off on their bottom line.
The alarm bells started to ring for me in 2008-09 when the member for Richmond was the Minister for Aged Care. I can remember very clearly a statement in this place when the member for Richmond said that her background as a police officer had her placed very well to clamp down on unscrupulous aged-care providers. While everyone obviously wants proper care and does not want unscrupulous behaviour, I think that showed that minister's and this government's understanding of the aged-care industry. What the aged-care industry does not want is red tape and overt compliance; they want support. The aged-care staff very much feel like the poor cousins in the healthcare sector. Wherever I go I see aged-care workers doing an incredible job. Not everyone can work in aged care. Not only do you have to be physically able to undertake what is now becoming quite a strenuous occupation, you have to be blessed with a certain personality, a caring personality, an unflappable personality and a personality that enables you to be kind and generous in very difficult circumstances. I can say with complete confidence that in the aged-care sector in the Parkes electorate that is very much what I see.
We have seen a change in aged care over the last 20 or 30 years which is in some ways putting pressure on the industry. Many people now are cared for at home. This package of bills largely focuses on increased home care packages. I essentially do not have an issue with that, but what that has done is change the face of aged care. Many of the facilities that were built as hostel type accommodation now are struggling to find residents seeking hostel accommodation but there is a much higher demand for high-care beds. In some of these facilities that does create a problem because the infrastructure is not there for the high care. Indeed, in some cases the upgrades involved mean it is nearly easier to start again and build a new facility.
The Productivity Commission report Caring for older Australians that came out in August 2011 had a raft of recommendations. Unfortunately, this legislation cherry-picks only a few of those. The Senate is undertaking an inquiry which is due to report on 31 May and the shadow minister, Mr Dutton, has moved amendments to delay the final passage of these bills until we can see the report of that committee. I think that is a sensible and fair approach to this. It is a great frustration to me that in this place we quite often deal with very complex issues that contain a lot of information but seem to be dealt with in a five minutes to midnight approach where there is a rush to get them through. So I support the amendment that we see the final report of the Senate committee so that we have got all the information before us before we make our final decision.
There are limitations with this legislation that I can see already. Rural and regional providers are in a unique situation. Where metro services can specialise, can have niche operations, in rural towns you have to have a broad range of services available, quite often with the one organisation. This is the same with the disability sector: when you have a smaller population you have a large range of different care needs but a smaller number. I can use my home town of Warialda as an example for this. Warialda has a district population of roughly a couple of thousand people. The local council originally constructed Naroo, an aged-care hostel-type facility. Indeed, my father was the driving force and initial chairman for Naroo. Over a period of time the demand has grown, and Naroo has been extended twice, partly funded by federal government grants and partly funded by contributions from the local community. Indeed, the last extension—when I was the Mayor of Gwydir Shire—cost that community well over $1 million, and it was full the day it was finished. At the moment, the Warialda community has obtained a low-interest loan of $3 million from the federal government to construct another wing on Naroo. It will be dementia-specific for caring with people with high-care and dementia needs.
A small community needs to do that because you need the services in a small town. You need to have a doctor to treat you. You need a hospital if you need higher care. You need to be able to spend your later years within your local community. You need to be surrounded by family and friends so that, when you are in a stage of needing higher care, you can have your family around you. While in a larger metropolitan area having someone a suburb or two away might not be a big deal, it is when the next provider is an hour's drive away—and we have seen this in Warialda. One of the driving things that we have seen for this facility in this community is couples who have been together for 60 or 65 years and one of them has dementia or needs higher care. It is not available in the local town. They are sent to the nearest available facility—an hour away—and, after 60 years, that couple is essentially torn apart. The member of the relationship that is not in care quite often does not have the ability to do that travel. If they can, it is only once a week.
I have seen that all over my electorate. Indeed, I have couples in Lake Cargelligo where one of them is in care in either Griffith or Condobolin, and essentially the other one cannot be there to provide the necessary care. I know with dementia care that, while people get the best of care, there is nothing like having a family member who can come in every day to provide some form of certainty, whether it is feeding or just mental stimulation. We need those places. Aged care is very important in my patch. The town of Gilgandra has done a wonderful job providing an aged-care haven for their residents. They have actually done such a good job that now people are coming from other areas to retire and ultimately end up getting higher care in Gilgandra from what is available there. In Coonabarabran, Moree, Dubbo and Mudgee there are great facilities.
There are some communities in stress. At Cobar, Lillian Brady Village Nursing Home is having a lot of problems at the moment. It needs an upgrade. There are 40 people in care there, and the local community, because it is small in population, is struggling to support that organisation financially. In Lake Cargelligo we do not have high care. The NPS does provide some beds there, but for dementia specifically there is not that care. So we are seeing people from that community being torn asunder.
Who should pay?
We have an interjection from over there. I think the member from Tasmania, whose electorate is known in my area as a horse paddock in size, might want to have a greater understanding of the issues of communities such as Cobar, Nyngan or Warialda. Those communities provide a service and have a place within the Australian economy. Those communities such as Cobar provide a lot to the gross domestic product of this nation, and the people living there are just as entitled to services. It is surprising that a member from Tasmania, which only survives on the largesse and subsidy of the mainland, could even make such as comment.
The member for Parkes will ignore the interjections and return to the topic.
Apologies, Madam Speaker. The point I make is that people should be able to be cared for in their own community. They should be able to spend their last days in their local community. People do not often speak about this, but you should be able to die in your local community. Being able to die amongst your family and friends is very important, and I have to say I have had enough of the people of my electorate being shunted off in an ambulance in the last days of their lives, away from their loved ones, to have palliative care in a larger regional centre. I quite frankly do not care who pays for it as long as someone does.
This is complex legislation. Aged care is the elephant in the room as far as the Australian economy and community are concerned. We need to come to terms with it. We need to find out the results of the Senate inquiry. We need not to rush into this and to do this with due process.
These bills are very important and should pass. There should not be these hold-ups being mentioned by the member for Parkes; that is just playing games with this very important legislation. It should be passed in the parliament, and the opposition is frustrating that by bringing in amendments and saying they want to wait for reports out of the Senate—absolute nonsense! The whole aged-care industry of Australia is calling for these bills to be passed, and they should be.
We should not consider Australia's ageing population as a disadvantage to our country. As we are growing older we are living longer and with better health. By 2050 the proportion of people aged 65 and over is expected to increase from 13 to 23 per cent—from around three million to over eight million people. We have to start thinking differently about ageing. Australians can now expect to have an extended period of healthy, active retirement that we would never have thought about a few years ago.
Our challenge is to make sure that, as we live longer, we continue to lead happy, healthy, productive and connected lives. Older Australians have the energy, experience and wisdom to contribute to business, education and the community, and we need to be more creative in the ways we encourage and support these contributions.
Therefore, the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, has been going around communities, listening to their ideas and needs. I had a forum recently in my home town of Longford where about fifty people contributed their ideas and beliefs about ageing. These consultations were part of many all around Australia and, as a result, these bills are being put forward to implement quite a revolutionary aged-care package.
The bills relate to the Living Longer Living Better aged-care reform package, as was announced on 20 April 2012. The package encompasses a comprehensive ten-year plan to reshape aged care. The Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 is one of five bills amending the Aged Care Act 1997, and related legislation, to give effect to the Living Longer Living Better reforms. The legislative package comprises: the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency Bill 2013; the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013; the Aged Care (Bond Security) Amendment Bill 2013; and the Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2013; as well as the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013.
The Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 implements reforms in four key areas: changes relating to residential care; changes to establish a new type of care, home care; changes relating to governance and administration; and changes that are minor, administrative or consequential. These bills: amend the Aged Care Act 1997 to remove the distinction between low-care and high-care residential care; provide for a means test combining income and assets tests, and annual and lifetime caps, on means-tested care fees; provide for a dementia supplement, veterans' mental health supplement and workforce supplement to be payable to providers who care for eligible care recipients; enable care recipients to choose the method by which they pay for accommodation, including by a fully-refundable lump sum, a rental-style periodic payment, or a combination of both; replace community care and some forms of care delivered in a person's home with home care; extend the Community Visitors Scheme to people in home care; appoint and provide for the functions of an Aged Care Pricing Commissioner, require the commissioner to prepare an annual report, and provide that an independent review of this package is undertaken and provided to the minister by 1 July 2017. The eight acts are to make consequential and technical amendments.
Through these bills we have established a new type of care, home care, to replace community care and certain types of flexible care currently delivered in the home. As part of these reforms, this government has already increased the number of home-care places, with over 5,800 additional places available just this year. This will continue to increase each year with the total allocation of home-care places rising from around 60,000 to almost 100,000 over the next five years. From 1 July 2013, four levels of home care will enable consumers to access the packages that best suit their needs.
In addition, there will be two new supplements: a dementia supplement and a veterans' supplement. These supplements will be available across all care levels for consumers whose care needs might be greater due to dementia and for veterans with mental health conditions who may also need greater support.
A new workforce supplement will also provide additional funding to eligible home-care providers so that the workforce can better meet the needs of consumers. The new supplement will mean more workers can access more appropriate pay and improved training and development.
The aged-care workplace will be better and it will be safer. We will seek to ensure that the increasing numbers of elderly people remaining in their homes are not socially isolated by extending the Community Visitors Scheme from residential care to home care as well—a great initiative.
I know that, in Lyons, Tasmanians have sent us a resounding message: that they want to age at home. But the need for residential care will continue to grow. To support this, from 1 July 2014 the different treatment for low-level and high-level residential care will be removed. There will only be one type of approval for permanent residential care. Anybody assessed as needing permanent residential care will be able to access any residential care service that meets his or her needs at the time of entry into care.
These approvals will not lapse, unless expressly time limited, so there will be fewer reassessments and it will be easier for consumers to access the care that they need—something that I think consumers are asking for constantly. These changes will mean continuity of service will be available from home care through to residential care. They will make it easier for people to move through the system. From 1 July 2013, all new home-care places allocated to providers are offered on a consumer directed care basis. From 1 July 2015, all new and pre-existing home-care places must be offered on this basis.
Consumer directed care is the future of aged care. This means that consumers will work with their home-care providers to choose the elements of care that best suit both their needs and their home-care package budget. This does not require legislation but will be a condition of the allocation of home-care places.
Secondly, care recipients and their families in residential care will be able to purchase additional amenities or supplementary care. Through these bills, we will continue to allow residential care places to be offered on a dedicated extra service basis, whereby an agreed set of extra services are paid for under one fee. Importantly, care recipients, whether or not they are in an extra service place, will also be able to opt in and opt out of additional amenities offered by the provider.
Thirdly, the bills change the arrangements relating to accommodation payments for residential care. For the first time, consumers will have real choice and real control. Approved providers will continue to be required to enter into an agreement with each care recipient in relation to accommodation payments. Importantly, care recipients who can afford to contribute to their accommodation costs will have real choice regarding how they pay for their accommodation. They will be given the choice to pay either a fully refundable deposit or a periodic payment, or a combination of both. They will also be able to draw down periodic payments from that refundable deposit.
In relation to home care, the bills will introduce new income-testing arrangements from 1 July 2014. All home-care recipients may be asked to pay a daily fee of up to 17.5 per cent of the single basic age pension amount, as is the case now.
In addition, those who can afford to may also be asked to pay an income-tested care fee. There is already an income-tested care fee in community care. The new arrangements will ensure consistency and will embed protections for consumers. While some home-care recipients will need to contribute more to the cost of their care through an income-tested care fee, safeguards are being introduced.
For example, no full-rate pensioner will pay an income-tested care fee; no care recipient will be asked to contribute more than the cost of their care; no care recipient's home or other assets will be included in assessing their capacity to pay an income-tested care fee for home care; and there will be both annual and lifetime caps on income-tested care fees.
Once a person reaches the applicable annual or lifetime cap, they will pay no more income-tested care fees. The annual cap in home care will be from $5,000 to $10,000, depending on the income of the person. The lifetime cap will be $60,000 and all caps will be indexed.
The Living Longer Living Better series of bills are historic and will allow a fundamental change in how aged-care recipients, workers and providers can develop a modern, fit-for-purpose aged-care system. These bills build the foundations for reforms now and in the future. They also give force to a major review, to be undertaken in 2016-17, to ensure these reforms meet and continue to meet the needs of Australians. This review will focus on measuring the effectiveness of the reforms and will determine further steps which can be taken to reduce supply controls and increase choice for consumers.
Overall, these bills build on the work of the Productivity Commission to begin a 10-year program of reform to improve Australia's aged-care system. So it is really important that these bills pass the House of Representatives and then go on to the Senate. They should not be held up by the opposition wanting to play politics—and that is what they are doing. There has been a lot of press today, asking everybody in the industry about this legislation. I did not read one article which said, 'No, we don't want these bills to pass.' I think it is really important that members on the other side of the parliament really put pressure on their shadow minister and tell him to stop playing politics and to get on with passing these bills. People want these changes.
The member for Parkes, who preceded me in this debate, took exception when I interjected during his speech. He was speaking about his own electorate and how there were some very good nursing homes, and I am sure there are. I am sure there is great care within them and I am sure their communities make great contributions. But so does mine and so do those in electorates of members all around the country. But you have to find ways to fund them. It is difficult to find ways to continue to fund regional areas when you have small centres with 40 to 50 beds.
The member for Parkes also referred to getting workers to work for very low wages. Nursing homes have very low income levels for people who are carers. It is difficult to get people in there. We have to endeavour to improve workplace issues such as those. It is no good trying to run away from them; they need to be focused on.
People want to stay in their homes. Home care will start to deliver more of that. I think that is critically important and it is what people have been asking for for a long time. We have to get developers to look at independent living units and to build units around the country for people to go from a three-bedroom house to a unit or a smaller centre. They need to do that. People want it and we need to make sure that that happens. I certainly hope we can pass these bills this week and I call on the opposition to get behind them and give them full support.
I rise today because I have serious reservations about these bills before us: the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and cognate bills. In the consultations that I have had with the aged-care sector in my electorate I have not heard that there is a unanimous approach to these bills being passed. As a matter of fact, I have heard the opposite. I have heard that they have real concerns about these bills. I have wonderful aged-care providers right across the electorate of Wannon—whether it be in Maryborough, Ararat, Hamilton, Portland, Warrnambool, Mortlake, Casterton or Cobden; you can go on and on. A lot of them are small aged-care providers. A lot of them are not-for-profits. A lot of the aged-care facilities were built through community fundraising.
People in these communities are committed to seeing these aged-care facilities continue into the future, because they have a real belief that in country areas where you grow up, where you live, if it is your desire, that is where you should be able to spend the last part of your life. You should be able to do that within your community where your family is and your friends are. This is vitally important to these communities, and they want to make sure that there is a future for their facilities.
I am not certain that this bill provides that, and the aged-care providers in my electorate are not certain that these bills provide that. They have real concerns with these five bills. They have concerns, to start with, with the process. Like everything the Gillard government, and before it the Rudd government, has done, there have been process issues. There has been a real lack of proper consultation. There has been the idea that: 'We know best, Canberra knows best and we will just dictate how it will work and consultation will work. These are the bills that we want to introduce. This is the program we want to introduce. These are the policies that we want you to follow and you will abide by them. We might allow some minor tinkering around the edges but we will dictate to you what our approach will look like.'
It is not a proper, ground-up policy approach where you consult with industry. You do not only consult with those big providers in the major capital cities; you venture out into the regions, into the country, into the rural heartland of our nation and ask those who are providing services, often in difficult circumstances: what could it look like for you as well? What would help you and your facilities? How can we guarantee that you have a future as well? The government sadly did not do that.
The process has been flawed—and the process in this place has been flawed. We have a Senate inquiry still to hand down, and yet the government are trying to rush these bills through. What sort of a sham is that? Why couldn't they at least wait for the Senate inquiry to finish? Eighteen months we have been going through this process and, all of a sudden, we have got to hurry on. All of a sudden the government is saying: 'Oh no, we must expedite this.' Why can't we wait? We have been waiting 18 months; wait a few more days for the Senate inquiry to hand down. You never know: there might be something in there that you should listen to, government. You have been out and consulted again with the industry. I have had aged-care providers in my electorate who have gone to a lot of trouble to make submissions to this inquiry and, once again, you want to treat them with disdain. You go through the process but you are paying lip-service to it. You will not do the right thing by the sector. They are burdened by red tape, and yet you say to them: 'Report. Give the information that you want to give to this Senate inquiry.' Now it is absolutely clear from this process that you are not interested at all in hearing what that Senate inquiry has to say.
Order! Member for Wannon, one moment. I am reluctant to interrupt him but the use of the word 'you' is directed at the Speaker. I would ask him to come back to direct his comments through the chair, not at the chair. It is a common mistake on both sides of the House, and occupiers of this chair are trying to make sure that we correct the record to our advantage at the end of the day in terms of the way members address the chamber.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you are absolutely correct. I refer to the Gillard government and I do not in any way reflect on your good self, because you are obviously doing an outstanding job. Sadly, the Gillard government in this case is not. As a matter of fact, once again they is showing through their process that they are doing a deplorable job. You keep up your outstanding work, Mr Deputy Speaker. I only wish the Gillard government could follow suit, especially when it comes to these bills.
Eighteen months—what have they done in those 18 months? The first thing was the $1.6 billion cut from the aged-care funding instrument under these reforms, so they have placed more pressure on the system and then just let the dialogue dribble along. Then all of a sudden they want to rush this process through. The Gillard government should have learnt their lesson, that process is important to a properly functioning government and, once again, we are seeing the process fail us as a national parliament. Sadly, the impacts are going to be felt, especially when it comes to the smaller not-for-profits in regional and rural areas that provide outstanding services to our elderly Australians.
It is worth noting what the issues are with this package. They are real issues and they boil down to four areas. The first is the workforce compact. Any legislation around the workforce compact needs to be delayed until we can fully understand the implications of it, especially for smaller providers. The workforce compact has the potential to make many facilities economically unviable. The government has not provided the funding to facilities to make sure that they can afford the cost of the workforce compact.
So it is all very well saying that we would like to pay more to those who work in aged-care facilities—very noble and very true in intent. But if it means that facilities are going to close—so, rather than paying people more, you will actually not be providing them with a job—then you have to think twice about what you are doing.
There is a real issue here. This workforce compact could lead to facilities becoming unviable because it is not being properly funded by the government. The government is saying: 'Yeah, sure, we want this. But we won't provide you with the money to do it.' That is not the right way to go about things.
We then have the accommodation payments. Once again: what is the impact of these payments? What impact will they have on the long-term viability of the sector, especially in regional areas? Will the bonds work outside of large capital cities? Once again, there are real questions to be asked here. Has the government thought through this process? Has it thought, 'Okay, it might have one impact in this region; it might have another impact in another region'? No, it has not done that, sadly. There are real deficiencies here.
There is also the red tape, the specified care and services—the continued red tape. Has the government sat down with the sector and really looked at the implications of that? No, they have not. This is why aged-care providers in Mortlake, Cobden, Casterton, Hamilton and Camperdown are terribly concerned by these bills, as they are also in Maryborough and Warrnambool. There are real issues with this legislation.
What would a coalition government do instead, if the Australian people elected us at the forthcoming election? We would have a much better consultative approach. We would actually sit down and discuss, talk, liaise and work with the sector to come up with a four-year provider agreement, which will give the sector certainty for four years and then further into its future.
It is a sensible approach. It is one which gives certainty to the sector. It is one which means the sector is fully involved in how a funding agreement would work. It has worked elsewhere. We have seen this policy work in other areas, so there is no reason why it would not work in this area. That is the approach that we will take. We will make sure through that four-year funding agreement that the specific requirements of different parts of the sector are taken into account.
I would like to thank the shadow minister for coming down to the electorate of Wannon and hearing the concerns that our aged-care providers have about the current government's approach. Those providers understand there are serious flaws there, and the shadow minister understands there are serious flaws there for our part of the country. I would like to thank her for doing that.
I give those aged-care providers in my electorate a commitment that I will work with them to make sure that our four-year approach, our four-year provider agreement, makes sure that their future viability is enhanced and not, as it will be under this package, threatened. I will make sure that I get the shadow minister down again to ensure that the providers' views can be properly heard in how we put the provider agreement in place. As the member for Parkes noted in his speech, it is vitally important for our smaller rural and regional communities that there is the funding there to ensure those aged-care facilities can continue.
Sure, we want to make sure that people can stay in their homes longer—absolutely right. That is where we should continue to direct funding. But where people cannot stay in their homes, where they need care, we have to make sure that it is provided and provided, where we can, in all those towns that need it—especially where there are existing facilities, because they provide employment to those towns.
As a matter of fact, many rural and regional towns, as our population ages, are seeing the benefits of becoming aged-care providers. We want to make sure that the towns can encourage people to come to their facilities and use those facilities. They actually see it as an economic opportunity for the future. We do have great facilities. We do have the workforce that is willing to work in these facilities and that is why we can really make sure that the four-year provider agreement, if we are elected, can really benefit our regions through the good country care that can be provided through those aged-care facilities.
These are very important bills. They deserve the scrutiny that the opposition is determined to give them. We are not just going to wave these bills through; we are not going to let them go through before the Senate inquiry has reported. We want to make sure that the government is held to account on these bills, because they are too important. They have the potential to threaten the ongoing viability of the aged-care facilities in my electorate and in electorates right around country Australia. We will hold these bills to account, we will put the amendments that need to be put, and we will hold the Gillard government to account. The process has been a sham. The consultation has been a sham. And, if we do not hold the government to account, the end result might be a sham.
I rise to talk on the suite of aged-care bills and the amendment. Australia is in the process of change. We are undergoing a significant transformation as we experience an ageing of our nation's population. Australians are living longer than ever before and subtly, yet surely, this shift will define the lives of the next generations of our country. We can expect that a fifth of our population will be over 70 years of age by 2051. Our country will have to contend with challenges such as a shrinking of our tax base from six workers for every retiree to 3.2 workers for every retiree by 2047. We will be facing an extraordinary increase in reliance on health services and a far greater demand on aged-care services.
It is critical that as policymakers we are preparing for our nation's future in every way, but specifically in how to face the challenges of an ageing population. It is critical that we have a separate debate about the best possible ways to approach the changes that we will inevitably face and how this can be managed while keeping our nation's economy strong.
This week we will see two very clear and distinctive alternative plans for our nation's future. We will see a government in chaos and confusion, a government that is scrambling at the last minute to redo their homework sums before the deadline. In contrast we will see a strong, united coalition team that is prepared, willing and able to lead this country into a better and brighter future, a team that has a strong vision for Australia and the practical plans to ensure that we get there. These two integral differences—the two choices that Australians will make this year—are illustrated in this debate about aged care.
The Aged Care (Living Longer, Living Better) Bill 2013 and related bills are a ramshackle packaged offered by this government. They have failed to address the key industry concerns and challenges of addressing real reform for our seniors. This is a wasted opportunity for us to have appropriate and real reform in this sector that will provide stability in the years to come. This package of bills fails miserably to do just this. The aged-care sector—which I have been consulting with in my own electorate and more broadly—has faced five years of neglect from those opposite and now definitive action is needed to ensure that aged-care services are providing effective care for older Australians.
Debate on this package of bills is rushed. My question to the minister is: why the rush? This government has spent over a year sitting on its hands after announcing its aged-care plans, but it has failed to bring any legislation before the parliament. The minister is now attempting to rush through this legislation. The minister has brought forward the reporting date of the Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry, reducing the amount of scrutiny and consideration given to legislation that will amount to significant fundamental changes to the aged-care sector. Already from the Senate inquiry we know that the department is unable to answer many of the questions raised in these bills and that, instead, the minister's department has advised that the detail would not be released until after these bills were passed by the parliament.
Why is this government so determined to avoid proper scrutiny of the finer detail of this legislation? Why is it so determined to push it through the parliament without adequate time for consultation? This is a particularly pertinent question, as most of the legislation does not come into force until July 2014, and that which comes into force in July this year can be dealt with within existing legislation. As I said earlier, this is a policy area that requires significant reform, but it cannot be done on the run. It needs time to ensure that the changes will benefit the sector and the older Australians it cares for. With such an emphasis being placed on aged-care services in the coming years, it is vital that we make well-informed, sound judgements now to avoid ad hoc, bandaid patch-ups later. Might I also refer to a couple of comments from LeadingAge, an aged-care group: every 71 minutes, another older Australian is denied the care they need; $90 million is the recurrent shortfall between income and the real cost of care for those in residential facilities; and 83,000 new beds need to be built in the next nine years, at an estimated $17 billion, to cater for the emerging needs of the elderly.
The Productivity Commission's report recommended a shift from the current ratio system of aged-care licenses to a system where aged care would become part of the health system. It was clear that the amount of red tape and regulation faced by the sector needed to be reduced. Additionally, the Productivity Commission report recommended: the creation of a single Australian seniors gateway agency; that funding be replaced by a single, national care co-contribution regime which would apply across the aged-care system, whether services are delivered in the community or in a residential aged-care facility; greater transparency of care prices; and a range of capital funding options and contributions for accommodation costs.
This package is another example of Labor spin at its best. When the government announced this package, it tried to have us believe that it was putting an additional $3.7 billion toward aged-care funding. Unfortunately, the figure for new funding was closer to $577 million—a small portion of what was promised and what is being called for by the sector itself. This government is attempting to pass off cost-cutting measures and funds shifting as new spending. The most disappointing result of this is that this legislation acts more as a smoke-and-mirrors measure rather than a true problem-solving policy direction. This package of bills does not resolve viability issues for aged-care service providers.
This package of legislation effects changes in four key areas: residential care, home care, governance and administration, and the administrative and consequential changes. The bills will mean that those who enter residential care from 1 July 2014 will face a new means test calculator combining income and assets tests. There will also be new annual and lifetime caps on means-tested care fees under this plan. Under these bills, those in home-care situations will face changes to the way that home-care subsidies and fees are calculated. Many care recipients will be required to contribute more to the cost of their care under income-tested care fees. New annual and lifetime caps will also apply to income-tested care fees. Additionally, a new Aged Care Pricing Commissioner will be established to make decisions on pricing issues.
These bills will add even more regulation to an already overburdened sector. The biggest failure of this package is its failure to address the already over-regulated nature of the sector. The current structure of the aged-care industry already flags some serious concerns about the ongoing viability of service provision. This is an issue that providers have been extremely vocal about. With a major reform of the sector, it was assumed that it would be one of the fundamental points addressed by the government. Unfortunately, the minister has glossed over this concern and has even gone so far as to introduce new red-tape measures, which will make it even more difficult for service providers. Up to 89 per cent of aged-care facilities are set to face 'unrecoverable' losses of revenue under these changes. Anecdotal evidence suggests that aged-care nurses are spending a third of their time on paperwork. This is an incredible regulatory burden that is directly detracting from their ability to provide care to patients. This legislation increases the red tape, which will result in even less time for patient care and much more time on paperwork.
Service providers in my electorate have contacted me regarding these bills to express their deep concerns about the implications for the industry. Already, we are aware that 60 per cent of aged-care facilities are operating in the red due to the increasing compliance demands of government. Providers are handing back their licences and walking away from the sector, because aged-care service provision is simply no longer viable. Under these changes, as revealed by the Senate inquiry, aged-care facilities with less than 60 beds will be so severely impacted that they will be forced to either shut down or amalgamate with other facilities. Even those with more than 60 beds will be under increased pressure with less funds for patient care. Take this example from one service provider: under the changes, they will receive $31.92 less for a patient each day, amounting to $220 less a week. Couple this with increasing wages and it becomes very difficult for a service provider to continue to provide the same level of optimum care to patients. While we are already calling out for additional aged-care beds, the last thing that we can afford to be causing through policy implementation is a further shortage of aged-care beds.
Senior Australians are finding it more and more difficult to obtain places in aged-care facilities. Not only this, but they are finding it more difficult to access the services they require in the context that they desire. There is a pervading opinion held by both older Australians and health professionals, and supported by a growing body of evidence, that the aged-care sector is unable to adequately provide for the complex needs of Australians. This is adding momentum to a growing trend that Australians want to spend longer in their own homes and receive care while remaining in their own homes.
The fear that more Australians are having about being able to access aged-care services should be of serious concern to the government, which is simply not doing enough to address these concerns under this legislation. The government has not listened to what the sector is calling for. Despite its protestations, this government has not undertaken appropriate consultation with industry to determine what is needed. Instead, this government is attempting to ride roughshod over the industry and force changes that are not practical.
We are aware that the proposals the government provided to industry were rejected by providers. Rather than true reform, we now know this is no more than a move to unionise the aged-care sector. Another particularly concerning factor about the way that this legislation has been shaped and the compliance that it intends to thrust upon aged-care service providers is the way that it is seeking to underhandedly increase the union presence in this sector. These bills will mandate a workforce compact and this compact is not supported by aged-care service providers. It will force them into enterprise-bargaining agreements that will effectually subsidise union membership in the industry.
The workforce supplement will see aged-care providers with 50 or more beds required to enter into enterprise-bargaining agreements simply to access funding. This is no less than a blatant attempt to increase union interference under the guise of legislative reform. Further, the minister cut $1.6 billion last year from the Aged Care Funding Instrument in order to finance this $1.2 billion workforce compact. In the words of one of my local aged-care service providers, it is 'taking funds from direct care and placing it into a pool set aside for wage increases without allowing anything to go to on-costs; furthermore, it is totally unaffordable because for every dollar received, the employer has to find another $2 on top of whatever we have committed to in our EBAs.'
This legislation is taking money out of service provision and redirecting it to union dues. This is not a good outcome for the thousands of older Australians whose care will be jeopardised through the loss of funding from services. It is the thousands of Australians who will be adversely affected through these changes for whom we need to be making the right decisions. This is our opportunity to have reform of aged care done well, in a way that assists providers to ensure the best quality of care is provided to Australians in the context that they wish to receive care.
These bills simply do not have the detail about what these changes will be and there is a very short-sighted attitude from those opposite, who are trying to push through these changes without seeing the outcome of the Senate inquiry into what the implications will be for the industry itself.
I rise to speak in relation to the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and cognate bills, and to express my support for the amendment moved by the member for Dickson. These bills are the legislative response to the government's aged-care reform package, which was announced in April 2012. As I move around my community of Gippsland and talk with representatives from the aged-care sector and with the aged-care providers themselves, I have been concerned that this government does not have the confidence of the industry when it comes to delivering this reform package. That is why I support the amendment put forward by the member for Dickson to defer this debate until the Senate committee has reported. I do not trust this government to get it right on this very important issue. I know that may sound harsh, but I will give you one example of this government's dubious motives in relation to aged-care reform—and the member for Hasluck touched on it in his address.
I have a copy of the Living Longer Living Better documents sent to aged-care workers by the minister and I share the member for Hasluck's concern that this is just a union membership campaign. But it is not just members of the Liberal Party and members of the National Party who are raising this concern, as the industry itself—including some of its peak bodies—is raising concerns in relation to the minister's motives on this issue. I quote from a media release of 24 April 2013. It was distributed by the Victorian branch of Leading Age Services Australia and the headline was 'Government delivers another "monumental stuff up" for age services'. It went on to say that the peak body for age and community care 'has heavily criticised the Minister for Ageing, Mark Butler, and the Department of Health and Ageing for last week's Workforce Supplement mail-out'. It said Leading Age Services Australia CEO John Begg described the mail-out as 'deplorable interference and a true waste of government money', saying it was an example of government attempting to influence workers outside the normal course of the industrial relations process. The media release went on to say, in quoting Mr Begg:
"The government does not control or dictate wages outcomes for any approved provider and does not pay a single aged care worker. This is a plain interference with the relationship between employers and employees."
"Providers across the country view this as a backhanded action by the government to unionise the age services workforce, by promising wage increases without any commitment of real funding" …
Mr Begg went on to describe the package of information in the mail-out as 'propaganda, printed and posted at great cost to taxpayers' who, along with the age services sector workforce, certainly deserved better. I have one other quote from Mr Begg which is worth repeating here this afternoon:
"What the public need to know is that the funding model for aged care is woefully inadequate, not based on the true cost of care and not properly indexed. This is yet another example that the government does not fully understand our business of providing care to our ageing population" …
So it is not just a matter of coalition members coming into this place and seeking to score points for any political purpose. These are very real concerns being raised by peak bodies within the industry—in this case Leading Age Services Australia's Victorian branch—and the government would be wise to listen. It is simply hard to trust the government when the industry groups are so scathing in their assessments of this legislation. I also refer to the comments made by the shadow minister when he moved this amendment. I think he makes the case very well as to why there is a need to defer consideration of all this debate until the Senate committee reports. The member for Dickson said:
The government trumpeted the release on the day as a revolution for the sector. The government continues to claim that this policy is a $3.7 billion investment when it is not … Looking at the finer detail, the proposals are nowhere near as ambitious as first made out. That has been a current theme across the last six years under the stewardship of this government. The government is saving over $560 million through means testing, and they include that as part of the so-called $3.7 billion investment. Over $2½ billion is being redirected from existing programs, including $1.6 billion from the Aged Care Funding Instrument. Places and funding are to be transferredfrom residential care to home care, and funding will be cut from the Long Stay Older Patients initiative. The net investment over four years is just $284.6 million, not $3.7 billion.
The industry knows that this government is trying to ram through its legislation without giving full details of the regulations. The shadow minister has belled the cat in relation to the fact that the so-called $3.7 billion investment is really a $284 million one. I call on the government to come clean with the Australian people—and come clean too with the aged-care services providers, the aged-care workers and older Australians who may require care in the future—and acknowledge that there are many, many problems with the legislation before the parliament.
Like some of the earlier speakers, I have the opportunity to visit aged-care providers in my electorate on a regular basis. Quite possibly the greatest concern that is expressed to me is the issue of the ongoing financial viability of the residential service providers and the difficulty in ensuring that regional Australians have the opportunity to age in place, that regional Australians have the opportunity to remain in their communities when they have a need for additional services. On top of that there is a concern about the regulatory and bureaucratic burden becoming so onerous that it is all becoming increasingly difficult for the not-for-profit sector, which is such an important part of the industry in regional Australia. There is the concern for the not-for-profit sector that it will simply not be able to deliver services into the future.
I am someone who believes there is a right way and a wrong way to grow old in your community and I think the government has an important role in ensuring the right way for regional Australians is that they have the dignity of remaining in their community for as long as possible, to be supported in their own home if that is their choice and, if necessary, to access residential care in their own communities. The aged-care sector in my electorate is well served by hardworking and dedicated staff. I would be the first to acknowledge that they are not particularly well paid for the work they do. Theirs is a difficult task. We are also well served by some extraordinary board members, many of whom give decades of service to their local aged-care provider and donate their time, particularly in the not-for-profit sector. Then we also have people who volunteer to fundraise to support the services in my community. So there is a real partnership and a real willingness in regional communities to make a contribution to ensuring that older Australians have the opportunity to remain in their homes or in their own communities for as long as possible.
I would argue that Gippslanders and many other communities around regional Australia are actually already committed to helping meet the needs of an ageing population. But there is a real concern in my community and throughout regional Australia that this government has not been on their side over the past six years. This government has promised a lot in relation to aged care but has delivered precious little in terms of results on the ground in supporting older Australians in their communities. So there is a growing awareness in our community that providing for the needs of an ageing population is going to be one of the most critical issues facing a future federal government. The figures are well known. Across Australia the number of people aged over 65 is expected to increase from 13.4 per cent of the total population to 25.3 per cent of the population over the next 40 years. In a community like Gippsland, which has some highly sought after retirement destinations, we can certainly expect to follow that baseline trend. We also know that as medical science advances we can expect the number of very old Australians, those aged 85 or more, to increase as a proportion of the population. We know that people will be living longer in the future with more complex health needs. We know that the staff required to support them in aged-care facilities and through the residential care arrangements—so the staff required for those services—will have more complex training needs as well. I acknowledge that the government has a pivotal role in working in partnership with the aged-care sector to ensure that ageing occurs in that dignified manner I referred to earlier.
These people, particularly in regional communities, cannot be catered for with a one-size-fits-all approach driven out of Canberra through some bureaucratic model. These people have their own individual needs; they have their own individual expectations; and providing services to the frail and aged in the most appropriate manner to meet these individual requirements will demand flexibility and innovative thinking. I do not believe that this government, and the bureaucracy based here in Canberra, has grasped the need for that flexibility and innovative thinking when it comes to regional communities. The one-size-fits-all approach which is repeatedly driven out of Canberra and into our regional communities is simply incapable of recognising the expertise that is on the ground and the willingness of community volunteers to participate in solving some of these problems. I urge the government and the bureaucrats based in Canberra to respect the people on the ground, to listen to their view, particularly in regional communities like Gippsland, and listen to the genuine concerns that have been presented during the course of this debate over the past 12 months.
We will need to have more flexibility in funding and our service delivery arrangements to meet the needs of different communities across our nation. I do not want to be alarmist in saying this but I am concerned that our aged-care system right now is on the verge of crisis. I do not believe it is well placed at the moment to meet the recurrent or the future needs of an ageing population. The industry representatives who talk to me, as well as the board members and some of the workers in the aged-care sector, say that it is getter harder, rather than easier, to provide a financially viable service, as I said, particularly in our regional community.
The regulatory burden which I referred to before is becoming increasingly onerous and is stifling investment. It is also destroying confidence in the future of the industry. There is no-one who works in the aged-care sector who thinks that health and safety requirements should be weakened or diminished in any way, but the amount of red tape and the time spent in mindlessly filling out forms, and that time commitment being taken away from the aged people themselves, are a major concern. It is embedding an additional cost in the structure of running these organisations which is becoming increasingly frustrating for the operators, particularly in the not-for-profit sector where there are so many people of enormous goodwill donating their time to try to provide those services throughout rural and regional Australia.
Like most of those in this place, I am a very big supporter of making sure that older Australians have the opportunity to remain in their home for as long as they want to, if that is their wish, and as long as it is safe to do so. That presents some additional challenges in places like Gippsland—and, I acknowledge, also in Maranoa—where there are many rural and remote areas. There are cost challenges in moving staff around those communities and providing services on the ground. I also acknowledge it is more expensive to provide full-time residential care in those communities. But it is much easier and cheaper for governments if they can ensure that people have the access to services in their own home rather than moving to a nursing home-type environment too early in their life. As long as it is safe to do so, we need to encourage people to remain in their own homes in their later years and enjoy a healthy and active retirement.
In addition to the professional services and the workforce that will be required to support this choice that people will make, I believe there is a real opportunity for us in this place to make sure that we get better at providing opportunities for volunteers to work in this space as well and giving them the skills to support older Australians. As the baby boomers retire we know there will be a bigger pool of potential volunteers out in the community, and Australians have a strong ethos of supporting others through volunteering. As the baby boomers retire we need to make sure that the regulatory burden is not so cumbersome and so bureaucratic that it stops people from volunteering to assist their fellow Australians—in this case, older Australians in their own home. I see a real opportunity for this government and future governments to support the choices made by older Australians to remain in their own homes, so not only utilising the professional workforce but also ensuring that our volunteers have the skill base and are given the opportunity to make a contribution after their days in the paid workforce are over.
I said at the outset that the coalition has legitimate concerns about the timing of this legislation and the unseemly haste of the government to get it through before the Senate committee reports back. I call on the government to show the community more details in relation to the regulations which are proposed to underpin these bills. I fear that it will be up to a future coalition government—if, indeed, the coalition is successful in September this year—to clean up some of the mess that will exist in the aged-care sector.
As I travel throughout regional Australia, boards have expressed concerns about their financial viability, about the regulations and new layers of bureaucracy being imposed upon them. I call on the government to respect the amendment proposed by the member for Dickson and to delay the debate on this bill until the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee has the chance to fully examine the impact of these changes on providers, older Australians, their families and carers.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and the package of bills before us. The aged-care sector is at a crossroads. We have an ageing population. We have providers who are operating in the red, and we have a sector which has been reviewed and reviewed and reviewed but is not getting any reform to address its problems. This package of bills before us does not address the problems either. Indeed, they may just make things worse. The sector urgently needs reforms and urgently needs the governments that can guide the sector through the many challenges it faces. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this government has the capacity to do that.
In the time that I have available I would like to talk about four things. Firstly, to provide a bit of context within which we debate this package of bills and debate the aged-care sector more broadly. Secondly, to discuss some of the problems facing the sector right now that need to be addressed. Thirdly, to go through the bill itself and point out some of the issues which we have with the bill. Finally, to talk about what the coalition's alternative proposals are.
Before doing so, I make a point about the process in arriving at this situation. The member for Gippsland made this point also. This package of bills is supposedly in response to the Productivity Commission inquiry and the recommendations made by the PC. Those recommendations were made well over 12 months ago, and it has taken this long for those recommendations to be placed into legislation and brought into the House. Now we have the situation where the government is trying to rush through the legislation without proper scrutiny and without proper thought as to the implications of the bill. Furthermore, this is without proper consultation with the sector. I support the amendment to the bill which the shadow minister for health has put forward, which would see the Senate committee inquiry complete the course of its work before we debate the bill further. To me, that makes sense. We have a process in place that can further analyse the bill and further discuss with the sector what some of the issues are so that we can improve upon the bills if possible.
I go to the first substantive point to look at where we are at the moment. What is the context in which we are debating this particular package? There are three things. The first is that we have an ageing population, which means that there will be much more demand for aged-care services. At the moment, around nine per cent of our population is aged 70-plus, but this is expected to rise to 13 per cent by 2021 and rise again to 20 per cent of the population by 2050. Those aged over 85 years, who are the main users of aged-care services, will increase from about 400,000 people today to about 1.6 million people by 2050. We are going to have a huge increase in demand for aged-care services over the years and decades in front of us.
The second contextual point is that despite this massive demand on the horizon we have an aged-care sector which is seriously in strife at the moment. Indeed, many are struggling to stay afloat, and only about 40 per cent of aged-care providers are profitable at the moment and operating in the black. This means that over half of our providers are losing money today and are at risk of failing. At a time when we have this huge demand, this is of great concern to all of us here in this parliament and it should be of great concern to residents across Australia.
The final contextual point is that we have had review after review of the aged-care sector in the last six years under this Labor government. There have been 20 reviews and three Productivity Commission inquiries, but despite all of those reviews and those inquiries we still have not had proper reform to address some of these issues and the structural problems I have just articulated. Those reports, particularly the Productivity Commission reports, that I have referred to have been very good ones. They have outlined the problems in the sector and they have outlined the nature of the demand going forward. They give a clear picture of what needs to be done. I have found that in my discussions with my aged-care providers in my electorate they echo many of the problems identified in the Productivity Commission's report and in the other reviews which have occurred over the last few years.
Most recently, I had a roundtable discussion with many of the aged-care providers in my electorate, along with the shadow minister for aged care. We discussed many of the issues. They all do a fantastic job under pressing circumstances, and they raised three particular matters. Firstly, they talked about the amount of paperwork which they currently have to deal with. One of the providers from my sector pointed out that about 30 per cent of nurses' time can be filled in completing paperwork—not attending to the residents of that facility but just doing paperwork. It is a ridiculous situation. Secondly, they pointed out the general difficulties in making ends meet and that many of them are struggling and cannot necessarily see a rosy horizon in front of them. Thirdly, they discussed how the regulations on top of further regulations are making it increasingly difficult for them. Finally, they discussed the problems which they foresee in the package of bills in front of us.
This package of bills has been rushed into this parliament and has not had full consideration and consultation with the sector. There are issues within this bill which need to be addressed. The first is that it does nothing about the burden of red tape and paperwork upon a sector already struggling to cope with the cost of government compliance. These bills are in addition to other changes in the Living Longer Living Better aged-care package, and the burden of red tape has already been increasing through the implementation of the Aged Care Funding Authority, and this bill does nothing about the strangulation of aged-care providers by this red tape. How does filling out yet another form ensure that the quality of service in our aged-care facilities is improved? Again and again they say they are spending more time on red tape, and this particular package just adds to the burden of it.
The second issue which aged-care providers have raised with me in relation to the package is the potential spike in labour costs which will be caused by the workforce supplement. The coalition is committed to seeing the wages of all workers rise. Under the Howard government, real wages increased by 20 per cent. However, wage rises must be sustainable and they must be affordable. At a time when only 40 per cent of aged-care providers are operating in the black, one must ask the question: how will they pay for the higher wages which the government is insisting upon through this package? I am worried that this will place further pressure on providers, particularly in my electorate, and potentially put some out of business altogether.
Providers such as Baptistcare have expressed their concerns to the government directly and publicly, stating that for every $1 they receive under this workforce supplement they will need to put in an additional $3. While the government is claiming that this is a direct government subsidy to boost wages of low-income workers in these aged-care facilities, when it comes to the crunch the government is only providing a quarter of the overall cost of this wage increases. The CEO of Baptistcare summed it up when she said:
We are losing money out of the system faster than we are getting money in.
There is real potential that without proper consultation these changes will cause a crisis in aged care, creating even more problems than they are apparently solving.
The third critique of these bills is there is a blatant attempt to unionise the aged-care workforce through the workforce supplement. All the aged-care sector have raised this; almost everyone you speak to is aware of this tactic. Under the supplement, providers with 50 or more beds need to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement in order to access the funding. Those with fewer than 50 beds do not have to enter into an EBA. However, they must comply with the conditions of the supplement in order to access the funding. This is a blatant attempt by the government to force our aged-care workers into unions. It seems that the government cares more about boosting union mates at United Voice or the ANF and the disgraced Health Services Union than it does about getting genuine reform in the aged-care sector. We are not the only ones that have raised this issue. Many have raised this publicly and many have raised this privately. Almost every speaker on this side of the House has made the strong point that this is trying to re-unionise the workforce rather than trying to help the aged-care sector.
Let me come to my final point—that is, the coalition's commitment to the aged-care sector. We understand the sector needs real reform from a government that is fair dinkum about the aged-care sector. It needs reform from a government committed not to increasing red tape and pushing its own political agenda through forced unionisation but to ensuring that our aged-care providers survive and thrive. The coalition is committed to the delivery of a high-quality, affordable and accessible aged-care scheme that meets the needs and preferences of older Australians. Our proposal is that for the first time in Australia we will institute a four-year agreement for aged-care providers which will address the pressing concerns faced by the sector.
What this means in reaching an agreement is sitting down with peak bodies and negotiating, consulting and working out an agreement of mutual benefit to the government and the sector, in much the same way that the Pharmacy Guild agreements are struck. Overseeing this agreement will be an aged-care provider agreement working group which will flesh out the details of the agreement and listen to the recommendations contained in the Productivity Commission inquiry and any other relevant reviews. We will establish an aged-care provider agreement steering committee of keys stakeholders to oversee the administration and the implementation of the agreement and to provide advice to the minister on a regular basis. Most importantly, this agreement-making process must be rooted in reducing red tape not increasing it. It must also be rooted in the actual concerns of the aged-care sector today and into the future. If we do not get this right and we do not get a system which is sustainable and affordable and where the aged-care providers themselves can operate with surpluses rather than deficits then we will have a further crisis in the aged-care sector.
As I said at the outset, the statistics show that there will be enormous demand on aged-care providers in the years and the decades ahead. We will have four times as many people over the age of 85 by 2050 than we do today. Those people will need aged-care services. But if the aged-care sector is not thriving, if it is not operating in the black and if it does not have the support, the reforms and the cooperation of a government wishing to see it thrive then I fear many residents will not get the aged-care services and provisions that they will need in the future. I commend the amendment to the House and recommend that the further debate on this be postponed until the Senate's inquiry has been completed.
I begin by complimenting my colleague the member for Aston on a fine speech and for highlighting some of the difficulties and the challenges that we face in this sector. I welcome the opportunity to raise some of the issues and concerns which have been made known to me by people in the aged-care sector in Western Australia and, indeed, in other parts of the country. Over one million older Australians currently receive aged-care services. As life expectancy continues to grow, the proportion of people requiring complex care for conditions that present later in life, such as dementia, will grow as well. The aged-care sector is already under significant strain. Without clear efforts now to address the persistent structural weaknesses in the system, it will buckle under the future pressure.
The suite of reforms contained within these various bills, known as the Living Longer package, is another attempt to bring much-needed reform to the sector. That attempt has been going on for many years and I had some considerable involvement with it in 1996. But if it falls well short of the many positive recommendations that the Productivity Commission outlined in its 2011 report Caring for older Australians then we are not doing the job we need to do in this place. In that report the Productivity Commission noted a number of critical deficiencies with the current system. Among the list is that aged-care services are limited; the quality of care across providers is variable; the coverage of government subsidies is inconsistent or inequitable; there are difficulties in obtaining finance, particularly to build high-care residential facilities; and there are significant staffing constraints in the industry. Each of these is a critical deficiency that must be addressed to ensure that a viable aged-care industry can continue in the future to provide the services that will increasingly need to be provided.
But the suite of reforms currently proposed is just as likely to exacerbate those persistent problems rather than ameliorate them. A glaring example is last year's $1.6 billion cut to the aged-care funding instrument. The ACFI is the principal method of providing financial assistance for the personal and lifestyle costs of residents in Commonwealth subsidised residential care. With Aged and Community Services Australia warning during the 2012 budget that only 40 per cent of aged-care service providers are operating in the black, this blow will further affect the financial viability of a number of aged-care providers, particularly those in rural areas, which have always really been problematical. They have special challenges.
That cut of $1.6 billion is now being used to fund a compact that has been struck between the government and the unions in an effort to increase the notoriously low wages of staff in the aged-care industry. But instead of delivering a uniform rise, as is much needed, the compact will only serve to create a greater gulf in the sector's wages. That is because to access the workforce supplement, which is intended to boost the wages of employees, providers must substantially increase wages before they are eligible for further government funding. Aged and Community Services Western Australia in their submission to the inquiry into these bills by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs noted that 'in one instance, a 31-bed residential care provider has estimated that to receive $17,000 from the supplement, it will cost them an extra $30,000 to meet the government's requirements'. By crafting this so-called assistance in such a manner, the government is really being disingenuous. Those small providers that already rely on government assistance, and I have to say many of those are in regional and rural areas of Australia, have no ability to meet such wage increases, yet it is precisely these workers who require it the most.
Julie Christensen is the CEO of Narrogin Cottage Homes. I have known Julie for many years, Narrogin until quite recently having been part of the Pearce electorate. Julie candidly described the effect in her evidence to the Senate committee, saying:
I am very happy to let the committee know right now that we will be one of those who will not be signing up for the workforce supplement. We cannot afford it. I know Ray was saying it was two for one, but in my particular case, if you look at our on costs, I think you will find that it is 3.25 for one. I am running at a loss now. I am hoping we will balance the books next year. I cannot afford anything else. I cannot afford to expose my community organisation, and the assets that belong to the community, to risk, and the decision to sign on to the supplement would put my facility and my organisation at risk.
I know the facility, I know Ms Christensen. It is being well run. She is a very experienced operator, and this again is a facility in a country town. These are people who really do know what they are talking about.
With a significant number of aged-care providers being not-for-profit organisations, as this one is, any additional costs must be passed on to those that they are caring for, or those extra costs result in loss of staff, or lower standards in the facilities. This was confirmed in the handwritten submission by LHI Retirement Services, a South Australian aged-care provider that cares for over 1,000 residents and is also a not-for-profit organisation. LHI noted that these bills 'clearly add significant costs, in some cases over 200 per cent'. It went on to say:
LHI will receive $140,000 from Government in the first year under these changes, but will be required to contribute a further $240,000 from its own resources. This will result in staff reductions and poorer services to residents.
So rather than increasing staffing levels or providing more assistance to aged care, as the Productivity Commission has identified as being necessary, these changes will do exactly the opposite. It must be stressed that this is not, and should not be, a choice between higher wages for carers and the ability of the sector to accommodate that. These pressures are the direct result of a deliberate policy choice by the government. The model chosen by the government forces providers to choose between paying the higher wages that carers deserve and the standard of the facilities that the aged-care residents enjoy. That is a reprehensible step.
Despite claims that the government is investing more in aged care, it should be noted that Commonwealth own payment outlays, that is, payments for areas such as aged care, have had zero indexation for the 2012-13 period and are estimated to be only increased by 1.5 per cent in 2013-14. Yet operating costs for aged-care providers have increased, on average, between 3.5 per cent and 10 per cent per annum. The cost of providing aged-care services is clearly outstripping the piecemeal funding that the government is putting in, but there is no clear commitment from the government to remedy this situation.
Another example of the government's desperate bid to shore up its books can be found in the changes relating to accommodation bonds. Currently, where a person has financial capacity to help pay the cost of their care, they are required to pay an amount relative to the standard of care they are receiving. Payment can be made one of two ways. The most common is for a person to pay a large upfront amount, usually through the sale of their home, which is drawn down over time. Any amount unused after care is no longer required is refunded. These are called RAD bonds. The other method is to pay a daily rate through a person's pension or own funds. This is called a DAP bond. Under the asset and income tests changes in these bills, it may be more beneficial for a person to pay a daily rate rather than to pay a RAD bond. The policy rationale for this move was outlined by the ANZ Bank in its submission to the Senate inquiry. It noted:
… the RAD bond pool is currently circa $12 billion. DAP bonds are less than 10% or circa $1 billion in notional value. The government guarantees the providers' RAD liability to repay residents upon leaving a residential facility. Treasury apparently sees this $12 billion RAD liability as an unacceptable contingent liability of Government.
As a result, the ANZ concluded
… the proposed changes would seem to be an implied policy change that over time RADs are replaced by DAPs.
It warned:
A significant shift from RAD to DAP would potentially have adverse consequences for the financial viability of many providers as well as curtailing investment appetite.
That would be a disaster for the aged-care sector.
The change is significant as the large upfront payments are used by providers to fund construction, renovation or expansion of their facilities. That is why the government then guarantees the RAD liability: the person's funds are in the bricks and mortar of the building. Without the upfront pool of money, providers will either be unable to meet new demand or will have to borrow more money to provide facilities. Clearly, the bank is warning that this could become very difficult.
The submission to the Senate inquiry by the Aged Care Guild sets out the potential consequences of this policy shift. It gives the example of a 100-bed facility that would cost $20 million to build. On all its metrics, such a facility would be comfortably within the loan-to-value ratios that banks use as a ceiling for the amount of money that will be loaned for construction and operational costs. The guild went on to explain that if 60 per cent of new residents chose to pay via the daily rate then in only two years the net debt of that facility would go from $5 million to over $12 million, breaching all the covenants that the bank would set. It means that the facility would be completely unviable and would have to be shut down.
With the number of people requiring aged-care facilities set to more than triple by the year 2050, getting these policy settings is absolutely imperative. It is not an optional extra; it is absolutely necessary, and we need to recognise in this place the growing pressures on the sector. I support the amendment that has been brought forward by the member for Dickson to delay these bills until the Senate inquiry has had the opportunity to report on the bills, at the very least because passing the legislation as it is in this place could certainly have major ramifications for those providing for the aged-care sector now and in the future.
There are few more pressing issues that face Australia today than that of aged care. Our population is getting older: today at least one out of every seven Australians is aged over 65, and that number is predicted to double in coming decades. By 2050 over 3½ million Australians are expected to use aged-care services at some point each year. This issue of aged care is of great significance to my electorate of Wentworth, where there are more than 40 aged-care facilities and 11,000 residents over the age of 75.
I have visited many of the very fine aged-care facilities in Wentworth. Only last week I was at the Montefiore Home in Randwick being given lessons in making challah by the residents. There, as I have been at the other aged-care facilities I visited in my electorate, I was impressed by the commitment of the staff, the range of activities and strong relationships that have been developed and, of course, the use of the very best technologies and medical science to maximise the experience of the residents and their quality of life.
However, achieving high standards in aged care is never easy, and it is becoming increasingly difficult. There is growing and alarming evidence that the aged-care sector cannot provide the care that Australians expect. Despite an increase in demand, only around 40 per cent of residential aged-care facilities are operating at a profit. At a time when there is increasing demand for services, providers are walking away from the sector due to the lack of viability in providing high-care beds and the increasing compliance demands of government. Providers are handing back licences, and senior Australians are having to wait longer and travel further to find a bed, thereby placing higher pressure on the public hospital system and on families. This is in stark contrast to the situation under the coalition government, when aged-care places were highly sought after.
The Productivity Commission reported on this matter in 2011, and the slowness of the government in responding to it, of course, is a remarkable feature of this debate. It took the minister over 250 days to respond to the Productivity Commission report. But, in any event, the report, Caring for older Australians, set out the key difficulties confronting the aged-care system. It is difficult to navigate. Its services are limited, as is consumer choice. Quality is variable. Coverage of needs, pricing, subsidies and user co-contributions are inconsistent or inequitable. Workforce shortages are exacerbated by low wages, and some workers have insufficient skills. What was called for was real leadership and real change. Instead, there was, as I said, over 250 days of nothing happening before the minister finally responded to it. The report from the commission recommended a reduction in regulation over price and supply in aged care, recognising that overregulation in the industry was a major impediment to investment. However, this package of bills intends, contrary to the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, to introduce additional regulations to pricing. Labor, regrettably, has ignored the bulk of the report's recommendations and merely cherry-picked those that suit its agenda.
Let me turn to how this disappointing package directly impacts my own electorate of Wentworth. I recently visited the Advantaged Care aged-care complex in Bondi and met with the managing director, Mr Michael Kresner, to discuss the current policy environment for aged-care service providers. Mr Kresner made a submission to the Senate inquiry on these bills. This is the inquiry which should be allowed to complete its report before the debate on these bills is concluded in this House; the government is not prepared to do that.
In any event, Mr Kresner expressed very real concern about the package. He noted that the Productivity Commission's report into aged care recommended a reduction in the regulation of pricing in aged care to encourage an innovative, sustainable and strong future aged-care industry which would have the flexibility to deal with our ageing population's expectations. This is a quote from his submission:
Due to the relatively high proportion of wage costs to overall return, providers are using too many high level resources to meet regulatory compliance and do not have the … head space or flexibility to think out of the box to deliver on the flexible care models the public is calling for.
… … …
Market driven accommodation bonds, has given investors the confidence to invest, know they will be able to pay back debt to acceptable levels and achieve returns that justify investment over the long term … oversupply has often led to providers cutting their bonds to achieve occupancy in the short term.
His submission says that, in the eastern suburbs of Sydney and the south Gold Coast, there has been an:
… over supply in recent years where providers have had to be intensely competitive.
The government's proposed package of bills adds yet more red tape to an already over-regulated industry. The coalition, on the other hand, has committed to cutting a billion dollars of red tape and regulation costs on business each year. We will make sure that we maintain a high standard of care and safety but will create in this industry a regulatory environment that allows aged-care providers to do what they do best—looking after senior Australians. Labor's proposed package is seeking to further regulate pricing in aged care, and that will have the effect of restricting innovation and threatening the viability of our industry in a period where investment desperately needs to be encouraged. In every industry, putting a cap on the price will drive capital away. Mr Kresner is one of the few people who are investing in aged-care facilities today and he has built four new aged-care facilities in the last decade, investing close to $70 million in the process.
Speaking with aged-care providers in my electorate, such as Mr Kresner and Howard Smith from Greengate, two major, detailed issues with the bills have emerged as common problems for providers: the regulation of accommodation bonds, on which I have just touched, and the Aged Care Workforce Supplement. Accommodation bonds are an important part of the funding model for aged-care providers, being refundable deposits that residents pay for living in an aged-care facility. They allow operators to repay debt for constructing new facilities. Accommodation bond pricing is currently market based. The new legislation proposes regulating accommodation bonds, including introducing a new bureaucrat, the pricing commissioner, to determine bond pricing. For bonds over $400,000, which is the majority of the bonds in Wentworth, there are no defined approval criteria. It is unclear how the pricing commissioner will determine the price for these bonds or whether the decision will be discretionary. Accommodation bond pricing approval will not be determined for another year, apparently, which will lead to further uncertainty for the industry, and there is unlikely to be any appeal rights if applications fail or pricing is reduced.
The proposed regulation of accommodation bonds is highly troubling for operators and has created significant uncertainty. Indeed, investment in the sector has been significantly reduced because of this uncertainty and, for many operators, has ceased since 2010 when the Productivity Commission commenced its report. This uncertainty is set to continue until at least the middle of next year when the pricing commissioner commences issuing its pricing approvals.
All of this is a terrible outcome for the aged-care industry, given that the sector already suffers significant underinvestment, especially relative to the forecast demand. We have to ask: why is this government seeking to limit private investment in aged care when the baby boomers are starting to consider where they will live when they become old and infirm?
Those operators who are already in the process of constructing new premises have based their investment decisions on accommodation bond pricing in the current market. If the pricing commissioner does not approve their proposed pricing, and with no appeal rights, what will this mean? Will they be immediately in default of valuation and debt-funding covenants? What motivation is there to provide choice for aged-care residents when the government determines pricing, not the market? The coalition believes that the quality and choice of accommodation for residents will be reduced—and that, of course, has been the tenor of the submissions made to the Senate inquiry.
I now turn to the matter of the Aged Care Workforce Supplement—this union recruitment scheme using public money to build up the ranks of the United Voice union. The $1.2 billion workplace supplement, which will supplement the wages of some in the industry, is an issue of particular concern to the coalition and has been consistently raised as a major concern by aged-care providers in the community. Under the proposed workforce supplement, providers with more than 50 beds will have to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement and meet certain workforce obligations to access funding under the supplement.
The draft guidelines require aged-care operators to enter into union-endorsed enterprise-bargaining agreements to access additional funding, to then pass on to staff through higher wages. This mirrors a very similar pattern of behaviour that we saw in the early childcare sector, with many childcare providers being strongarmed into entering into enterprise-bargaining agreements after the government introduced the Early Years Quality Fund. The government is encouraging the United Voice union to approach workplaces to sign up staff, with the promise of extra government money if they do so.
This promised supplement comes right on the heels of cuts to the Aged Care Funding Instrument. The speed at which this was followed by the introduction of this access measure clearly indicates that the government seeks to reward only those providers who have workers with union membership.
This is a significant change to the industrial relations environment where aged-care providers are not required to enter into an enterprise-bargaining agreement above and beyond the current regulatory environment of compliance with modern awards and National Employment Standards. The supplement is better described as a government-funded, taxpayer-funded, union-driven membership drive, dressed up as a funding reform.
The Presbyterian Aged Care Network, whose affiliate Presbyterian Aged Care NSW runs services in Paddington in my electorate, noted in their submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee on this legislation that they are concerned that there are fundamental flaws in the proposed mechanisms for the supplement. They believe that the supplement will not achieve its goal of improving aged-care wages, especially for those people on award rates whose employers may not be able to afford the percentage margin above the awards required to be eligible for the supplement.
The government's aged-care package, which the House is debating today, has been beset by delay and just seems to add unnecessary red tape to what is an already highly regulated area. Having established the Productivity Commission inquiry, the government took the best part of a year—over 250 days—to respond to the recommendations and then largely ignored the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, cherry-picking a number of those recommendations. Not all of the measures in this legislation are misconceived; there are some worthwhile elements among it.
What the legislation does not do is provide the impetus or the incentive for the improvement of aged-care services in Australia. In an industry that has been crying out for liberation from the excessive regulation, red tape and heavy costs which, as Mr Kresner describes, are associated with that, the government is now imposing further costs.
The coalition supports high standards and efficient regulation to provide high-quality care and service to the increasing number of older Australians in aged care. But nothing, except perhaps more recruits to the trade union, is gained by adding unnecessary and ill-thought-out red-tape measures to an industry which is in desperate need of more innovation and more creativity. That can only come from an industry which is accorded greater economic freedom. The government is seeking to deny that. It is a classic example of one of the failures of this Labor government. At the end of the day, this government does not believe, as our side of politics knows, that the role of government is to enable Australians to do their best; it profoundly believes and is quite convinced here in this sector, as in every other sector of our economy, that the government's role is to tell Australians what is best and, in so doing, it fails to respect the innovation, the intellect, the energy and the enterprise of Australians and the innovation that will flow from it.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and cognate bills. Australia has a proud tradition of fine aged-care services and I think everyone in this chamber who has travelled around this great nation and who has visited an aged-care facility is, by and large, genuinely impressed with the quality of care that is offered, in the context that it is an increasingly challenging space in which to be working. We have of course the demographic shifts that have been alluded to earlier in this debate, with the proportion of Australians over the age of 70 increasing from nine per cent to well over 20 per cent by 2051. But we also have the great challenge that this is fundamentally a private-sector-driven area of health and welfare, so we always need to have the appropriate amount of government support: not too much and not too little.
As I look back over the last five years my observation, with a focus on the health portfolio, is that many of the challenges that beset our health system in 2007 still remain today relatively untouched and unblemished. They are still here today, mostly not addressed. I acknowledge that there has been negotiation around funding agreements but, on the frontline in health care, we have many of the same challenges that we faced five years ago. That, I think, is a significant criticism of the current federal government if for no other reason than that it has been recognised by the COAG Reform Council, which noted just last week in their report that we are fundamentally a less happy population with our health system, with 24 per cent now waiting more than 24 hours to see a GP as compared to just 11 per cent in 2010. We are facing all of those social challenges in our health and welfare system. We are still waiting just as long for operations as we were in 2007. There have been some minor improvements in A&E through some performance payments but, by and large, we have a health system with very little change.
Contrast that with the aged-care sector and you will see a very different story. This has been a sector effectively in suspended animation, desperately in trouble, with only 40 per cent of our providers in the black and most of them holding on desperately by their fingernails, waiting for some kind of reform. When you are in free-fall and facing ground rush, I accept that you will grasp any kind of parachute you can.
With respect to this legislation, it has already been clearly pointed out by speakers from the seat of Wentworth all the way through to the seat of Grey, in some of the most remote parts of Australia, that the challenges are the same. We have seen a tricky shift where we have effectively taken money out of the funding instrument and we have moved it into a union recruitment tool in the guise of higher wages for staff who desperately deserve that. Everyone is smart enough to see that.
In my contribution I want to ensure that some of those observations are read into Hansard for posterity. I have an enormous amount of regard for Minister Butler and his approach to many of his affairs, but I do find this last-minute, rushed arrangement that was rolled out in Western Sydney just a month ago was genuinely beneath him. The minister looked around for an aged-care facility in which he could make the announcement. Not being able to find one he, instead, chose a church in the hope that perhaps some old people behind him might make it look a bit like an aged-care facility. It was patently ridiculous. There is very little support in this sector for the goodwill within this framework of bills; certainly not for the delegated legislation that is to come sometime later but that none of us can yet read. But I acknowledge that many in that sector are desperate for anything. When it is this late in the game, and when services are this close to the bone, I acknowledge that they will grasp at anything. Effectively, we have an offer to increase wages in a context where many services are unable to pay them. More importantly, no matter how much one offers in increased wage deals through union enterprise-bargaining agreements, if you are ripping it out first from the funding tool, then it is almost futile in a negative feedback loop where some centres will simply not be able to survive. I acknowledge that, if you are a centre of less than 60, you are exempted from those EBA arrangements but the majority of our providers in metropolitan Australia are a tick over 60 and are all faced with this reality.
It is a lot of money—$1.6 billion. It amounts to tens of thousands of dollars; in fact some centres on average have to find around $125,000. The most preposterous thing of all is, in a game where we are trying to provide certainty to the private sector and confidence to invest—let's get this right, Deputy Speaker Murphy—aged care is not an area where the government provides the majority of the services; we are utterly reliant on private providers. To provide this 28-day buffer where one can move into an aged-care facility and only after 28 days make a decision on whether you pay upfront or in designated allocations over time is akin to me selling my house, having someone agree to buy it and then 28 days later saying, 'No, I have changed my mind: I am just going to rent it.' That is what you are doing, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, and I ask you to reflect on that.
The merits of someone who is building for the future and providing services for our seniors having to wait 28 days only to be told, 'Sorry, we've decided to rent and try, not to buy' effectively imperils your entire business model. How do you take that to a bank? How do you convince a bank to lend on those grounds? It is enormously difficult because, believe it or not, when you build an aged-care facility you cannot, 28 days after they finish the completion of a structure, say, 'We've decided to pay it off in allocations over the next five years.'
I would like to include from my own electorate the comments of Paul Mitchell, CEO, from Adventists Aged Care, who said these are the two key issues:
The rest of it is all just machinery of government. Under the proposed changes, a resident can make these decisions 28 days after they move in and in our facility in Victoria Point they are having a series of expansions: 89 new beds to be completed by September. That is part of stage one and that will be completed prior to this legislation applying, but stage 2 is now at risk of not happening at all.
So there you have it from the front line. How do you go back to a bank and explain to them that you want to receive millions of dollars in borrowings only to not be able to pay it back until you receive allocations or contributions over years? This facility in my electorate will simply have to face refinancing and the risk of not being able to proceed at all.
What we have here is a very, very clever recruitment tool for the unions and it is very clearly included in union propaganda, even from the minister's own union. There was an effort to modify the scoring tool so that less money could be given to providers, only to see more money given to workers, and hope that that somehow balances out. It is a murky approach, and some of the most senior aged-care experts in the country have said it is not the way to do business.
The other great criticism that was mounted in the defence of this legislation was a very serious accusation of rorting. I do not know whether this government has a preoccupation with singling out professions and claiming that there is a problem with rorting, and then never providing that evidence, but using that as the basis to proceed with often significantly flawed or biased legislation. We saw it in the cataract rebate debate in 2009 when an entire profession was traduced on the grounds that they were rorting the system—for goodness sake, providing more vision to Australians by doing cataract rebates and this was rorting.
We had the same claims made against the dental profession in an effort to bring down the CDDS and effectively close out 96 per cent of Australia's dentists from being able to deliver care to the sickest of Australians with chronic disease—all based on this claim of rorting. We saw threats to the dental profession to scare them into not providing dental care with the possibility that they would never be reimbursed. Ultimately, the CDDS, which could have been easily refined and improved, was instead terminated: September, no new entrants; November, all work to be completed. The result of that is that, right now, we see Indigenous Australians having to scavenge for $300 dental vouchers from public hospitals to get urgent dental work done. That is another health outcome in 2013 under this Prime Minister, all based on the proposition of rorting by professionals.
We do not have to do it that way. We can work with the profession. We can work with the sector, and of course there will be elements of rorting everywhere one goes. That is the job of the legal system. That is the job of a department doing appropriate audits to address those providers and those examples. What is the first thing that happens when a minister talks about rorting in the aged-care sector? Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I put to you that my parents, and others who might some day be in an aged-care facility, say: 'I wonder if I'm being rorted. I wonder if this place is rorting me. I wonder if I'm being ripped off.'
I think that the blackening of our wonderful aged-care sector is not only regrettable but patently avoidable. We do not need to do that to get legislation through this place, nor to advance the interests of our aged-care sector. It does not need to be divisive. It does not need to attack the providers and it does not need to set up these envy based attacks between the tenant and the builder; the aged-care provider and the resident; and the provider of a health service and the recipient of one. There is another way, but in five short years this has been a recurring pattern of behaviour from a government that should know better and could do better but instead has chosen the low road of traducing providers.
I would like to make an observation about union recruitment, because this has been picked up by many providers. It is very obvious that this funding instrument has been linked to these supplements. The amounts are comparable. The first thing that aged-care providers say is: 'What is taken from one hand and provided to the other leaves me how much more worse off?'
It is clearly a case of a simple transfer. What we have is an obligation to enter into these enterprise-bargaining agreements and, as I alluded to a little bit earlier, I wanted to read out exactly what appears in the minister's union's own propaganda. It simply says:
Most employees on award wages need to negotiate an Enterprise Agreement to get the pay rise.
And it continues:
To win a good agreement, all potential members are urged to join United Voice to speak with one voice in negotiations.
It could not be any simpler than that. I think the obvious observation is that the money that is being provided from government coffers, through union-negotiated wage increases, is in turn paid as union fees to unions. What is it spent on? Let us reflect on where that money is spent. It is a fairly obvious assertion of mine that the money is effectively being diverted for political purposes. I think that too is regrettable. We do not need to draw the fine aged-care sector into those kind of murky dealings. It is not just me saying that; I did want to include the comments from Ray Glickman, who said we are effectively:
… stripping money from the care of our frail older people. Not only that, but the only way to re-access these care funds will be via deals with unions.
Our frail elderly are being sold short, and this redirection of existing funding, by adding further pressure to an industry at breaking point, will inevitably impact on the wellbeing of the most vulnerable in our society.
Leading Age Services, LASA, say that the compact is strikingly similar to aged-care reforms, and is 'tinkering at the edges and will not address the real issues faced by the industry'. They say that 'older Australians have been shunted off to one side' and:
… This government is not providing care based on need it is delivering a system of aged services with an imposed fiscal limit. This is why every 73 minutes another Australian is denied access to aged care.
Lastly, I wanted to quote this comment, from Catholic Health Australia's CEO, Martin Laverty—who, I concede, made balanced comments:
A government contract for services should not in our view stipulate an industrial outcome. Aged care providers and their staff should be free to determine above award employment arrangements at a local level, reflecting the circumstances in their workplace.
And it could not come any clearer than that.
These should be way more than just administrative changes; they should be way more than shunting money into the pockets of our unions. Our aged-care services are without doubt the finest in the world. They have waited for five years for this and they should have received far better.
I rise to speak on this cluster of Living Longer Living Better bills. We have had six years of this government, or five and a half years at least, and now they are desperately trying to leave a legacy, something they can hang their hat on. But six years is more than enough. They are trying to make last-minute sweeping changes across a whole range of policies.
I point out that the end of this parliament is destined to be 27 June, just 15 sitting days away now, and yet the government is trying to put through this cluster of bills. And it is not only in aged care—the government is also legislating in relation to: the Gonski report, which is a negotiated mess; the NDIS, which received bipartisan support but is largely unfunded, certainly beyond the four-year period; and the unfolding disaster of the NBN. It is pointing once again to unplanned and unconsidered policy made on the run by the government, and Australia is paying a dear price for it.
Why would we leave this legislation to the last four sitting weeks of parliament? Why on earth couldn't it have been looked at last year, in the midterm of the government? Didn't the government have any ideas about what they were planning to do with the sector? Did they just dream it up in February or March or April and then decide to legislate it in May in the last four weeks of the parliament? It is another version of the NBN, planned on the back of a napkin at 30,000 feet; hardly a considered policy. The Living Longer Living Better bills are unfortunately in the same boat.
The government actually guillotined the report of the Senate Community Affairs Committee, which was scheduled to report in June. To suit its political timetable, it cut that committee's work in half—or cut it off prematurely—and rushed the legislation through. It is a lack of consultation once again with the industry. The industry is seriously confused with the government's actions.
The last round of reform was the aged-care funding instrument reforms which were activated in February, the ACFIs. You have to hand it to the minister, the member for Port Adelaide—he is a very clever little gentleman; he convinced the industry that a $1.6 billion cut was in their interests. The industry actually came out and supported the changes to the ACFI bill, but the minister had a few cards up his sleeve and the aged-care industry did not realise what they were signing on for. The minister maintained the ACFI had to be reformed because of unusual claims, but there has not been one prosecution in the five years. Like the minister for immigration speaking about 10,000 illegal 457s, it would appear they are just making it up.
In their abundant generosity, the government propose to give $1.26 billion back in a workforce supplement, supposedly to address pay equity for women. That is a very good cause, but to take the funding out of the actual caring arrangements, to take it out of the pockets of the providers that have the task of providing day-to-day care to the people in their care, is simply not good enough. This workforce supplement is not enough in the first instance—and I will come back to that in a little while. It requires people who work for providers who have over 50 beds to sign on to an enterprise bargaining arrangement. Those bargaining arrangements of course are sponsored by United Voice, the Australian Nursing Federation and that bastion of integrity and honesty, the Health Services Union. It is a cosy little deal, isn't it, where a wage increase for low-paid workers is tied up with the implication that they should be driven to union membership? Of course, if the provider has fewer than 50 beds, that is not compulsory, and at least that is a small ray of sunlight.
The Senate committee took ample evidence in this area that the supplement was not sufficient to pay the extra, that small aged-care facilities in particular are just not able to find the extra money because the workforce supplement will not cover the full wage increase. Mrs Julie Christensen, CEO of Narrogin Cottage Homes in WA, summed it up well when she said:
I am very happy to let the committee know right now that we will be one of those who will not be signing up for the workforce supplement. We cannot afford it. I know Ray was saying it was two for one, but in my particular case, if you look at our … costs, I think you will find that it is 3.25 for one. I am running at a loss now. I am hoping we will balance the books next year. I cannot afford anything else. I cannot afford to expose my community organisation, and the assets that belong to the community, to risk, and the decision to sign on to the supplement would put my facility and my organisation at risk.
That is a very strong comment. Marie-Louise MacDonald, the board director of Masonic Care Alliance, said:
The workforce subsidy … is a major concern. We as an organisation and all of our alliance have EBAs which pay above the awards. We all want to do well by our staff and in our own way we put in place a number of things around family friendly environments and rostering around those needs and such to retain our staff. We would love to give them more money … The problem is that the subsidy is a shortfall for what we actually need.
I would like now to touch on how that affects the aged-care facilities in my electorate. South Australian aged care is in crisis, I must say. I speak to them often, and I have quite a number in my electorate. But it is an interesting situation in South Australia, where 50 per cent of the beds in Grey, or thereabouts, are controlled by Country Health, which is the state government.
I will give you a little bit of history, if I may. This has come about because, in a lot of small towns, small hostels were built, separate from hospitals, and over a period of time the hospital boards and the hostels amalgamated their administration, so we had one board within the town that would care for both institutions. This made sense. It worked well. In fact, I was chair of one such organisation. It worked well because the aged-care facility was able to tap into the hospital's expertise in a number of areas. It was able to use things like hospital kitchens. They were able to utilise mutual staff between the facilities. So there were all kinds of spin-offs to do this.
And then, of course, the South Australian government, in its infinite wisdom, decided to do away with local hospital boards and take over the management of those centrally. It installed health advisory committees, which are called HACs—quite an unfortunate name, I must say—and they have been largely disempowered. That local management has shifted hundreds and hundreds of kilometres away to Adelaide. What it has left them with is, in many cases, 10-, 15- or 20-bed community aged-care facilities. They are all under this magic figure of 60 beds, which we are now told is the number you need to make your facility break even.
In the electorate of Grey we have 209 beds, which are in three facilities that have more than 60 beds. By comparison with urban Australia, this is a very low figure, and it reflects the fact that we do not have very large communities—large cities, if you like. We have 284 beds in private institutions of fewer than 60, and they are under extreme pressure. And there are 444 beds that are controlled by Country Health, all under the 60 placement that I was speaking about just a moment ago.
It is a fact of life that facilities that operate in rural and remote areas have much higher operating costs. Quite often, they need to use agency staff to keep their numbers up and keep up the quality of their care. Even the supply of food, electricity, water and all those kinds of things in country areas come at a higher cost, yet they are rewarded in exactly the same way as the city facilities. So you can assume that, if 60 is the magic figure in the city, it will almost certainly be higher in the country. A number of the providers that are running facilities of that size tell me they are really struggling to make ends meet, particularly since February when the ACFI fees changed—the assessment procedure. In my opinion, that would mean that probably 80 per cent of these facilities are suboptimal and losing money, and that is a very scary place to be.
I know that we have already seen bed licences handed back within the electorate. We also know, because the generational review tells us so, that Australia is facing an ageing population and an explosion in the number of beds that will be needed to cater for our ageing population, yet none of these facilities has the ability at the moment to build extra beds. It is a hand-to-mouth existence. Every day is a challenge for them. What we need is some long-term vision in policy. I am concerned that this robbing Peter to pay Paul action that the government has taken to get to this point is bad for all of those facilities. By 2050, we are told, there will be 3½ million Australians using aged care. I hope that I am one of them. I am not planning to get away from this place soon, but I am hoping that by 2050 I will be one of them!
Mr Dutton interjecting—
Perhaps I will be joined by the member! But it is a great challenge for all of us. I am very concerned for those facilities in my electorate. I think we are at the sharp end, the coalface, if you like. When small towns and communities and moderate-sized communities are already facing great difficulty with their facilities, this push now to force the payment of higher wages on them—which is exactly what the workers need—if unfunded or not fully funded, is another arrow in their back. Thank you.
I rise to make a few very brief comments. The Greens are supporters of aged-care reform, and the Senate inquiry that our Senator Rachel Siewert has been participating in has canvassed quite a number of issues and gone into some detail about the operation of the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013, so I will leave it to her to make our party's contribution about those issues when the matter reaches the Senate.
One issue that I would like to place on the record, though, concerns the interaction between the aged-care system and those who find themselves homeless or at risk of homelessness. I raise it because, while it may seem tangential, it is related to this bill for reasons that will become clear. As you would imagine, if you were someone who was homeless, you might find yourself in a pretty difficult situation when it came to finding aged care that suited your needs. First of all, there is the basic issue of actually encountering an aged-care service in the first place and being able to sit down and have that conversation with them. Unlike those of us who have family members who will care for us and may go and make the inquiries on our behalf about what would be an appropriate aged-care service, if you are homeless you probably do not have someone to do that for you. It may actually take the service itself conducting outreach, going to where you are—and you might be sleeping rough; you might be in a shelter—and saying to you, 'We can look after you.'
Secondly, people who have been homeless for a long period and find themselves getting aged-care services are going to have issues, by and large, that the rest of the people who find themselves in aged care will not necessarily have. Being homeless ages you prematurely, so by the time that you find yourself entering aged care you may have—people do have—a large number of health issues that others do not necessarily have and may require intensive support and care. And, of course, there is the question of behaviour and interaction with others. If you have been homeless for a long period of time then you have learnt to survive and get by, and that does not necessarily involve interacting with others in the way that people who have lived in stable housing all their lives would. You are putting people together who may not have had stable accommodation arrangements for most of their lives.
I have had the privilege of visiting the Wintringham service, who have gone out of their way to be an aged-care provider for people who have been homelessness or at risk of homelessness. They have devised a system that provides quite a high level of care to the people who end up living there. They provide surrounds and physical environment that have won international awards and international acclaim. They have been awarded by the United Nations for the buildings that they provide for people who have probably lived a pretty rough life up to that point. As an employer, they are pretty beloved as well, with one of the lowest staff turnover rates I have ever seen, which resulted recently in their being recipients of an award from the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, who visited them recently. Perhaps the most admirable thing about the way that Bryan Lipmann and his team have conducted themselves at Wintringham—and have been able to expand from Flemington in my electorate out more broadly as far as Avondale Heights and elsewhere outside of my electorate—is that they have been able to make the service operate within the existing funding systems and set themselves up as an aged-care provider for homeless people. When you walk into one of their places, it is not is what one might call a 'normal' aged-care environment with a smattering of homeless people; almost everyone who is in there has been homeless or at risk of homelessness.
They are currently facing a dilemma that may affect their future viability. It is not to do with this legislation, I hasten to add, but to do with changes to the funding system that may threaten their operation. That is not something that is said lightly by the people who have spent a long time building up such an excellent service and are devoted and extraordinarily committed to it. This issue has been canvassed during the Senate inquiry. It has been raised with the minister. I understand and greatly appreciate that the minister has spoken to the operators of Wintringham and, I understand, other operators as well. It is our position that this issue should be resolved before this package passes the parliament, because we want to make sure that when this parliament rises—having hopefully dealt with this broader issue—places like Wintringham are able to continue. Wintringham have enjoyed support from all sides of politics. Former prime ministers have visited them. I do not think it would be anyone's intention that there be any threat to their viability, given the service that they provide and given what the consequences would be if there were to be no aged care for homeless people. I am encouraged that this issue will be resolved before this package is passed. On that basis, I commend the bill to House.
I call the member for Dunkley and thank him for his patience.
Thank you, ma'am. I am always courteous to the chair and so happy to give my colleague the member for Melbourne a bit of a clear run. Who knows? There might be a modest number of opportunities in the months ahead, but I thank him for his contribution. Wintringham are of particular interest to me as well. Not far from my community they operate a very interesting integrated facility which deals with a number of special needs clients in an appropriate environment that provides some dignity and respect and often deals with members of our community that slip through some of the structures that are put in place. It is a good model and an interesting model.
This is an interesting debate too. I was just enjoying a conversation with the minister and talking about where we are with this. I cannot help but feel that the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and related bills are a statement of intention where so much of the meat is not available. That is where the concern has been raised with me, not just once but repeatedly, by aged-care providers in my community.
For those who do not know the magnificent Mornington Peninsula, it is a mecca for all things virtuous. That includes its appeal as an aged-care destination. We seem to have a number of providers that appeal to particular sections of the community, the Vasey RSL facility being one where the veterans community travel from wide and far to be cared for in a wonderful facility in my electorate just south of Frankston. But we see that we have quite a significant aged-care provision task, not just for our own community but for people attracted to it from afar. At the same time, we have seen a number of providers exit the industry. It is just too hard for too many. We have seen local councils deciding that they would exit the sector now rather than be faced with more regulatory imposts, more capital burdens with increasing standards of facilities and a greater degree of regulation making an already difficult task incredibly challenging. We have seen not-for-profit organisations who quickly add that they are not only not for profit but not for loss either. They would like to be not for loss, but they have not been able to achieve that objective. And there are a number also facing substantial capital outlays in the years ahead deciding that this is not the business that they wanted to be in, even though many have had generations-long involvement.
From my own experience on the board of an aged-care facility, where we actually ran a private hospital to fund its operations—they were in the old CAM and SAM funding days—that was character building. I stayed quite closely involved with that organisation and hear of their challenges. Some of the ideas embedded in this package of bills sound fairly innocuous on the surface but leave them with complete uncertainty about where they will be when these changes are implemented: some of those proposals around having a pricing regulator; some of the ideas that you need to satisfy a new agency about your capacity to charge extra service fees; the arrangement about resident contributions versus more of a daily rental model and where that will leave them in terms of their conversation with the banks about accessing finance for facility upgrades; even something that is for some passe but for them very real, the impact of the carbon tax; and whether what is left after all their operating expenses, assuming that everything has gone just swimmingly, leaves a very thin margin with which they could then go to the bank and say, 'This is our capacity to service a loan.' These are the real-life challenges facing the aged-care sector.
These are some of the concerns that caused the government to have to engage the Productivity Commission in examining what the future looks like for the aged-care facility, where the Caring for older Australians report was provided. The government took many, many months to consider its response to that report and then waited 11 more months to actually bring these bills before the parliament.
In that hiatus, aged-care providers have just been left wondering what is going on. They know the ageing population is a major social issue for our country. The aged-care providers know that about nine per cent of our population are aged over 70 and that that will increase to a 13 per cent share of our population by 2021. They know that more than half of aged-care providers are currently operating in the red, and many of them do not see any black ink emerging from this package of bills.
There is also concern about the capacity not only of the sector but also of the staff to support the sector in meeting the expected demand into the future. This leaves many aged-care providers wondering just what the future looks likes. They have this package of measures, but that does not really answer some of the compelling concerns that they have. Why has it taken so long? Why the headline argument of $3.7 billion? It looked fantastic in the media, $3.7 billion. People thought it looked great—and the government got all the accolades for that headline that they hoped for—only to realise that only a small fraction of that amount was coming from the government and that aged-care providers were going to have to explain to their residents that $3.2 billion was actually coming out of their pockets. Many in the aged-care sector thought that their relationship with those they care for was moving away from being about the care and wellbeing of their residents to one of cost collection and debt recovery to make sure that money was coming out of those residents. These are the concerns. This is the real-life set of challenges that many in the aged-care sector face.
The workforce issue is quite compelling. You hear people talking about the number of workers needed to provide care into the future. I heard General Cosgrove talking about that and highlighting those concerns. There is a union recruitment strategy where there is some assistance, through a supplement, for those costs of providing the labour force, but you have to be hooked into United Voice. What a cunning plan for a union recruitment strategy. They are saying, 'Yes, you've got some wage and salary pressures, and workforce costs that are adding to other costs, such as the carbon tax,' and, in this case, even propositions about the government withdrawing from the marketplace in terms of the insurance that is provided in bonds and the like—all of these things adding to the costs—and then there is a tantalising offer of a supplement, but you need to have a United Voice enterprise-bargaining agreement.
As was reported in some of the submissions to the Senate committee inquiry, for each dollar you might get out of that, you are actually fitting yourself up for $3 more in costs, and those costs keep escalating into the future. Many in the aged-care sector are saying, 'This is kind of not the help we're looking for, where you take an existing problem, amp it up and turbocharge it, give us a fraction of the money needed to cover the cost impost, but lock us into even further financial stress for the future.' We have seen those concerns highlighted, yet the government seems not to want to address those.
That is why I think the amendment moved by the shadow minister, my friend Mr Dutton, is so important. There is so much that is unknown about the operationalisation of these bills. We have seen the words, we have heard talk of a new assessment instrument and we have seen providers wondering just how that is going to work, given that it has been framed in the context of there being such a huge amount of rorting going on—that there is such enormous mischief out there that we need a new instrument. That does not build confidence, even in the area of creating a new regulator to put a cap on bonds. The Prime Minister said, 'People have paid $2 million for their bond,' but we think there is one person, one person in the country, that has paid a bond at that level, in a spectacular condominium type environment—hardly typical. But this is where you see the government over-egging the exception to create some kind of justification for intervening in a whole range of ways that seem completely over the top and that, in the eyes of many in the aged-care community, are just further regulation of a sector that is already incredibly burdened by regulation.
So we have these bills but we do not have many answers. We have a Senate committee inquiry that has not concluded its work. We have a government that sat on this process in terms of both its response to the Productivity Commission and the astronomical period of time before this coathanger set of legislation was introduced. All the meat is in the regulations, which really go to how they will be operationalised. We do not have those, but we are expected to pass these bills. This is one of the problems that the parliament has faced under this divided and dysfunctional government. It is all done, not at the 11th hour but more like at 10 to 12—and it is now so time critical. A hiatus created by government inactivity has been responded to by this indecent haste to pass legislation on which many fundamental and substantial questions remain unanswered.
So we present this amendment, through the shadow minister, about the importance of proper consideration of these bills and how really the Senate standing committee should be given an opportunity to report. That would seem good process, because there are good people with a very heartfelt and selfless commitment to the care of the frail and aged in our community who have put their hearts and minds into making submissions. The least the parliament can do is respect that effort. The least the parliament should be required to do is embrace that input. Why would you have a consultation process and invite submissions through a parliamentary process yet in this chamber expect us to deliberate on these bills without the benefit of the conclusions that the Senate committee might arrive at? So I commend that amendment because it is a sensible amendment. It goes to sure-footed and sensible policy. It goes to legislative action that is informed by evidence, not responding to assertions that have been found to be very much wanting—and I draw your attention back to this $2 million bond 'problem', which actually represents a rare exception and is hardly the rule and hardly a precedent on which policy should be formulated.
In the area of the instruments themselves and allegations of people gaming the current funding instrument, I know, again from my feedback from the aged-care providers in my community, that they await with horror the audit team coming by. Here we have aged-care professionals working day in, day out, night and day on care plans and care requirements, just waiting for the Star Chamber audit team to come by, to make a decision just like that and to be—in some cases conveyed to me—quite unresponsive to the material that is put before them. In other cases, there is the assertion that gaming is going on to the cash-flow advantage of the aged-care providers, and then, after much trauma and anxiety, the audit team leaves perfectly happy with the arrangements. I just wonder what is going on there.
We know, and I know from my time as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, that often, when people need residential aged care, the simple fact that they are getting it sees an improvement in their wellness. It is the simple fact that they are surrounded by people who care for them. There is the emotional and intellectual nourishment of what I would call silly talk, just trying to work out what is going on in the world, solving the world's problems over a cup of tea, wondering why the Tigers did not fire on all cylinders on Saturday night. These are the big questions that many talk about in aged-care facilities, but that emotional, social and intellectual interaction can improve wellness. The care plans that are put in place not only maintain a person's wellness; they can add to it. Yet then questions like, 'Have you overspecified the care needs?' are raised because the person is more well than those care needs would suggest. Yet it is that very care that has brought about that improvement in people's wellness. These are some of the concerns that aged-care providers grapple with under the current arrangements, where so much of their time is paid to filling out paperwork, reports and regulatory burdens, yet, when these audit processes are activated, all of that red tape seems not to amount to much. It does not seem to be given the great weight that the operational requirements place on them.
This is why I think that this resolution is important and the amendment should be supported by the House. This is why I think the coalition's view that there is a need for a four-year aged-care rolling funding provider agreement would be a sensible and mutually respectful way of going about aged-care reform in this country. This is why then you would not have the great surprises that have dogged this industry for so long. This is why you would then see people re-entering to be providers in that field and see the professionals that work hard in it respected and valued for their expertise. This is why they would not have to fear yet another government agency coming and getting involved at a time when the sector is already fatigued by the so-called reform and reviews that currently exist and could focus their energy on the care of their residents. I hope the aged-care sector can survive the almost two years of suspended animation while the Aged Care Funding Instrument debate has evolved. We still need to know more about how sensory loss and other requirements are cared for. There is so much work to be done in here. It should be well informed. That is why I think that this House should consider the Senate's deliberations before concluding a view. (Time expired)
I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and related bills today. However, I have to express my concern that it has taken over a year for the government to bring this legislation to the parliament, and now it wants to push it through without any further proper consideration.
There seems to be a theme in recent times, and I point to the disastrous media reform bill as the most significant example, given that most of the provisions of these bills do not come into force until 1 July 2014. And those that do come into force by 1 July this year can be enacted under current legislation. I ask the question: why the big rush?
Many issues have been raised about the complexity of the bills, but the Department of Health and Ageing are yet to answer them satisfactorily. Despite promises of reform, five years on there is very little evidence of real change on the ground. We have seen the government take on review after report after review, the recommendations of which have been ignored or used to prompt more reports. Our aged-care system needs urgent change to provide viable and effective aged-care services for older Australians. But the Living Longer Living Better package does not resolve many outstanding viability issues for providers.
The $1.6 billion cut from the Aged Care Funding Instrument under these reforms has placed substantially more pressure on this sector. The five bills only cherry pick a few recommendations from the Productivity Commission report Caring for older Australians. They also add more regulation in what is an already very highly regulated sector. I say it is a very highly regulated sector, but to highlight some of the dysfunction that exists under our current aged-care system I would like to talk about one facility and a facility that we are hoping to establish in my electorate.
The Star of the Sea Nursing Home on Thursday Island is not a new facility. It caters for around 30 aged-care and respite residents. It is perched on the water's edge—appropriately, given that the Torres Strait Islanders are a seafaring people—and overlooking the very picturesque Torres Strait towards Hammond Island. You would expect that this would be a haven for our elderly Torres Strait citizens, but unfortunately it has had a very troubled history in recent years.
In October 2010, a nursing agency temp went on ABC Radio to describe the facility as 'understaffed, unsafe, filthy and the residents are not being properly cared for'. It prompted a review by the Department of Health and Ageing and a full replacement of the board.
The facility received two sanctions from the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency relating to risks to the health and wellbeing of the residents. Townsville based Congress Community Development and Education Unit Ltd took over management of the facility in June 2011, and when I visited the facility around September of that year I conceded that the situation was certainly better. But, even so, I was horrified at the standard of the accommodation and the common areas. It prompted me to write a letter to the Prime Minister in September 2011, warning that the poor state of the facility, including structurally unsound gutters, rusting doors and louvres and the absence of secure units for dementia patients—there was a lack of security in the boundary fencing, which could allow elderly patients access to the sea—could very well lead to patient deaths. I stated in that letter:
This unacceptable situation requires everyone's urgent attention in my view as it could be seen as an elder abuse issue. My greatest fear is that someone will die before this problem is properly addressed.
That was in September 2011.
After financial troubles, CCDEU handed the management of Star of the Sea over to BlueCare in December 2012. I visited Star of the Sea in April this year, and I must congratulate BlueCare for their work. The grounds are immaculate, the staff are friendly and committed, the rooms and common areas are clean, and the patients look very clean and relaxed.
However, not everything is rosy. All of the areas that I raised concerns about back in September 2011 had remained and had, in fact, further deteriorated. Eighteen months later there are still rusting drainpipes, rotten window frames, unsafe staff accommodation. In fact, the staff accommodation has been shut down for 18 months and condemned. Staff are living in units that were provided for aged care patients. So the number of clients the facility can accept has been reduced because a lot of the accommodation is now being used by staff members.
There is other stuff there too. There is one small area there that is supposed to be an activities room. It is not much larger than a bathroom and it is next door to the pan room. It is totally inappropriate. There is no outdoor area at all for clients to sit. They are confined to a very small area where there is a TV. It is also the eating area. Another area of great concern is the lack of security fencing. Stray dogs are constantly wandering through the facility and there is a very real concern about the possibility of one of these residents being bitten by one of these dogs. Also there are numerous cases of inebriated locals taking short cuts through the facility, which is hardly seen as a secure facility for people when they are in great need.
The big question I have to ask is: despite the best efforts of the staff, why have these issues not been addressed? The Star of the Sea has been waiting for $2.1 million that had been promised by the federal government over 18 months ago—$1.7 million through the Department of Health and Ageing and another $400,000 from the ACAR round. The $400,000 was to build a deck outside to at least allow the aged residents to be able to get some enjoyment by sitting outside rather than being confined to this small area, which is the only one available at the moment. The facility is being run on an absolute shoestring despite management chasing these funds from the department numerous times. They are still to materialise. It is an absolute disgrace. I had to go to the local media to try and address the situation.
Given the status the aged have in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander society, families should have complete confidence in putting their family members in this facility. I understand that in Torres Strait culture family members tend to stay at home for much longer than they do in other cultures, so by the time they come into these facilities they have a much higher need for care.
After the article was published, I heard only a fortnight ago that some funding has actually come through. However, I was disappointed. It was not the $2.1 million promised 18 months ago but was only $1.1 million. They need something like about $4 million just to fix the existing problems there and get the staff accommodation open so that they can start to look at providing more rooms for ageing Torres Strait Islanders.
The cost of bringing this up to provide the additional high-care unit and dementia unit, I am told, is something in the vicinity $19 million. For the $1.1 million, it means it is well out of reach at this point in time. When we have a look at the commitments that we have for securing a future for our Indigenous Australians—I think this is the only dedicated Torres Strait Islander facility in the country—it is a national shame. The only reason it happens this way is because of the lack of scrutiny by the national media. I think this particular appalling situation needs to be addressed.
The second example I would like to talk about is the proposed Mossman District Nursing Home. For 14 years, Marj Norris and the Mossman District Nursing Home Committee have been fighting for the establishment of a facility in this regional town. It has been an incredibly long journey—fundraising, obtaining a commitment of land, and year after year applying through the Aged Care Approvals Round for the bed allocations and capital funding they need to proceed. I honestly do not know how Marj and the committee have done it, but as of today they are still waiting to hear the outcomes of the latest round, which they applied for back in December. The red tape and regulation that they have had to deal with and overcome are just baffling. The guidelines they have to meet are very, very rigid, extremely difficult and time consuming. DoHA do not give much notice as to when they will put out the notifications, and applicants need to provide a lot of supporting information to comply. In Marj's own words:
The issue is that we are seeing quite a dramatic increase in people with Alzheimer's, our aging population is increasing, and we are getting more and more 90-96 year olds requiring high care immediately.
This is very problematic and the government needs to acknowledge this very urgently.
We are absolutely determined to keep going because we cannot imagine any government being so short-sighted as to feel there is not a need for facilities here in the north.
Feedback from the previous Aged Care Approvals Round, in which the committee were unsuccessful, showed that the assessors had little grasp of the realities of living in a regional area. They stated that people could easily access residential care in Port Douglas or Cairns, conveniently ignoring that Cairns is a 75-kilometre journey away. While I accept that Port Douglas may be closer, Mossman is a very close-knit farming community where generations have lived within a stone's throw of each other. It has quite a different feel to the more transient tourist town of Port Douglas. In addition, the communities around Mossman, including Newell Beach, Cooya Beach and Mossman Gorge, have very strong Indigenous populations. For Aboriginals and Islanders, it is culturally important that their elders are on country when they pass. The opportunity to have dedicated beds at an aged-care facility in Mossman would be ideal.
In 2011 the committee partnered with the Salvation Army's Aged Care Plus, an extremely well-respected organisation with years of experience in aged care. The Salvation Army themselves have recognised the value of a nursing home at Mossman, and their decision to do what they can to progress this project is fantastic. Given that the nursing home has a huge amount of community support and generated more than 300 letters of support with its application, I can only hope that the outcome of this next round will be positive. It concerns me that small communities like Mossman tend to get overlooked. The needs there are very real. The families are close-knit and it is very difficult—we do not have the benefit of public transport, so it can be impossible for older family members to visit their loved ones in care. It is important, where we can, to keep them in the community.
On the aspect of Indigenous aged care, I have to say that we are not doing it well at all. I have serious concerns about a number of aspects. I am not going to have an opportunity to raise them here at the moment, but we need to start looking at a lot more culturally appropriate services for our Indigenous older citizens, particularly in the area of Indigenous traditional healing, where opportunities are being denied at the moment in our facilities. That is to the great detriment of our older Indigenous citizens. We seriously need to look at that area of care and we need to modify our models to be able to accommodate those special needs, particularly in relation to traditional and culturally appropriate healing methods, which I can assure you are very effective in this community. We also need to give serious consideration to the efforts of the Mossman community, who for well over a decade have worked very hard to get something that is very much needed within their community.
I would like to thank all members for their contribution to the debate on these five bills, the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and related bills, which give effect to the government's $3.7 billion commitment to aged care. I particularly thank the Chief Opposition Whip for his contribution and indicate that I will come back to him about some of those funding issues in relation to Star of the Sea.
The government has been working with the sector for more than two years to develop a package of reforms that strikes the balance between what Australia wants in an aged-care system and what aged-care providers and government can responsibly deliver. Extensive input through working groups, public consultations and industry briefings have helped build these reforms. Through talking and listening, Australians will now be getting the aged-care system they want and deserve. These bills implement an end-to-end aged-care system, one which provides consumers with greater choice and greater control, provides more sustainable and modernised financing arrangements and ensures independent advice and oversight to support these changes.
We know there is increasing preference among older Australians for greater flexibility in aged care, including independent living arrangements and increased choice. Additionally, there are greater expectations regarding the quality of care and the services being provided. Aged care will no longer be left to chance. People will get the aged care they want and need no matter where they live or what their financial means. Australians have told us they want to stay in their homes for as long as possible. It is through these reforms that the government has helped people to achieve this. Australians will be able to make their way more easily through what, until now, has been a complex, fragmented system with more choice, more control, more support and more independence. This government is delivering real reform in a sector that has not had any significant change for well more than a decade. These bills are an enormous step in ensuring the aged-care system is sustainable into the future.
I can indicate that the government will not be supporting the amendment moved by the shadow minister. We do look forward to receipt of the report of the Senate inquiry into these bills and the debate that will naturally follow in that chamber. That debate will include many matters canvassed in the contributions by members on these bills in this place. One such matter, by way of example, will be the need to develop a homelessness supplement for providers primarily caring for people who have previously been homeless. I commend the bills to the House.
The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted—that is, Mr Dutton's amendment—stand part of the question.
The question now is that this bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That standing orders Nos 55 (Lack of quorum) and 133 (Deferred divisions on Mondays and Tuesdays) be suspended until the completion of consideration of the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and the four related bills.
I thank the House. This will enable debate on this legislation to conclude.
Question agreed to.
For the understanding of members, that motion means we will be having divisions after 6.30—
Mr Butler interjecting—
No, we will not. Just in case, I am being very technical with everybody. That is not something I can dictate. I am letting everybody know that, technically, that is what you all just agreed to. I do not want anybody to misunderstand what they have just agreed to.
I move:
(1) Schedule 2, page 30 (after line 29), after item 6, insert:
6A At the end of section 95A -1
Add:
(3) Recommendations made by the *Aged Care Commissioner to the Secretary must be acted on.
(4) If a recommendation identifies an act or omission that constitutes a failure by the approved provider to meet a relevant standard for the provision of aged care (see Part 4.1), the Secretary must give a copy of the recommendation to the approved provider.
(5) If the approved provider does not rectify the failure within a reasonable time after the recommendation was given to the approved provider, the Federal Court may, on application by the Secretary or the *Aged Care Commissioner, make such orders as the court considers appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the recommendation is given effect.
(6) Despite any other provision of this Act, the *Aged Care Commissioner may investigate reports of failure to meet a relevant standard for the provision of aged care (see Part 4.1) made directly by a care recipient or an agent of a care recipient.
I believe there is concern among many aged-care recipients that, where complaints are made to the Aged Care Commissioner and the commissioner finds those complaints have merit, those complaints are often not acted on by the department or the care provider. This leaves recipients of care in a situation where they are not being looked after to a reasonable standard and have exhausted all their avenues of redress, leaving them stranded. Recipients of care should not be made to jump through hoops or engage with an inadequate internal complaints system before going directly to the commissioner. I believe this amendment clarifies their rights.
It is also important that the commissioner's powers are extended so that where a care recipient's rights have been infringed, or where a reasonable standard of care has not been met, the problem can be fixed. In fact, to achieve that end, the commissioner should be able to go directly to the Federal Court when a problem is not being fixed. I think having that right would also enhance the independence of the commissioner's role.
What this amendment would achieve is nothing new. Other commissioners have similar powers and the Aged Care Commissioner even has similar powers in relation to specific matters. This amendment simply ensures that the commissioner has the appropriate power to protect the recipients of aged care. The amendment does not change the way the commission is structured. It simply increases the ability of people in care to have their concerns addressed. It does that in three ways. Firstly, when a recommendation is made by the commissioner to the secretary of the department it must be acted on. Secondly, a copy of the recommendation from the commissioner is to be given to a provider and, if the problems identified are not fixed, the commissioner or the secretary can go to the Federal Court to ensure the recommendations are enforced. Finally, care recipients or their agents can go directly to the commissioner without any need to engage with any other process.
Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 133: treaties tabled on 1 November 2012.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Today I present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' Report 133, which contains the committee's views on a series of treaties which were tabled on 1 November 2012. The Treaties Committee has approved eight treaties, six of which are air services agreements. Air services agreements contain important provisions on the operation of international airline services country to country, including matters such as traffic rights, the capacity of flight routes, tariffs and competition policy. The committee has approved six air services agreements which formalise previously established, non-treaty arrangements between Australia and the United States, Japan, Kenya, Sri Lanka and Palau.
All of these air services agreements grant Australian airlines access to the aviation markets of these countries for the purposes of international air travel. In the case of the US, the proposed agreements will allow air services to operate between Australia and the US under an 'open-skies' framework. The air services agreements will enable airlines of Australia and the countries in question to provide services between any point in Australia and any point in those countries, based on capacity levels decided from time to time between the aeronautical authorities of the countries listed. It is expected that Australian travellers and Australian businesses, particularly in the tourism and export industries, will benefit from this proposed set of agreements through the opening up of increased commercial opportunities. As noted earlier, these agreements have already been in place for a number of years as memoranda of understanding. Thus, the treaties here are providing a more formal and legal foundation to existing arrangements.
The remaining two treaties approved by the committee relate to international interests in mobile equipment and are together known as the Cape Town convention. The treaties introduce a uniform international securities framework that applies across borders and provides financiers of aircraft with increased certainty around Australia's insolvency laws, as they apply to highly mobile equipment. These treaties should reduce creditor risk exposure and allow for the prompt repossession of an aircraft asset or, indeed, the taking of other action by a creditor upon insolvency. In turn, they are expected to allow for increased access by the Australian aviation industry to cheaper asset financing and sources of finance external to the domestic market. The current gaps in the Australian legislative framework do not provide for the unique financing requirements applicable to aviation. The committee sees the Cape Town convention as a means of addressing these gaps.
Finally, the report also contains the committee's view that binding treaty action may be taken on two minor treaty actions, namely an amendment of Australia's schedule annexe to the Marrakesh Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and an amendment of the 2007 agreement between Australia and the European Police Office. The committee concludes that all the treaties covered in Report 133 should be supported with binding action. On behalf of the committee I commend the report to the House.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, I present the following report: Advisory report on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Asian Century) Bill 2013, together with minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
I seek leave to make a statement on the report.
Leave granted.
The Higher Education Support (Asian Century) Bill 2013 was selected on 14 February 2013 by the House Selection Committee for referral to the Committee on Education and Employment for inquiry and report. The reason for referral was that:
The Bill contains a number of provisions relating to OS-HELP and the implementation of the Asian Century policy in relation to study overseas that need to be explored in greater depth .
2 The b ill will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to: increase the maximum OS-HELP loan amount for students studying in Asia; introduce a supplementary loan of up to $1 , 000 for students who undertake intensive study in an Asian language in preparation for undertaking overseas studying in Asia; remove the requirement that a student must be enrolled with an overseas higher education institution or at an overseas campus of an Australian higher education provider to be eligible for OS-HELP; extend eligibility to postgraduate Commonwealth s upported students; and reduce the equivalent full time student load (EFTSL) that a student must have remaining on completion of the overseas study, from 0.5 EFTSL to 0.125 EFTSL.
The inquiry received 17 submissions from student and higher ed ucation associations as well as universities. 3 On 21 March 2013 the committee he ld a public hearing in Canberra to explore themes raised in submissions by stakeholders with officials from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
This bill's focus is to further assist Commonwealth supported students, as consistent with the primary purpose of OS-HELP.
The c ommittee acknowledges the arguments and advocacy put forward by eight submitters, including Bond University and the Council of Private Higher Education, that non-CSP students (namely private students) should also be able to access OS-HELP.
The c ommittee recommends that consideration be given to extending the eligibility of OS-HELP assistance to non-CSP students.
Concern was also raised regarding the preferential treatment that the b ill affords to students wishing to study in Asia, over other countries. The d epartment assured the c ommittee that the b ill is compatible with all human rights obligations. Preferential treatment is a key component of the b ill's intent, which is to encourage students to undertake part of their course of study in Asia.
The b ill broadens eligibility for OS-HELP assistance and provides additional incentives for Commonwealth supported students to undertake part of their course of study in Asia.
The c ommittee recommends that the House of Representatives pass the b ill. I would like to thank all those who provided evidence to the inquiry and my committee colleagues who participated in the inquiry. I commend the report to the House.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, I present the following report: International education support and collaboration: review of the 2010-2011 annual report of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
I seek leave to make a statement on the report.
Leave granted.
This report and review followed bills inquiry work that the committee undertook in 2011 into overseas students and higher education support amendment bills. These were the Commonwealth government's final phase response to the Baird review and introduced new protections for overseas students.
In light of the Baird , and also Knight visa reform changes in recent years , the c ommittee thought it timely and opportune to convene a roundtable to provide members with an update on the status of the reforms, and to hold discussions on key issues concerning international students in Australia today.
The c ommittee invited government departments and agencies, advocacy organisations, academics and international students to two roundtable sessions on 3 April 2012. The first topic focused on the sector as a whole, and the second, on sustainability of the sector and future opportunities.
Prior to tabling this report, the committee invited those government departments and agencies that appeared at the original roundtable to provide a further progress update. Both the roundtable and subsequent briefing highlighted the importance of consulting regularly with international students, especially on changes to visa rules.
The Study in Australia website is an important information portal for international students but we have recommended some additional components to further assist students. Information should be made available on the eligibility of transport concessions in respective states and territories. There should be frequently asked questions and case studies on accommodation and tenancy rights and health insurance cover, as well as example quotes of health insurance costs to help students make informed decisions about appropriate cover when they compare deals provided by different providers.
While the sector has experienced fluctuating enrolment numbers in recent years, the committee learnt that reforms are consolidating. Moreover, there are many positive stories and messages to be shared in respect of international students' experience in Australia. There is a burgeoning growth in two-way exchanges, twinning programs, transnational skills training, regional collaboration and cooperation, and global partnerships.
International education is Australia's fourth biggest export at $14 billion a year, but it is so much more than that.
Beyond the market based perspective, education plays a significant role in facilitating and strengthening people-to - people links in our region. It also shapes perceptions of Australia overseas and Australia's perceptions and understanding of the larger world around it.
The committee's final recommendation was that the Commonwealth government seek opportunities to promote discussions surrounding the future sustainability and possibilities for international education in Australia and our region, and to invite stakeholders to participate in these on a regular and ongoing basis.
In closing, I thank all the inquiry participants and my committee colleagues who participated in this inquiry. I commend the report to the House.
Does the member for Deakin wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs I present the committee's advisory report on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013, together with the minutes of proceedings.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
On 21 March 2013, the Selection Committee referred the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report, citing the following reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The bill proposes changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to:
The committee recognised that considerable consultation has gone on prior to the introduction of this bill to the House, and that the provisions proposed are the enactment of recommendations made by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in its inquiry into the exposure draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012. I take this opportunity to particularly thank Senator Trish Crossin and her committee for their great work in that inquiry. The Senate committee concluded that there was unanimous agreement that the Sex Discrimination Act be amended to extend protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, and for same-sex de facto couples.
The committee has recommended that the House of Representatives pass this bill because it is of the view that the protection of all Australians from discrimination is a core matter of social justice. The committee considers that the proposed legislative changes are long overdue and will address critical gaps in the current antidiscrimination legal framework.
Given the extensive consultation that has taken place regarding the measures contained in this bill, and the expectation that the final sitting day of the 43rd Parliament will be 27 June 2013, this committee urges the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to conclude its deliberations into this bill as a matter of urgency so that the bill may be considered by both Houses prior to the parliament rising for the election. The changes proposed by this bill are too important to be delayed for people who remain vulnerable and unprotected from discrimination.
I thank the deputy chair, the member for Pearce, and the other members of the committee for their participation. I thank the secretariat. I commend the committee's report to the House.
by leave—I support the words of the chair of the committee, the member for Moreton, on this particular report, and I thank members of the committee who have deliberated on it. During the government's initial attempt to consolidate all antidiscrimination legislation under one act, it came to light that sexuality based discrimination had not been addressed in Commonwealth law. Addressing this shortcoming is necessary, and as a result the government has proposed a separate bill which was the subject of the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee's inquiry. From that inquiry, the committee has unanimously recommended the passage of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013. The bill will extend the protection from discrimination to the new grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status and extend the existing ground of 'marital status' to 'marital or relationship status' to provide protection from discrimination for same-sex de facto couples.
No submissions were necessary as, when the exposure draft of the consolidated antidiscrimination legislation was inquired into, more than 3,000 submissions were received by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. Whilst the coalition opposed a consolidated antidiscrimination bill for a number of different reasons, the coalition senators' dissenting report in regard to that inquiry did note an area for reform, and I think it is worth repeating here. It reads:
… Coalition senators were impressed with one part of the evidence before the inquiry—that from the GLBTI community, who pointed out that none of the Commonwealth Acts which deal with anti-discrimination law extend to sexuality-based discrimination. This is, in our view, an obvious gap, which should be addressed. People in that category are no doubt vulnerable to unfair discrimination. Discrimination against members of that community is unacceptable by modern community standards, and is reflected in the removal in 2008—on a bipartisan basis—of all discriminatory treatment from Commonwealth legislation. It is also consistent with the policy which the Coalition took to the 2010 election. A simple amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act, which includes sexuality (or, for completeness, identity as a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or intersex person) as a protected attribute, would overcome that lacuna.
The committee is of the view that the protection of citizens from discrimination is a core matter of social justice and the proposed legislative change will address the gaps in the current antidiscrimination legal framework. It is a necessary and overdue change, and for that reason the committee is also calling upon the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to try and conclude its deliberations so that this bill may be considered by both houses before the forthcoming election, as my colleague the member for Moreton said.
Firstly, I will read a few quotes which I think are instructive in terms of the government's mismanagement and, frankly, deception when it comes to private health insurance. The first quote is from the then Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, who on 24 February 2009 said:
The Government is firmly committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates.
I take you back to 25 February 2008, when Kevin Rudd was quoted as saying:
The private health insurance rebate policy remains unchanged and will remain unchanged.
In fact, it was Mr Rudd as then Leader of the Opposition in November 2007 who said:
Both my shadow minister for health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
I take you to Ms Roxon's press release on 26 September 2007:
On many occasions for many months, Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
I take you to statements made on Meet the Press, Network Ten, on Sunday, 23 September 2007 during an interview by Steve Lewis of the then health minister and soon-to-be-retired member for Gellibrand. Steve Lewis said:
Let's move to another integral part of the health system, the private health rebate, the 30% rebate. Labor has said "Yes, we will keep it," but you have not said whether you will keep it in total. Can you say now that Labor, if elected, will maintain all of the ancillary measures that encompass the private health rebate?
Nicola Roxon:
Yes, I can. We've committed to it. We've committed to the 30%. We've committed to the 35% and 40% for older Australians. It's similar to this safety net. We know that many people rely heavily on the assistance that is now provided and would not be able to have private health insurance if that rebate wasn't paid.
And lifetime health cover and others that go with it, we are committed to those. We understand that Australia now has a mixed health system, both private and public, and we need them both to be strong in order for the community to be able to get the services.
Steve Lewis followed up with this question:
So you will not wind back that 30% private health rebate, despite the fact that Labor has been ideologically opposed to it in the past?
Nicola Roxon:
No, we won't.
That gives us the detail of the former prime minister's position and the former health minister's position.
Let me take you to the current Prime Minister's position stated when she was the shadow minister for health in opposition:
On Thursday, October 13, the Minister for Health, Tony Abbott, asserted in parliament that prior to the last election, I had a secret plan to scrap the private health insurance rebate and he cited Mark Latham's diaries as proof of this proposition. Yesterday, Matt Price reported this claim by the minister as if it were a fact. The claim by the minister is completely untrue and should not have been reported as if it were true. The truth is that I never had a secret plan to scrap the private health insurance rebate, and contrary to Mr Latham's diaries, do not support such a claim … For all Australians who wanted to have private health insurance, the private health insurance rebate would have remained under a Labor government. I gave an iron-clad guarantee of that during the election. The difference between Tony 'rock solid, iron-clad' Abbott and me is that when I make an 'iron-clad commitment', I actually intend on keeping it.
The word that needs to be underscored in that quote is 'intend', because this Prime Minister has intended to do a lot of things. She intended to have no carbon tax. At the time of the last election this Prime Minister made the promise to the Australian people that there would be no carbon tax, but of course there was. This Prime Minister promised that there would be no changes to the private health insurance rebates. Of course, under her watch there have been. There have been consistent attacks when it comes to private health insurance, and it did not stop there. In a letter to the editor of the Courier Mail on 23 September 2004 the current Prime Minister said:
Your correspondent Russell McGregor should have no concern that Labor will 'erode' or abolish the 30 per cent government rebate for private health insurance. Labor is committed to the maintenance of this rebate and I have given an iron-clad guarantee of that on a number of occasions.
On 2 September, the current Prime Minister, as shadow minister for health, in a letter to the editor of the Hobart Mercury said:
I grow tired of saying this—Labor is committed to the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate.
Of course, we now find out that this is a government that has attacked private health insurance at every single turn. It does not matter whether it is this Prime Minister, the former prime minister or a future Labor prime minister, this Labor Party is ideologically opposed to private health insurance in this country, and all Australians can now see that.
There are a couple of bills before the parliament at the moment, and I want to touch, firstly, on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012. Again these changes go completely in the face of what this government has provided over a long period of time.
Who will be most affected by these changes? It will not be the rich that the Labor Party believe hold private health insurance policies and that somehow private health insurance is the playground of the rich. This will attack and drive up premium prices for people on all incomes that have private health insurance. So the 5.6 million people with private health insurance who have an annual household income of less than $50,000 and 3.4 million who have an annual household income of less than $35,000 will be among those who will be impacted by this cruel and callous change by this incompetent government.
Overall, 10.6 million Australians have hospital cover in this country, and if we do not have a good balance between the public and private system then this will be the demise of private health insurance in this country as we know it. We know one thing for sure. We know that when Labor was last in power between 1983 and 1986 Labor drove private health insurance coverage down to the low 30s, and they seek to do the same again. What all Australians have to know is that this government is not the friend of those who are privately insured, not the friend of those who seek to take some care for their own health needs. This is a government that at every turn has sought to destroy health insurance as we know it in this country. We also note that the full effect of the means-testing changes per se have not just been felt, because we know that PHIAC, the government agency, reported $1.2 billion in pre-payments in the June quarter as people attempted to defer the resulting premium increases. So we know that many of the changes that people will make either to downgrade their policy or indeed to exit private health insurance are yet to hit the system.
This government is absolutely denying the obvious. The obvious is that it is an environment where people have huge cost of living pressures, where people have electricity prices going up because of the carbon tax, where their petrol prices are going up because of the carbon tax, where if they are in small business they are facing the impost of the carbon tax every time the delivery truck arrives at the back door. We know that every time the lights are turned on in aged-care facilities, we know that every time an emergency department needs to operate, as they do 24 hours a day in many hospitals around the country, the impost of the carbon tax is felt. And we know that through all of those cost of living pressures that ultimately are borne by consumers in this country it makes it harder, not easier, for people to pay their private health insurance.
Why would this government want to slug people with private health insurance? First, as I say, because they are ideologically opposed to private health insurance but, secondly, because they have wasted billions of dollars. If you want to know why the government have made change after change in a negative way to the health system in this country, not just in private health insurance but elsewhere, it is because they are desperate for cash. This government racked up well over $300 billion of debt. They are marching through that self-imposed ceiling because they have wasted billions of dollars and therefore they have had to rip money out of the pockets of patients in this country to try and patch up their dodgy budget that was announced only a couple of weeks ago by this incompetent and discredited Treasurer.
This bill is no different. This bill provides savings, and that is why the coalition will oppose the lifetime health cover loading and other measures bill, because this government seeks to attack these privately insured yet again. We know that if the government had its way it would collapse private health insurance in this country. That is the policy of the Greens as well, because they seek to destroy private health insurance in this country. We have fought Labor as best we can at every turn. At every turn we have said to the Labor Party that this will have a negative impact. Wherever we can we have opposed those bills, sometimes unsuccessfully, but we continue to try and hold this bad government to account. The means-testing changes previously introduced by the government have already created around 12 different pricing structures for premiums. This government at whatever chance it has been given has tried to make more complex the offering of private health insurance products in this country and people know that this is a government that is not wedded to private health insurance.
The bill ceases direct claiming of the private health insurance rebate through the Department of Human Services, known as the incentives payment scheme. This is to take effect on 1 July 2013. The coalition acknowledges that very few people access the rebate through the scheme and 99.9 per cent of rebate claims are said to be made by the premium reduction scheme or through tax offset claiming. It is claimed that this will reduce somewhat the administrative burden for the Department of Human Services, insurers and the ATO.
As I say, we have tried wherever we can to hold this bad government to account, and I want to now turn very quickly to the second bill for discussion, the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013. It is true that this government is in its dying days. There is no question about the fact that this government has let down 23 million Australians. The members opposite are under enormous pressure as they travel around the country because not just in health but across portfolios we have seen daily evidence of their incompetence when they say one thing before the election but they do another thing after, of their incompetence when they say to Australian families, 'You have to tighten your belt because this is a tight economic environment,' and yet at the same time families see this government wasting billions of dollars. They say to the Australian public, 'These are tough times and we have to cut back on certain areas,' and yet the public see this government going out and spending money in advertising programs. This is a government that goes from bad to worse, and what we are seeing in the dying days is not considered legislation that it brings before this parliament but simply an ideological attack, and this bill is no different.
The problem is that this government has racked up, as I said before, significant debt. When Peter Costello and John Howard came into government in 1996 they were inheriting a debt of $96 billion. It took 10 years to pay that debt off. Over the course of 1996 until the government lost office in 2007, when Mr Rudd was elected as prime minister, we ran up $70 billion of net assets, not debt
We left this government with $70 billion of net assets. Not only that; it had $20 billion in the bank. And what do we know now, only five or six short years later? We know that this government or a future government is going to have to seek approval to push the debt ceiling out beyond $300 billion, and yet this government started with no net debt and with money in the bank.
We now know that this government has at every attempt tried to patch up the dodgy figures, but finally a fortnight ago the figures caught up with this Treasurer. They promised on hundreds of occasions that they would deliver a surplus. They never did. And do you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker? They never will. They have not delivered a surplus since 1989. They promise a surplus in every year. They did it during the Hawke and Keating years. They have done it every year. And this Treasurer will go down not only as the worst Treasurer in Australia's history but also as a Treasurer who promised a surplus every year but failed to deliver one in any. That is why we find ourselves in a very difficult position in the dying days of this government. They are proposing bad policy, but all of us are mugged by the reality of the debt that they have created. So they are rushing through legislation that is not properly thought out, and we have grave concerns about a lot of what this government is doing and in relation to this bill we are debating at this point in time.
We have a party process that we need to go through. The government have rushed this bill on for their own political end, not having any consideration whatsoever for the conventions as they operate in this place, and we will have a discussion within our party room tomorrow, which is the normal course of events for legislation to be decided by the party room. Then we can make further comments on this bill. But have no doubt about it: this bill is designed by the government not to try to improve the lot of private health insurance; in fact, this is a detrimental bill, and we acknowledge that. This is a detrimental bill by a bad government; it comes, though, at a significant savings of almost $700 million to the government, so it is not insignificant in the money it proposes to save for the Commonwealth.
But I say again to the Australian public that this is a government that has a proven track record not just over the course of the last five or six years but also over the 13 years when they were previously in government. That was to attack at every opportunity those Australians who have private health insurance. I can say with confidence as we run into the next election that private health insurance premiums will always be more expensive under a Labor government than they will under a coalition government. The coalition, both in government and now in opposition, have made every attempt possible to provide support to those 10½ million Australians who are privately insured. We want to make sure that we get a good balance between public and private health in this country, and I want to make sure that, if we win the election, we have the greatest capacity to strip every dollar away from these new bureaucratic structures that the government has created, away from the wasteful spending programs and put it into areas like private health insurance, trying to beef up our primary care response, trying to rebuild general practice that this government has sought at every turn to tear down.
I can say with confidence that this coalition will not tolerate the excesses of the bureaucratic spend that this government has presided over, over the course of the last six years. Yes, we have hardworking and well-intentioned health officials at the Commonwealth level in this country. The problem is that we cannot afford to continue growing at the 30 per cent that the Labor Party has presided over, over the course of the last six years. If we do that—if we are spending billions of dollars on the dozen or so new bureaucratic structures that have been created—it starves us of the opportunity to help people who have been unwell and, in particular, the aged in this country, who want to get in to see a doctor on time, who do not want to languish on elective surgery waiting lists for years, who do not want to wait with sick children in emergency departments for hours upon hours. But part of the reason we have some of those outcomes in our health system is that Labor makes a deliberate decision to placate the unions and to build up the numbers within bureaucratic structures. That will not be tolerated if the coalition is elected. Our argument to the Australian people will be that we can manage the health portfolio more effectively than this party.
I close on this note: if the coalition is successful at the September election, our desire will be to rebuild general practice and to get a good balance between the public and private system in this country. But we will have tough decisions to make—tough decisions because of the debt that this government has thrust us into, and that relates to this bill as much as it does to other bills that come before us. The government really has thrust us into an urgent situation because of the debt that they have racked up, and that makes decisions very difficult for all of us in this place just as it does for families and small business people around the country. That is the situation that Labor has created, as they always do in government. It seems that history demonstrates to us that it is always then upon the shoulders of a coalition government to right the wrongs of a bad Labor government.
As I rise to speak on these bills tonight, it is abundantly clear to me and members in this House on our side that this government is paying for its financial waste and mismanagement with the health of the Australian taxpayer. Recently I received an email from one of my constituents—Richard Grigg of Tenambit—who writes: 'The government has placed two pieces of legislation about private health insurance on the parliamentary program for debate on Monday and subsequently. Both of these pieces of legislation will make it progressively more and more expensive for me to remain insured. And, of course, if people like me drop out of or downgrade their insurance, there will be increasing pressure on the public system.' I am pleased to place on the Hansard record Mr Grigg's views. And that is not an isolated case of being contacted in my office with people expressing concerns about what will increase the cost of private health in this country.
I rise to speak on these important bills in the context of what they mean for electorates with the sorts of demographics like those of my electorate of Paterson and my parliamentary neighbour's adjoining seat of Lyne to the north. The previous coalition government's private health insurance reforms, in the form of rebates, the Medicare levy surcharge and Lifetime Health Cover, saw the number of people with private health insurance increase 75 per cent from 6.1 million to over 10.7 million people.
I have worked hard as the local member to promote, protect and defend this system because I know what the impact would be on an electorate like mine without it. The Prime Minister and other Labor members have, over many years, repeatedly ruled out any changes to the private health insurance rebates. Hand on heart, standing firm, they ruled out any changes.
In fact, if I go back to 23 September 2004, in a letter to the editor in TheCourier-Mail the current Prime Minister, as then shadow minister for health, made it abundantly clear she would maintain the rebate, and I repeat for the Hansard record: 'Labor is committed to the maintenance of this rebate and I have given an ironclad guarantee of that on a number of occasions.' Well, that 'ironclad guarantee' has about the same amount of justification, balance and truth as: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' This Prime Minister will say and do anything to get into power and hold power, even if it is at the expense of the health of the people of Australia.
Labor is totally wrong to imply that private health insurance is for the rich; 5.6 million people with private health insurance have an annual household income of less than $50,000 and 3.4 million have an annual household income of less than $35,000. In my seat of Paterson, the average weekly income for families without children is $1,841. The average weekly income in New South Wales and Australia is $2,120 and $2,081 respectively. For families with children, where the family budget has to stretch to cover private health insurance along with all the other significant costs of raising children, the average weekly income is $2,133 and the New South Wales and Australian averages are $2,370 and $2,310 respectively. Increasing the cost of private health insurance, along with the increased cost of living through things such as the introduction of a carbon tax, will only see people reduce their private health insurance.
The Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 and the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013 will have significant and important consequences for the New South Wales mid-to-north coast with its large retiree populations. I spoke on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 in February this year, so today I will address the companion base premium bill.
The ability of retirees to access health care in regional and rural areas is generally paid for with private health cover and it is vitally important—just as it is in the electorate of Lyne to the north and other electorates with young families and high proportions of retirees. You see, in an electorate like mine, there are not a lot of hospitals. So people—particularly aged people who need fairly urgent services—will travel to the private hospitals to get their needs addressed, whether it is for a hip replacement or a shoulder replacement or a range of other operations. And they rely on their private health insurance to be able to get access to these services quickly.
For the record, there are 27,058 people in my electorate of Paterson aged 65 and over. Many of these people are self-funded retirees trying to make their savings last and living off interest but writing down capital. They are the people struggling under the added costs, as I said, of such things as the carbon tax as winter sets in, trying not to use the heating. The government should speak to the Council on the Ageing if it does not think this is a real problem out there in the community. These are the people who are trying to do the right thing by taking on private health insurance so they do not become a burden on the public system.
That is the point: without a private health system, adequately supported, there will be a massively increased burden on the public health system. People in electorates like mine, with its high aged demographic and lots of young families who require access—and, quite often, urgent or instant access—to hospitals do not need to be stuck on the waiting list.
I would now like to address some related health issues in relation to this bill. In Australia, according to the most recent census, 80.2 per cent of services are bulk-billed—that is 95,576,188 services per annum. In my electorate of Paterson, 566,357 treatments are bulk-billed out of 722,685 services. Despite the large retiree population in places like Port Stephens, Nelson Bay, Anna Bay, Forster, Tuncurry and right up the coast, we come in at 78 per cent—just under the national average. For the benefit of the Labor candidate for Paterson I am going to send the Hansard transcript of my remarks today, along with the speech I delivered in this place in February this year, to him and his campaign team. You see, on 9 April 2013, to quote the Maitland Mercuryof that day:
Mr Marshall—
my opponent—
who is spruiking the Country Labor brand—said a Labor focus in Paterson would provide residents with better health care, education and transport initiatives.
He said there was a severe shortage of GPs in the Port Stephens area which needed to be rectified as more people moved to the area, and he wanted a super health clinic built in Nelson Bay.
I will repeat that—he wanted a super health clinic built in Nelson Bay:
“When I moved here it took me 11 times to find a GP because all of their books were full—people need to be able to see a doctor,” he said.
Let us be clear: he said that the reason he was running for Paterson was that he had had to wait weeks to see a GP. In fact, my opponent called for a GP Super Clinic to be provided at Nelson Bay. I was pleased to inform my opponent that the GP Super Clinic at Nelson Bay had actually been in operation since 16 May 2010. People in this House would remember the then minister, Nicola Roxon, being at the opening and actually coming here on the floor of the chamber and presenting me with a photo of me attending that opening with her. That says a lot for their candidate, who does not even understand Labor policy or its achievements in my electorate. I indicated to him that perhaps he could visit Nelson Bay, considering that he wants to represent the people there. He would not miss it, because this clinic is in one of the main streets. I even took a photo and sent him a photo of the clinic in case he lost his way.
Just for the record, the Nelson Bay clinic bulk-bills seven days a week, whether or not you are a concession card holder. There are four doctors available on most days. It promotes preventative health, including pap smears and melanoma tests, along with allied health services such as physiotherapy, podiatry, speech pathology and dietetics.
An estimated 50,000 bulk-billed patients presented at Nelson Bay clinic in the last 12 months. This includes all Port Stephens residents, all Indigenous and Torres Strait Islanders, concession card holders and children 15 years and under.
I would encourage my opponent to actually visit the area to gain an understanding of the health needs of the people in the electorate of Paterson, as diverse as it is. The issues are different depending on whether you are in Dungog, Forster, Tuncurry, Bulahdelah, Seaham or Karuah, to name but a few. The one thing they have in common, like all areas of Australia, is that their population is rapidly ageing. My electorate of Paterson and other areas where Australians hope to one day retire will bear the weight of the impact far more than others. In fact, a table from New South Wales Health statistics, applying to the Dungog LGA alone, shows that 23,628 hospitalisations were recorded in 2007 when Labor took office. In the period 2008-10, 33,724 hospitalisations were recorded.
Labor's private health insurance cuts are already putting more pressure on public hospitals, which are already struggling under the $1.6 billion cut to hospital funding in Labor's MYEFO. This includes retrospective cuts to public hospital funding that has already been spent and allocated in 2011-12 and 2012-13. It has caused the closure of public hospital beds and operating theatres and delays to elective surgery. The government has since announced a reversal of its position, but only for Victoria. I would like to hear my opponent's views on private health insurance for people both in the Dungog shire and all over my electorate if, God forbid, his party is re-elected.
This government's appalling disregard for the health needs of the people of Paterson is reflective of the approach taken by this Labor government in general. Bulahdelah lost its GP quite some time ago when Dr Habashi had to retire. The call has gone out from the community and me to get a new doctor. One thing that would make Bulahdelah more attractive to a new doctor would be for it to be designated an area of need. But this government has failed to step up to the plate and sign for an area of need.
I understand that currently there is a doctor who might be considering taking it on as a VMO. I am equally as harsh on the New South Wales government and Hunter New England Area Health Service for not facilitating that, because what is most important here is the health concerns of my constituents; without a doctor in Bulahdelah, it places at great risk the operations of the hospital but, more particularly, the work being done at the Great Lakes Nursing Home. So I say to all levels of government, state and federal: get off your backsides and do what you can to facilitate doctors coming into our town. Anything else is just not acceptable, and I am sure that members in control and in positions would not tolerate or accept this situation in their own electorates.
I have real concerns, as I said right at the very beginning, that this government is paying for its financial waste and mismanagement with people's health. We have already seen that evident in the way that this government abolished the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme program in December 2012. Yet, in 2014, the funding comes in for its replacement.
This is not about good health care. The government talk about good health care but do not actually understand good health care. If you take a model away and you hold onto the funding before you introduce another model, then the only people who suffer are those with chronic diseases and illnesses. They are suffering and paying for it because of the government's economic mismanagement. They are taking the money off those most in need and putting it in their own pockets to pay for their waste and mismanagement, a hallmark signature of the government.
I say to this government: wake up to yourself. You should not be messing with people's health. With this bill, along with all the other bills in relation to health that this government has put forward, you attack private health insurance and you will put a burden on the rest of the system. That burden on the rest of the system will affect health services provision to each and every Australian, particularly those most disadvantaged—the exact same people who Labor claim they champion each and every day. Introducing bills such as these is a blinded approach and all you are going to do is further affect those who are severely disadvantaged in our area.
I rise today to speak to the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2013. The changes within these bills are yet another in a long line of betrayals of the Australian people by this Labor government and will be yet another turn of the vice for over 71,000 people within my community who have private health insurance and who are going to be hit by higher costs as a result. This is another broken promise. This government has promised time and time again that it would not make changes to the private health insurance rebate.
The Prime Minister herself is on the record, as far back as 2004, as the then shadow health minister, giving guarantees that the private health insurance rebate would not be changed under a Labor government. In September 2004, she said:
I grow tired of saying this—Labor is committed to the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate.
And then again, in 2005, she gave what she called an ironclad guarantee that she would not be making changes to the private health insurance rebate. She said, 'For all Australians who want to have private health insurance, the private health insurance rebate will remain under a Labor government.' Even then the health minister Nicola Roxon is on the record as saying in 2009 that:
The government is firmly committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates.
But just like every other promise that this Prime Minister and her ministers make it is not worth the breath in which they say it. This government is trying to extract a pound of flesh from the Australian people with these changes to the private health insurance rebate.
Lifetime Health Cover was introduced by the Howard government and has been in effect since 1 July 2000. LHC is a loading on private health insurance premiums that is applied at a rate of two per cent for every year that an individual is over the age of 30 when they take out hospital cover. A cap of 70 per cent is applied. It is intended to ensure people take out private health insurance at an early age and maintain their cover. And it has been successful, with the number of people with private health insurance increasing 75 per cent from 6.1 million to over 10.7 million people.
Currently, the government pays the private health insurance rebate on the value of the total premium paid by the policyholder, including the LHC loading component. This is yet another case where the government is unable to reign in the waste and mismanagement in the areas it needs to and is instead trying to rip funds out of the pockets of Australian families—families who use private-sector funding to access the range of medical services that they need.
These changes are going to put a bigger burden on families in my electorate. These cuts will further add to Labor's cost-of-living burden on working Australians. After years of waste and mismanagement, Labor is hiking prices for working Australians to pay for their own fiscal incompetence. This is not a decision that has short-term implications; this will have far-reaching effects.
Singles, couples and families join private health care funds to ensure they have access to the quality of care that they may need for themselves or others in their family. These services may include hospital cover, general dental, major dental, optical, physiotherapy, chiropractic, natural therapies, elective surgery, pregnancy and birth services. They also include hospital services such as removal of tonsils; dental surgery; appendicitis treatment; ankle, knee and shoulder arthroscopy and selected minor shoulder procedures; and treatment for accidents requiring urgent medical attention.
Individuals and families will join a private health fund to cover their particular needs, irrespective of what they are. But, despite these wide-ranging benefits, some families will not be able to face the increased cost of living that these changes will bring, and there is no doubt that the changes will result in greater pressure on our public hospital services.
The full effect of Labor's means-testing changes have not yet been felt, with PHIAC reporting $1.2 billion in prepayments in the June quarter as people tried to defer the resulting premium increases. Many policyholders prepaid for 12 months or more—delaying the pain of Labor's cuts. Of all Australians with private health insurance, 5.6 million have an annual household income of less than $50,000 and 3.4 million have an annual household income of less than $35,000. These are not people who can afford to have additional costs added to their bills. The changes to Lifetime Health Cover in this bill will increase premiums by up to a reported 27.5 per cent on 1 July this year.
Many people are likely to drop or downgrade their cover. Private health insurance will become expensive for people who retain their cover. A deterioration of the risk pool will cause upward pressure on premiums for all 12 million Australians with private health insurance. More people will be forced onto long public hospital waiting lists.
Public hospitals are already struggling under the $1.6 billion cut to hospital funding in Labor's MYEFO, and this will only add more pressure on administrators within those hospitals as to the decisions they will make, in terms of the access and the levels, with respect to the queuing of people for particular surgery. Even pensioners and the elderly wanting the peace of mind of private cover will not be spared from these cuts.
These cuts will put undue pressure on the public health system. More people will be forced into overstretched public hospitals. Australia relies on viable and strong public and private health systems for their health care. The coalition believes all Australians should have access to affordable health care and real choice in managing their healthcare needs. The previous coalition government's introduction of the rebates, the Medicare levy surcharge and Lifetime Health Cover saw the number of people with private health insurance increase, as I said earlier, by 75 per cent from 6.1 million to over 10.7 million.
People in my local community are already hurting. This will make it much worse. Already people in Hasluck, and likely elsewhere in Australia, are concerned about the overall cost of health care. In fact, recently released National Health Performance Authority figures have revealed that one in seven people living in Perth have put off seeing a doctor because of the cost. One constituent wrote to me expressing his concerns:
We struggle to afford our payments now on a part pension.
This constituent of mine and his wife have had private health insurance for 47 years—since they were first married. He cannot help but see the injustice that, at a time when health care is of critical importance in their lives, the government is trying to make it more and more difficult for him to continue to afford to pay.
Another of my constituents wrote to me saying:
I am finding the increases in all of the various costs which I now pay are making it considerably more difficult to budget. If I do give up my health insurance I will need to go back to a public hospital if I get sick, where the waiting lists are too long.
Another one of my constituents wrote to me saying:
I just want to register my concerns that the Gillard Government is planning to withdraw the health insurance rebate, which will mean my family will not be able to continue to afford private insurance and will therefore rely on Medicare only.
My daughter has chronic Crohn's Disease, for which she is hospitalised at least 2-3 times per year.
We are under the public health system however use our private health insurance for each hospital stay, resulting in the hospital receiving the hospital insurance value to off-set her stay, with no out of pocket expenses to us.
If we are forced to withdraw from private insurance, then this cash flow for the hospital will also be withdrawn.
Those sitting opposite claim to care for all Australians; they claim to care for the downtrodden. But what we are seeing here is those opposite taking every opportunity to walk all over Australians who are already doing it tough. We are seeing a government that is prioritising its own survival and its addiction to spending over the future of Australian families and the health of our nation.
Any changes to private health insurance premiums impacts on families considerably. I have talked to many constituents when I have been doorknocking and it is a concern that they raise regularly, expressing their disappointment that the government has taken away the opportunity for them to be fully fledged members of a fund that gives them so many options. The point that so many of them make particular reference to is how important it is for them to have the choice of a public hospital or a private hospital; if the matter is urgent, then they have the opportunity of having that addressed much sooner than having to sit and wait in elective surgery lists. Their access to professional care seems to be much more expedient. The loss of that will mean that we will see some making decisions in which they do not access healthcare frequently or earlier, thereby compounding the health problem they have and creating a higher cost, in the end, to both the Commonwealth and the state in the use of hospitalisation processes in order for their illnesses to be treated.
I thank you, Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012.
I rise tonight to speak to the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill. Can I begin by saying what a privilege it is to follow the member for Hasluck, a member of this House who has a great depth of knowledge in this particularly important area of public policy.
This bill is twofold: it seeks to restrict the private health insurance rebate from being payable on the component of private health insurance premiums with a Lifetime Health Cover loading; and it stops direct claiming of the private health insurance rebate through the Department of Human Services, known as the incentive payments scheme, and makes minor amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Taxation Administration Act to reflect this change.
The government says most people claim rebates through tax offsets and eliminating the incentive payments scheme would reduce the administrative burden on insurers, the Department of Human Services and the tax office. This Labor government had repeatedly promised that there would be no change to the private health insurance rebate. It maintained this charade right up until the 2009 budget, when it announced that means-testing would be retrofitted to the rebate. The change to means-testing, effective from 1 July last year, was a means in itself to prop up the government's sagging bottom line. The move has resulted in savings of $2.8 billion. Likewise, these new changes are nothing but a cash grab aimed at clawing back more than $380 million over four years to help fill the unfillable—a black hole of government debt, which has now eclipsed $250 billion.
Lifetime Health Cover was introduced by the Howard government on 1 July 2000 as part of reforms that significantly increased private health insurance coverage. It is a loading on private health insurance premiums calculated at a rate of two per cent for every year that a person is over the age of 30 when they take out health cover. The cap is 70 per cent. It was devised to encourage people to take out private health insurance sooner rather than later and to maintain their coverage. Currently, the private health insurance rebate is paid on the value of the policyholder's total premium—including the Lifetime Health Cover loading. If this bill were to be legislated without amendment, 1.1 million Australians would face an immediate hike in private health insurance premiums. And because means-testing has already reduced, and in many cases removed, the rebate for higher income earners, it is lower income earners who will disproportionately bear the weight of the increase.
Half of the 11 million Australians with private health insurance have incomes less than $50,000; three million of them have annual household incomes under $35,000. So the circle is complete. This Labor government, after launching attack after attack on private health insurance, has now taken the war to the people who arguably have most to lose. They are the more modest income earners to whom Labor has traditionally spruiked its working-class narrative. Labor cannot count on these Aussie battlers anymore. That is because the Aussie battlers cannot count on Labor.
As coalition members, we strive to help everyone to help themselves. We call it a hand up, not a handout. The private health insurance rebate is such an incentive. In the community I represent there are a lot of vulnerable people—not particularly well-off—who rely on insuring privately for their health, wellbeing and peace of mind. They include the chronically ill and families who have children with a disability. But private health insurance not only assures them of the best possible healthcare; it acts as a circuit-breaker for the heavily strained public health system. Reducing public hospital pressure is vital if we are truly in the business of delivering optimum care.
Last year, a leading doctor from my region hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons. He warned locals that ballooning waiting times at Caboolture Hospital had become critical. More than half of all Caboolture emergency department patients were waiting 52 minutes or more just to be seen. This followed a 2010 AMA report that revealed the hospital was running, on average, at more than 100 per cent occupancy. Eighty-five per cent is considered a safe occupancy rate.
According to the Department of Health and Ageing, 600 beds and 52 emergency bays will be required to service the rapidly-expanding community by 2026. That is basically a tripling of current resources. In this context, Labor's axe-wielding on affordable private health insurance is not only reckless but also dangerous. It is tragically probable that the outcome of policies which force people to drop out of private health care and push them up against the doors of overflowing public hospitals will end in needless loss of life.
But this Labor government's plundering of health support in our community does not stop there. In last year's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the federal Treasurer, Wayne Swan, stripped $342 million from health funding to Queensland—his home state. When this onslaught began, with the then Rudd government's means-testing decision, a staggering 1.7 million Australians, by Labor's own admission, faced reduced private health insurance rebates and therefore higher net premiums. That is around 10 per cent of the adult population. With the means tests becoming effective last July, the true picture is worse. About 2.4 million people are directly hit. They must absorb immediate increases in their premiums of up to 14 per cent, 29 per cent, or 43 per cent depending on their income. In the electorate of Longman, almost 50,000 residents covered by private health insurance have been impacted directly. That is more than 40 per cent of the community.
With no let-up in Labor's demolition of private health insurance, the pain will only mount for those who maintain the ability or strength to find the money for their premiums. It is estimated that the loss of younger health insurance members due to prohibitive costs will increase all premiums by 10 per cent. Surely it is a fundamental right of all Australians to expect that they will receive first-class health care. The coalition believes this is best achieved by providing choice, with affordable access to quality providers. Health is not an ideological playground nor should it be a forum for social engineering, but that is exactly what we have seen from this approach from Labor. Labor is philosophically opposed to the notion of choice and, further, is fiscally hamstrung by the reality of budget deficit after deficit and its failure to deliver a much-mooted surplus—of course, another torn-up contract with the Australian people.
Labor's dismantling of private health insurance will add even more cost-of-living pressures to families and shift a more onerous burden to public hospitals as people downgrade their cover. This federal Labor government has proved to be an abject failure in delivering on health. It has added layers of bureaucracy which have resulted in a detachment from patient care. Labor's administration has been underscored by broken promises on the private health insurance rebate, hospital funding and extending the Medicare safety net. And the tentacles of this deception reach back a very long way.
On 23 September 2004, the Prime Minister, when then the shadow minister for health, wrote in a letter to the editor of TheCourier-Mail that there should be no concern that Labor would—and I quote—'erode or abolish the 30 per cent government rebate for private health insurance.' They were the Prime Minister's words. The Prime Minister, then the shadow minister, went on to say:
Labor is committed to the maintenance of this rebate and I have given an iron-clad guarantee of that on a number of occasions.
On 25 February 2008, former Labor Prime Minister Rudd stated at a press conference:
The Private Health Insurance Rebate policy remains unchanged and will remain unchanged.
And on 24 February 2009 it was reported in TheAge that the member for Gellibrand and then Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, said:
The Government is firmly committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates.
Another broken promise.
For the coalition, the private health insurance rebate is an article of absolute faith. In government, we will restore it as soon as budgetary circumstances allow. By repealing the carbon tax and reinstating health insurance rebates the coalition can, and will, alleviate cost-of-living pressures and help return family budgets to good health. After all, the previous coalition government created the private health insurance incentives that were snapped up by Australians. The introduction of rebates, the Medicare levy surcharge and Lifetime Health Cover saw the number of people with private health insurance leap 75 per cent—from 6.1 million to more than 10.7 million—and, for everyone else, access to the public system was obviously enhanced.
The coalition will restore stability and confidence in vital programs such as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which has been afflicted by chaotic policy changes under Labor. We will regenerate general practice. A coalition government will reprioritise funding from bureaucracies to ensure that clinicians, local boards and, above all, patient care are at the core of our health system.
Households are now paying too heavy a price for Labor's waste, incompetence and failure to control the budget. When you have got major issues of ramping at public hospitals, bed block and ambulance bypass you have got to make sure that you are doing everything in your power to reduce the pressure. There are a lot of people living on the margins—people who the Labor Party say are well-off. These are by no means wealthy individuals. They rely on private health insurance for reasons of preference, security and responsibility. Instead of attacking those who look after themselves, we should be championing them.
I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012. This bill includes two changes to private health insurance coverage in Australia. First, the bill will restrict the private health insurance rebate from being payable on the component of private health insurance premiums with a lifetime health cover loading. This step represents a removal of a measure implemented by the Howard government in 2000 which significantly increased the number of people taking up private health insurance coverage. The second change ceases direct claiming of PHI rebates through the Department of Human Services and makes minor amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to reflect this change.
Firstly, I would like to remind the House of the real reason behind the changes today. What the Labor government is proposing today is to decrease the rebate for private health insurance, which will make private health insurance more complex and more expensive for more than 1.1 million Australians out of the approximately 12 million who currently have private health insurance. This, in turn, will disproportionately impact low-income earners. The Gillard government is doing this because it has mismanaged the economy. It has run out of money and broken its promise to deliver a surplus. So it is going to make already-struggling Australians pay more for health insurance in order to save $386 million over four years.
I could go on all day listing quotes from prime ministers Rudd and Gillard and the member for Gellibrand when she was Minister for Health. For almost a decade, they told the Australian community that they would not touch the private health insurance rebate and they told them of their commitment, their ironclad guarantees, not to cut the rebate. In 2009, when the member for Gellibrand was the health minister, she said:
The government is firmly committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates.
That was right before the minister twice tried to cut the rebate only to be rebuffed twice by the Independents.
In February last year the new Minister for Health, the member for Sydney, was successful in her attempt to cut the private health insurance rebate while at the same time significantly increasing the Medicare levy. This meant that more than two million Australians were made worse off, including more than 100,000 people who have private health insurance in the electorate of Ryan—as estimated by Private Healthcare Australia. Unfortunately, we know that this Gillard government has no qualms about breaking its promises to the Australian people. Today's bill represents yet another broken promise.
In total, Labor's broken promises amount to nearly $4 billion of cutbacks for Australians with private health insurance—the cuts in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook combined with the changes to means-testing. In today's bill Labor is cutting $386 million. It cut $2.8 billion by means-testing the rebate and $700 million in its announcement to limit the government's contribution to the rebate by the maximum of the consumer price index. At the same time, the Gillard Labor government has spent approximately $1 billion creating 12 new bureaucracies, which are immune to cuts, while it has been reducing funding not just for private health insurance but also for public hospitals and dental health by closing the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. In this year's budget, the Treasurer cut over $1.8 billion from Medicare rebates, the extended Medicare safety net and the net medical expenses tax offset. There will be no increase to Medicare rebates between November 2012 and July 2014, which will mean that the continued growth in the cost of delivering health care will be passed on directly to Australian patients.
In December 2012, health funding from the federal government to the states was cut, including a cut of $103 million in my home state of Queensland. At the time, the Minister for Health in Queensland, Lawrence Springborg, indicated that that was equivalent to over 2,000 nursing jobs until the end of the current financial year. All state ministers are concerned about the total of $1.6 billion in cuts announced during MYEFO, as well as the cuts in today's bill. Ultimately, further cuts to private health insurance will place further strain on the already stretched public hospital systems and will cause the closure of public hospital beds and operating theatres and delays in elective surgeries.
As I have previously said, the Labor government's cuts have added further pressure on top of increases to prices and the cost of living. The Private Health Insurance Administration Council has admitted that 'exclusions and restrictions to private health insurance access have become much more prevalent' and exclusions 'may work against the policy objective of private health insurance in easing the burden on public hospitals'.
Many constituents have emailed me, such as Janice Johnston and Lynette Hitch, indicating their opposition to yet further changes to the private health insurance rebate. They say:
I have noticed some news recently around the changes to the Rebate for my private health insurance, and I want to ask you to be sure to vote against this.
I need the rebate to make health cover more affordable for me and my family, and I would not want to have to go onto public hospital waiting lists if I needed healthcare.
The rebate is one of the only direct benefits I get from the Government, despite working hard to pay for a better life for my family. Please don't make it even harder for me.
They also go on to say:
I am very surprised that there are more changes to my Health Insurance Rebate being debated in the Parliament. It seems to me as if every time the Government wants more money, I end up paying more for my health insurance.
If I am forced to drop cover for my family and myself because of the cost increases the changes will cause, I will have to go onto the Public Hospital lists, which are already stretched.
You can keep private health at a price I can afford by not allowing the changes.
These are the concerns of not just pensioners but struggling students, singles, families and self-funded retirees. They are already struggling with increasing cost-of-living pressures from electricity prices as a result of the carbon tax and huge increases in the costs of food and child care, and now the government is going to further punish Australians who want to take control of their own health care. These constituents can see that, while they are struggling, they have a government that is simply making life tougher.
This bill makes two main changes. Firstly, it restricts the private health insurance, or PHI, rebate from being payable on the component of private health insurance premiums with what is called a Lifetime Health Cover, or LHC, loading. The LHC was a measure that the Howard government introduced which resulted in a significantly increased number of Australians taking out private health insurance. The Lifetime Health Cover is a loading on private health insurance premiums that is applied at a rate of two per cent per year for every year that an individual is over the age of 30 when they take out hospital cover. The loading is an incentive, therefore, for Australians to take out private health insurance at an early age and maintain their cover.
Currently, the government pays the private health insurance rebate on the value of the total premium paid, including the LHC holding component. Therefore, by ceasing the payment on their PHI premiums, today's bill makes it even more difficult to maintain that PHI cover. At present, someone's LHC loading is removed after 10 continuous years of hospital cover, so there will be people who are very close to their loading being removed, having paid the loading in good faith and abiding by the appropriate rules and regulations. Now, the federal Labor government is changing the rules for ordinary Australians. Now they could be slugged with an increase of as much as 27 per cent in premiums, according to Private Health Care Australia.
The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, to which this bill was referred in November 2012, released its report on 12 March 2013, including a dissenting report by the coalition senators. The coalition senators noted their concerns with the bill, particularly its adverse consequences for low-income families, its consequences for the affordability of private health insurance, the consequences for the operations of private health insurers and the consequences for increased pressure on the public health system.
Order! It being 8 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
I ask leave of the House to move the second reading on behalf of the member for North Sydney.
Leave granted.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The member for North Sydney had introduced this bill, the Tax Laws Amendment (Disclosure of MRRT Information) Bill 2013, in his name but unfortunately he cannot be here this evening because he is meeting a speaking engagement that was agreed to quite some time ago. As you would understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, he has no control over the timing of these debates.
The coalition, as members would know, is seeking to amend the confidentiality of taxpayer information provisions within the Taxation Administration Act 1953, in order to provide an exception to the prohibition imposed on tax officers in relation to the disclosure of information regarding the tax affairs of a taxpayer in relation to the government's minerals resource rent tax. The purpose is that these amendments are intended to remove any doubt that taxation officers may disclose to the minister information about instalments of minerals resource rent tax paid for an instalment quarter in any MRRT year or the total amount of MRRT paid in an MRRT year where the information is provided for the purpose of the minister making the information publicly available.
These amendments will protect taxpayer confidentiality. They will not require disclosure of information about the tax affairs of a particular entity. I stress that instead the amendments will permit tax officers to disclose information to the minister—that is, the Treasurer—that relates only to the total amount of MRRT instalments paid, whether in a quarter or quarters or in the entire MRRT year. It is intended that the amendments will permit taxation officers to disclose such information without committing an offence should the disclosure have the effect of inadvertently identifying a taxpayer. Information about the amounts of MRRT instalments paid for particular quarters or the total amount of MRRT paid for an MRRT year is information that should be available to the public.
As all members of this House know, revenue cannot be raised and money cannot be spent without the approval of this parliament and, in turn, parliament is entitled to the information it requires to scrutinise both revenue and expenditure proposals and performance. Any argument to the contrary is unsupportable in a representative democracy. The bill also compels the minister to table a report updating the House of the parliament within six sitting days of receiving information from the Australian Taxation Office of proceeds received under the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Act 2012 on both a quarterly and yearly basis.
If this bill succeeds the government will have no excuse when it comes to disclosing the total revenue that is raised by their failed mining tax. I will take the time to take the House through some of the history of this government's new mining tax. There have been five distinct versions. The first, as many may recall, was the resource super profits tax, which was announced with the publication of the Henry review back in May 2010. It then became the minerals resource rent tax in July 2010. The third version was the Policy Transition Group version, subsequently adopted by the government in December 2010. The fourth version was the Independents-Greens deal to ensure passage of the tax through the lower house. The concessions as to Independent member Mr Wilkie included increasing the profit threshold at which the tax kicked in. As well there were other Independent member concessions which included the government agreeing to use a portion of the profits of the tax to conduct assessments of regions or catchments to look at the impact of coal seam gas development. That was in November 2011. Then finally there was the Greens deal done to ensure passage through the Senate, including the government promising to provide monthly revenue updates on the tax revenue and splitting the associated company tax cuts that were subsequently dumped in March 2012.
With each version of the mining tax there have been changes in what the government says it will bring in. The original resource super profits tax was estimated to bring in $37 billion over a four-year period from 2012-13 to 2015-16. The redesigned mining tax, which was then rebadged as the minerals resource rent tax, was estimated to bring in $22½ billion over the same four-year period, a write-down of $14.5 billion. These estimates were then revised down in the 2012-13 budget, with it forecast to bring in $13.4 billion over the same four-year period. Again, in the 2012-13 MYEFO a further write-down to $9.1 billion over the same four-year period was booked. Then in the budget handed down for 2013-14 the government has revised mining tax receipts down even further to just $3.3 billion over the same four-year period. This tax went from supposedly collecting $37 billion, to $22.5 billion, to $9.1 billion, then to $3.3 billion over a four-year period—a $33.7 billion write down.
This is exactly why the shadow Treasurer and the c oalition are proceeding with this p rivate m ember's b ill. The public should be informed of exactly what this tax is raising. The estimates provided by the g overnment hav e been so far off the mark, they a re completely unreliable. This p rivate m ember's bill should not be necessary. The g overnment was quite happy to promise full monthly updates on the MRRT when it did the deal with the Greens to ensure the passage of the legislation through the Senate. But then it seemed to have no qualms about breaking that deal when it became clear that the MRRT was not going to raise anywhere near the expected revenue.
The g overnment has linked around $15 billion of spending to this tax over the forward estimates. Just some of these programs have included a 50 per cent discount on interest income, which was subsequently abandoned in the 2012-13 budget; lowering the company tax—also a promise broken in the 2012-13 budget; a standard deduction for work related expenses and the cost of managing tax affairs—the same again in the same budget; and a number of other spending proposals. Additional expenditure measures have been subsequently added, including the establishment of a regional infrastructure fund, expanding the definition of exploration to include geothermal energy, and a number of others. It did not stop after that, either. Additional expenditure measures included from the 2012-13 budget have also been announced, some of which have been announced and then abandoned just in the budget last week. For instance, the increase in the rate of family tax benefit part A, which was announced in the previous budget, was abolished in this budget.
The finance minister has directly linked the schoolkids bonus to the mining tax—a mining tax which is not collecting anywhere near the revenue that the government said it would. I quote the finance minister, who said on 6 June 2012:
I think it's about making sure we use the benefits of the boom wisely. And I think the government's approach with the mining tax and making sure the benefits of that flow through to families, particularly low and middle income families through the Schoolkids Bonus, where people get assistance for kids' education costs, (does that). We need to continue to invest in education and training and we need to make sure we continue to work on productivity. And all of these things are about using the benefits of the boom wisely.
As all Australians know, and as every member of this House knows, the revenue that the government said would be there has not been there and has not been even close to the mark.
As I said at the outset, this private member's bill very clearly puts beyond any doubt the ability of tax officials to provide the Treasurer with aggregate tax collection detail. It puts that beyond doubt and it also ensures that once the Treasurer has that information it is reported to the House and, through the House, to the Australian people, as it should be. The confidentiality provisions are there to protect individual taxpayers but, as former Treasurer Costello said, have never been used to prevent the use of aggregate tax collections. This bill puts all of that beyond doubt and it ensures that there is proper accountability to this House of the revenue collected in aggregate, and through this House to the Australian people.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion is seconded and reserve my right to speak.
It was a very valiant effort from the member for Casey to go almost 10 minutes on what is a very, very narrow private member's bill. What he was not able to do was to mask exactly what this private member's bill is all about. It is not about disclosure. The member for Casey and the member for North Sydney know that this bill is highly unlikely to pass this House and, if it does, is certainly unlikely to have any effect between now and the issuing of the writs for the next election.
What this bill really is about is a continuation of the opposition's obsession with the MRRT—the minerals resource rent tax. It is really a funny thing because we have had a petroleum resource rent tax for many, many years—I think it is 20 years or more—and we have not had much fuss about that. But when the application is to the minerals sector, the attitude of the opposition seems somewhat different; however, I will leave it for those on the other side of the chamber to explain why.
The member for Casey's main complaint, and it follows the theme from the member for North Sydney when he introduced this private member's bill, is that the super profits tax—as I will call it—is not producing enough revenue for the government. That is what this debate has been all about. It is a funny thing because when we introduced the original version of this tax, and after each iteration, the opposition claimed it would destroy the mining industry. They said it was a terrible thing and the whole industry was going to close down because we were going to reap all this additional revenue from the industry. We said, 'No, that's not right because this is a tax designed only to add taxes when super profits are being made in the sector.'
Now, because it is not raising revenue, they are still complaining, saying the tax is a failure and therefore needs to be scrapped. There is no logic in that argument whatsoever. But it goes even deeper than that. When you really think about it, it is not about disclosure. It is not even about the revenue. It is about the principle. This is an ideological debate. The Labor Party believes that when a company is making abnormal profits out of a natural resource owned by the Australian taxpayer then they should make an additional contribution, again, in the same way the petroleum industry has been doing for many, many years. The shadow minister at the table knows this subject very well. We believe that should apply not only to petroleum but also to the mineral sector, including fossil fuels like coal.
But for them this does not seem to fit very well. No doubt, they made a commitment to the coalmining industry very early in the piece that they would 'get rid of this terrible tax'. Of course it is a terrible tax to the mining sector! If I were a coalmining company chief executive, a chairman or a member of the board I would not be arguing for an additional tax on superprofits when commodity prices are high either. I would be opposing it in the same way that the petroleum industry opposed it in the early 1980s. But, to the credit of all the parties at that point in time, there was not a big ideological debate about that concept. People understood the principles underpinning that superprofits tax. But, for some reason, when we applied it to the minerals industry and the coalmining industry it was a different proposition. Could it be because they felt that an election victory was nigh—so close they could smell it—and they decided to make a political point on the subject rather than take a sensible public policy approach? I think the answer to that question is yes, unequivocally.
This is not about disclosure. They understand the commercial-in-confidence issues and the privacy issues. Yes, the tax was bringing in a fairly low level of revenue—certainly much less than anticipated when people expected commodity prices to be in a different place—and when revenues are that low disclosures can lead to an identification of who is paying the tax. Yes, it is all right for Mr Costello to say it has never been used for that purpose, but it could be that it has never presented itself in those circumstances where the disclosure of the full revenue intake would identify individual taxpaying companies. That makes absolute sense to me. But, again, this is not about disclosure; this is about ideology and it is about trying to win an election.
Let me talk to the House about what the minerals resources rent tax means to me and my electorate. We have not had the rivers of gold we hoped would flow from the tax because, as I said, commodity prices have come off. In terms of my electorate in particular, both steaming and coking coal prices have fallen dramatically, to an extent that no-one could have imagined when the tax was first put in place. But it is raising revenue, and in the budget I got some $45 million for an overpass or, potentially, a bypass of a level railway crossing in the township of Scone in my electorate. How ridiculous is it that in the 21st century we have a main highway through a substantial town blocked off by coal wagons for up to eight minutes at a time? Think of all the implications that has for traffic flows and emergency services if there were to be an accident on one side or other of that railway line. So we are going to either put an overpass over that level railway crossing or go around that level railway crossing. The money was in the budget, and it might not have been if it were not for the MRRT. That is one example of what it means to my electorate.
The Hunter electorate and the Hunter Valley generally welcomes the coalmining industry. It has brought enormous wealth to the valley. It has given people incomes they could only have dreamt about if not for the mining industry. It has been good for our skills development; it has given hundreds of kids apprenticeships they would not have secured if the industry had not existed. We welcome it. I am happy to say that I love it. I am happy to stand here and say that. But it does bring problems: it brings road congestion; it brings air and water quality issues; it makes it harder to get a kid into the childcare centre; it makes it harder to find a house to live in—either to own or to rent; it brings all sorts of capacity constraints. And because of the policies of successive New South Wales governments—that is, of all stripes—we have not enjoyed the return of coal royalties to the region that we should have to deal with some of those capacity constraints. This is partly what the minerals resource rent tax is all about: making sure that more of the benefits of the coalmining industry are returned to the region from which they came and which suffers some of these adverse impacts as a result of being the source of that coal product.
Of course, it is not just about the infrastructure fund that flowed from the tax; it is also about increasing superannuation for 3.6 million low-paid Australians. This is something the opposition has confirmed it will get rid of—they did so in the opposition leader's response to the budget. It is also about tax concessions for small business, something I would have thought those sitting opposite would have supported. There are also larger immediate write-offs for the small business sector; a sector that is so important to our local and regional economies.
It is so transparent that this bill is not about more fulsome disclosures, or about who is paying the tax and when. What do they want? I am not sure I got it. They want us to report every month what has come in from the minerals resource rent tax, as if we run in here every month and report in such detail what has come from the fringe benefits tax or the capital gains tax, or even from the income tax or company tax, for that matter. It is a silly proposition. It has not happened in the past and it should not be happening now. They know it is not going to happen. They know this is a stunt. What this is really about is ideology, and making sure that the donations keep coming into the coffers. They are signing up to the mining companies: 'We'll fix it for you, fellas! Don't worry about that. And we'll keep it alive and well in the parliament between now and the next election with some silly private member's bill just to keep it bumping along in the newspapers.' They have been exposed. It is so transparent and it is so obvious.
I am happy to stand on this side. I am happy to be part of a show that has its eye on superprofits, particularly when they come from natural resources such as coal and minerals. I am proud to stand here against the mob on the other side who take an ideological approach and who are just playing politics with a very important subject.
Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, before I start in response to the member for Hunter—and there is plenty to respond to—I convey to your constituents and to those of the member for Corio my disappointment, regret and sympathy with regard to the events of last week. Anyone who has an interest in the car industry—and I am a passionate advocate of that industry, having been the minister that gave that industry $4.3 billion—would feel great sadness to see what happened last week. I am also a great Ford supporter. I backed people like Dick Johnson, who raced those cars with great success. Please pass on my sympathies to those people whose jobs have disappeared as a result of that announcement.
I have known the member for Hunter for a long time. I always enjoy his speeches. He leaves gaps everywhere that you could run a whole back line through, let alone half of the State of Origin team which is probably going to thrash the Blues again this year. The reality is the first gap was that he said the resources covered by the MRRT are owned by Australian taxpayers. They are not. They are owned by the people of each of the states where those resources reside, and that is the stark difference between the PRRT and the MRRT. I am happy to take on the member for Hunter on this topic.
The reality is that offshore oil and gas resources were covered by PRRT under our government. This tax was introduced by a Labor government under Bob Hawke after much consultation, unlike this tax. In fact, the resources covered by the PRRT in its original form were Commonwealth resources. The member for Hunter would have been quite right in that instance to talk about the ownership by all Australians of those resources, but that is not the case with coal and it is not the case with iron ore. I see a couple of good members from Queensland in the chamber and they know full well, as does the member for Blair, that coal resources in Queensland belong to the people of that state. They do not belong to the Commonwealth. But here is a government that looks at something and says, 'How can we tax that?'
This amendment is aimed at protecting taxpayer confidentiality. We need to maintain that. It is intended that the amendments will permit taxation officers to disclose such information without committing an offence should the disclosure have the effect of inadvertently identifying the taxpayer. We need to expose this tax for what it is. This is a wasteful, extravagant government desperately trying to use the resource industry as its own private ATM, an automatic teller machine. Every time it goes out and spends more money than it has, this government goes to the teller machine and that teller machine is the resource industry in Australia.
Unfortunately I was not here earlier today—I had leave, along with the Minister for Resources and Energy, to address a huge international gas conference in Brisbane. The message from that conference is that if you keep taxing Australian resource companies they will simply go somewhere else. Despite the words of the member for Hunter, the reality is that last week we saw numbers published that showed $150 billion worth of projects have been canned. I wonder why. Every time the resource industry looks up there is a new tax, a new regulation and a new piece of red tape. Why is it so? Firstly, because the government spends more than it earns and, secondly, because the government constantly has to bow down to its Greens alliance partners to maintain its place in government.
In terms of the MRRT we have seen a huge shock to the international investment community. That community looks at Australia and wonders why we would do this to ourselves. Why in an internationally competitive resource industry would we make investment here so difficult? Why would we single out the resource industry for taxation over and above what it is already up for? There is a misconception on the government side of the House that the resource industry is not paying enough tax. That industry is already paying 46c in the dollar, half as much again as other companies in Australia. Most companies in Australia pay 30c in the dollar, but the resource industry is already paying 46c in the dollar. But along comes the Treasurer, with a huge hole in his budget, and who does he turn to? The resource industry, not just taxing them but vilifying them, attacking individuals, saying to the resource industry investment community globally: 'We don't want you here, but if you come here, we're going to tax the living daylights out of you.'
But only the Treasurer could design a tax that does not collect any money. Not only has he turned away and sent to other countries potential investors in the iron ore and coal industry and in resource industries in general, but he has also designed a tax which burdens even those people who do not have to pay the tax. The government has fought tooth and nail every step of the way to keep the details of the mining tax behind closed doors. We know why. We know that, apart from the investment impact and why we have seen $150 billion worth of projects cancelled in Australia, the assumptions on which this tax are based are completely flawed. Why wouldn't the government reveal the true modelling behind this tax?
This tax, the MRRT, has been a complete disaster from the outset. In true form, as we have seen from the Labor Party, time and time again, the estimates for the return from this tax continually gets revised down. This year's budget revised down those estimates yet again to $3.3 billion. When you consider the original figure was $22 billion and in fact the tax only raised $184 million in the March quarter and $126 million in the previous quarter, the reality is that we know all this tax is doing is damaging Australia's international investment profile.
The other part which is a major concern is that, as is their wont, as is their record, this government always spend the money before they get it. We have seen a whole raft of policies rolled out which are completely unfunded. So we sit here and wonder why we have got a $19 billion deficit this year on top of all the other deficits we have seen, and the reality is that it is because this government, first, cannot manage money, second, spends beyond its means and, third, never gets the money that it originally budgets for. Australia relies heavily on the resources sector. We need to ensure we do everything we can to maintain the investment flow in Australia.
If the Treasurer had been at the conference that the minister for resources, energy and tourism and I were at today, he would have heard the message that Australia is no longer the premier destination for investment. No longer is it a fait accompli that people will come here and empty their wallets and their bank accounts to build resource projects here. No longer will we see resource companies seeing Australia as a destination of choice. Why? Because we see new taxes almost on a weekly basis, certainly regularly. Changes to the taxation system are happening which disadvantage investors here in Australia. In the last budget there were changes to the thin capital rule, changes to the exploration allowances—all of that sends one message, and that message is that this government cannot manage its money, this government puts in place taxes which deter investment. Those taxes do not work, but the sum result of all of that is that Australians working in those industries lose their jobs. This MRRT was a crazy tax to start with and we will repeal it if we win government in September.
It is worth reviewing briefly how we got to where we are today. When the mining boom hit Australia, with commodity prices hitting century highs and mining profits going sky high, this government decided it would be an appropriate time to do for the mining sector what we had done in the petroleum resource sector a quarter-century earlier. That is not to use the old, outdated system of royalties to tax mining but to use a far more economically sound approach and to tax profits in the mining sector. Profits based taxation, Brown taxation, makes eminent sense. It recognises that the world price is not a price that is driven by the ingenuity of miners, ingenious as they may be, but it is a price which is driven by the demands of the world for our commodities. China and India are demanding our coal and iron ore because they need them to build skyscrapers for their industrialisation and that has driven the price through the roof. Yet until this government put in place an MRRT the Australian taxpayer did not see a cent when the prices went up. They got maybe a little extra for the volume but nothing for the price. So whereas at the start of the decade mining taxes were a dollar in three of company profits, by the end they had gone down to a dollar in seven.
This government decided to put in place an MRRT, a profits based mining tax, indeed the same mining approach which had been recommended to the Henry tax review by none other than the Minerals Council of Australia. That is right: when the Henry review asked for suggestions on how to do mining taxation, the Minerals Council of Australia said, 'You ought to do it through a profits based tax.' It is not a radical suggestion. Indeed, Sarah Palin made her name in Alaska on profits based commodity taxation. So if you think that is a radical idea, I guess that means you think Sarah Palin is a moderate.
We put in place an MRRT and that MRRT is a fairer way of taxing commodity revenue. That commodity revenue is going to go up and down, but what this government has announced is that we are introducing legislation to allow the publication of revenue that reveals individual taxpayers. The bill that we are bringing before the House is a comprehensive approach. It will apply not only to the MRRT and the PRRT but also to other taxes paid by large corporations and multinationals. It is a considered, properly thought-through approach to transparency. It is not an opposition thought bubble; it does not simply attempt to grab a cheap headline. It actually takes a substantive approach to improving transparency.
What frustrates me most in this debate is hearing insinuations from those opposite that the government has been trying to hide MRRT taxation. This is information that the government did not have access to in the first quarter. The Commissioner of Taxation made a determination that under current arrangements he was legally unable to provide the data to the government or to release it publicly. That advice was not political advice, it was based on advice from the Australian Government Solicitor. So what we really have here is those opposite cooking up a bogus debate so they can go in to bat for the mining sector. The mining sector is a sector that the opposition has pledged to give a big tax cut to. When it comes to the election, those opposite will be going to the polls promising voters that they will give a tax cut to Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer and that the tax cut will be paid for by taking money away from kids on their first day of school. That is the values, that is the priorities of those opposite. They do not believe that mining companies should pay their fair share; they believe that mining companies are paying too much tax. The repeal of the mining tax and the repeal of the carbon price are going to create a revenue shortfall of $26 billion, over $1,000 for every Australian. How do you make up for that? You either raise taxes on middle Australia or you savagely cut spending.
If those opposite are speaking about transparency then the key issue that Australians are demanding transparency on is coalition costings. Australians expect that when they go to the polls they will have the chance to make a decision between two sets of properly costed policies. Governing is about trade-offs, it is not about promising everything to every special interest that wants a tax repealed, every special interests that wants more spending. Government is about making choices. When Australians hear those opposite say that they can deliver higher spending, lower taxes and pay down debt faster, they should know they are being told porkies. They should know that this is magic pudding economics.
We have seen some of that through independent experts, through the Parliamentary Budget Office and through Treasury, confirming that under Labor the budget will steadily improve over the coming years; independent experts who have recognised that the world economy has taken an axe to government revenues; independent experts who have also recognised that the sustainability of former Prime Minister John Howard's fiscal decisions in the early 2000s was deeply questionable. The Parliamentary Budget Office report on the structural deficit has confirmed the recent International Monetary Fund report which found that, when you look over Australian history back to World War II, the Howard-Costello government was the most wasteful government in Australia's history.
The opposition now are in a deep fiscal hole. They have on their own admission a $70 billion black hole, which is more in the order of over $2,000 per Australian, and that is before the recent significant write-downs to company revenue. They are planning on skating to the election on a mysterious commission of audit—the same commission of audit that Campbell Newman attempted to use prior to the Queensland election to hide his harshest cuts from the voters. What Campbell Newman has delivered to Queenslanders is 14,000 job losses and savage attacks on health and education.
Much of the coalition's fiscal hole comes from policies like the deeply regressive paid parental leave scheme. I do not have to go about criticising that scheme, because so many of those opposite have done it for me. We have heard comments from the member for Tangney, who said:
Certainly I'm aware of a number of colleagues that have similar concerns on this policy.
… … …
There hasn't been a detailed policy debate on this issue in the party room, but I think that it is one that needs to be had.
We have had the member for Mitchell say:
Most importantly for Australians, the policy does not pass the fair-go test.
We had the member for Moore say:
The Labor Party scheme is quite good—
and question how the coalition scheme would improve productivity. Former Liberal minister Peter Reith has said: 'It is obviously bad policy, and I have no doubt a lot of people in the coalition are unhappy about it. It was a decision by Tony.'
The opposition have claimed that they can pay for this highly regressive, unfair paid parental leave scheme through company taxes, which all sensible-thinking economic folk know are ultimately levied on workers. So this will mean more expensive prices on groceries and driving up the cost of mortgages because it will be imposed on banks, all for a scheme which is not going to be available to those working in government. That means not only the public servants in my electorate but the teachers, the police officers, the local government childcare workers—none of these workers will have access to the paid parental leave scheme that the opposition is putting in place. It will be extremely expensive. It will hit them, but it will not help them.
I also want to note in closing some of the to-and-fro that has been taking place over the past week over the allegations of the member for North Sydney about government. The member for North Sydney has suggested that in some way Treasury forecasts are politicised. Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson has come back and responded to that in crystal terms. He has said:
Let me be very clear. Treasury does not provide the government with a range of numbers. Treasury provides its best professional estimate to the government. It is up to the government of the day - and this applies back through history - to do what it wishes with those forecasts.
So the Treasury secretary has been crystal clear with the member for North Sydney that the forecasts produced by Treasury are a number, not a range. That has been the case under previous governments. It is the case under this government. To say otherwise is to deceive this parliament.
It is interesting to listen to the contribution of the member for Fraser. Most of the last 10 minutes he spent rehashing the old furphies about coalition policy and direction and makes the comment that $26 billion is our potential shortfall in getting rid of the carbon tax and the mining tax. I would like to contrast that with five years of deficits totalling probably a net $150 billion. I'll pay the $26 billion any day!
I rise in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Disclosure of MRRT Information) Bill 2013 because the amounts of the MRRT instalments paid either quarterly or yearly is information that should be disclosed and made available to the public. This amendment seeks to make changes to this effect, amending the confidentiality of taxpayer information provisions in division 355 of part 5 of schedule 1 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953. Importantly, it seeks to remove the smokescreen that has been used by this Labor government to avoid any kind of transparency over expected revenues.
This is a very important and necessary amendment to the taxation act following this government's comprehensive failure of the implementation of the MRRT and the consequent failure to deliver on the forecast of expected revenue. The mining tax has been a complete failure, starting with the member for Griffith losing his position as the country's Prime Minister over the original resources superprofits tax, and it has had quite a few iterations in between. The Treasurer failed to engage in genuine tax reform discussion with the state and territory governments, opting instead for a cosy meeting with the managing directors of the three biggest mining companies behind closed doors. Surprise, surprise: we finished up with an MRRT that suited the mining companies and the failure of the government to actually understand the consequences of what it negotiated.
Failing to consult with the state and territory governments in a genuine discussion about the implications arising from the MRRT is one of the reasons why this failed tax is in such a poor state of affairs today. We said right from the start that this tax was not going to work and that it would never raise the kind of money this government said it would.
This government is very good at aspirations but hopeless when it comes to delivery. As Lord Kelvin famously said, without numbers, '…your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.' Unfortunately, even with numbers your knowledge may be unsatisfactory; this government proves this adage every single day. To quote Terry McCrann:
The message has been blunt and very simple. The global demand outlook for our commodities is weakening; while at the same time we are making Australia an increasingly unattractive place to invest. From a combination of raw cost escalation, and regulatory, environmental and sheer bureaucratic bastardry.
Further to Mr McCrann's comments, a report from Citigroup's Edward Morse is even more unequivocal. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writes that:
It is the classic pincer movement of supply and demand, with Chinese imports of iron, copper, coal, and oil cooling at just the wrong moment.
And he quotes Morse as saying:
It is now clear the commodity super-cycle is over. The overall slowing and the restructuring of the Chinese growth model should mark a watershed in global commodity markets. For many industrial metals, China, in fact, was responsible for all of net global demand growth after 1995.
Before the financial crisis, this government underestimated revenue, and since then it has overestimated it. When it comes to forecasting revenue, they appear to be suffering from economic dyslexia. The forecast revenues from the mining tax—personally and secretly negotiated by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Treasurer, Mr Swan, in June 2010—have collapsed from an initially projected amount of $22.5 billion to $3.3 billion, and in this financial year we have seen a total of $200-odd million. We just continue to see more— (Time expired)
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Does the minister claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
Please proceed.
On 23 May 2013, ABC Radio Australia broadcast a report indicating that I had criticised Timor-Leste's tax rules and accountability in an address to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative 6th Global Conference in Sydney. I did not. My address to the conference has been seriously misrepresented. My general comments were related to tax stability and transparency and were made in reference to the 1,200 attendees from 96 countries at the conference, not targeted at Timor-Leste. A full version of my speech is available on my ministerial website. I can advise the House that my office has sought a correction from ABC Radio Australia which was rejected by the journalist Karon Snowdon. My office has since registered a complaint to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs to correct this egregious misrepresentation.
I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Disclosure of MRRT Information) Bill 2013, following on from the contribution from two other Queensland members of parliament, the member for Groom and the member for Forde, both of whom have that incredible capacity to simultaneously put forward contradictory arguments and fail to mention that fundamental truth that state governments levy royalties. Neither of them made mention of what state governments have done, both Labor and LNP, in terms of increasing royalties. They talked in their speeches about the incredible impacts of the MRRT legislation on mining but failed to mention the actions of state governments, which is a glaring omission.
The bill before the chamber seeks to change the Taxation Administration Act 1953, which comprises provisions to ensure that information obtained by the ATO in the course of administering our tax laws cannot be revealed such that it could be reasonably capable of being used to identify a taxpayer. So the opposition leader, with this legislation, is seeking to change the law on the basis that the public interest in transparency around the operation of the MRRT—in particular, how much revenue the tax is raising—overrides the interests of maintaining the longstanding principle of confidentiality of taxpayer information as it also relates to large entities rather than individuals. It would likely enable the ATO to disclose information on aggregate MRRT collections on a monthly basis.
But let us be perfectly clear here: this is either political opportunism draped in legislative tinkering or it is those opposite sucking up to the mining magnates in the extreme—or, worse, it is both of these. Only an extreme opposition leader would put his personal lust for power ahead of the national interest when it comes to a profit based mining tax.
However, the Labor government is committed to openness and transparency in the reporting of Commonwealth revenue collections, including the MRRT. Just like the PRRT before it—and I thank the member for Fraser for his contribution in terms of explaining some of the history—another piece of legislation that was opposed by the Liberal and National party opposition, the MRRT is a good sensible policy, and I stress: the MRRT is basically a profit based tax.
So, while spot prices will go up and down and international prices will vary, there are some simple truths. The reality is: we have over one billion people in India, 300 million people in Indonesia, and one billion people in China who aspire to move out into the middle class and their demands for our materials mean that, in the long term, this MRRT will collect profits for the benefit of the nation.
The decision by the ATO to not report collections, following the September 2012 first quarter of MRRT instalments, was based on independent legal advice provided by the Australian Government Solicitor—the same set of legal advice that would be given to any government—and this advice indicated that the collections constituted protected information under the law since they related to a small number of taxpayers and would be reasonably capable of being used to identify some or all of the entities concerned.
This legislation before the chamber is basically a political stunt. Yet again, it shows the failure of those opposite to put the nation's interests first. Obviously, Labor believe in transparency, but this legislation put forward by the opposition is clearly politically motivated—no national regard and no future vision. It is focused on Gina's and Twiggy's bottom line, not on equity and responsibility, which an alternative government is supposed to be considering.
The MRRT collections have been lower than the Treasury initially expected to raise. If those opposite are so opposed to this legislation, I would like to see them commit to paying back every single dollar collected by the MRRT to the mining companies—to Fortescue Metals, to Gina, to these big multinational companies that are doing it so hard. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Disclosure of MRRT Information) Bill 2013 and, for the first time in this place, I agree with the some of the words of the current Treasurer. I know it is somewhat shocking. But when he says:
… ultimately when it comes to our mining tax reforms, history will judge our actions—
I am 100 per cent in agreement with that statement. And history, dear Treasurer, can be a very harsh critic. History will look back at the mining tax, the carbon tax, the pink batts, the waste in the school halls program, the green loans, the cash for clunkers, the unilateral banning of the live cattle trade, the set-top boxes, the computers in schools, the breakdown in border protection and the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation—and it will judge. However, I do not share the Treasurer's optimism that it will be judged well.
The MRRT is yet another example of the shambolic nature of how this government governs. It is not the first version of the mining tax. The previous tax, the resource super profits tax, was introduced without stakeholder consultation or a genuine analysis of industry concerns, which is of course very common for legislation introduced by this government.
As a result of the RSPT Australia made it on to the front page of international newspapers, including TheWall Street Journal, for all the wrong reasons. For the first time 'Australia' and 'sovereign risk' were linked in the one sentence.
The very fact that the legislation was scrapped and then rewritten is an admission of how flawed the original tax was. But has the second, third, fourth and fifth attempt at the MRRT been any better? In short, no. Why? When it was first negotiated, it was negotiated with only three companies, without proper transparency and proper scrutiny. We were told that it was an important part of tax reform to have the MRRT and that the tax would in fact fund small business tax cuts and an increase in superannuation from nine to 12 per cent. The government did not keep its company tax cut promise and, according to its own timetable, it certainly cannot afford the increase in superannuation.
So let us understand some of the key facts. In 2012-13 the MRRT was to bring in around $4 billion of revenue. This was written down in last year's budget to around $3 billion and then again, in MYEFO, the government cut another $1 billion off it to take it down to $2 billion. Of course, we learn that it has, instead, raised only $200 million, a somewhat small differential of around $3.8 billion. But when you examine the picture more closely you will see it is even worse. The government has overestimated exactly how much revenue it is bringing in, because 30 per cent of the revenue from the MRRT is forgone in company tax payments. When you add in the cost of administering the tax it is around $50 million, and the mining company spends around $20 million to comply. So what are you left with? Around 25c for each dollar of revenue.
The government has blamed commodity prices and the high Australia dollar, yet all of this remains virtually unchanged. That is what makes the forecast in the current budget by the Treasurer so inexplicable. He says that this current tax is going to raise about $5.5 billion over the period 2012-13 to 2016-17, down from—let me remind the House—an original forecast of $26.5 billion.
Yet we are also to understand that commodity prices are going down and that the Australian dollar will remain high by historical standards. It beats me how it is that you can increase the revenue on assumptions that are worse. But I suspect that is one of the key reasons why the government refuse to release their modelling. Only this current government can actually turn a tax into a black hole, with expenditure outweighing the revenue coming through the door.
This motion before the House is critical because it will not allow an incompetent Treasurer to hide behind a ridiculous notion that the Australian people should not be told how much has been raised by the mining tax under this figment, this fig leaf, of protecting the privacy of individual taxpayers.
The legislation will allow the ATO to provide aggregate figures so we know exactly how much revenue is coming through the door, rather than relying on the Treasurer's Delphic-like predictions of revenue. We will be able to measure expenditure against revenue. That is why this motion is so incredibly critical and why this House should in fact support the motion.
I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Disclosure of MRRT Information) Bill 2013. We are, again, spending time in parliament on another opposition stunt. There is a great new acronym floating around at the moment. It has actually been around for awhile: PEFO—that is, Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, originally created by Peter Costello to stop incoming governments from using a lack of information about the budget to delay announcing their election commitments. It was a good idea at the time. Unfortunately, it is a good idea gone wrong. We are, increasingly, seeing oppositions use it as an excuse not to release their election costings and that is what we have today. A shadow Treasurer is throwing around as much dust as he can, making accusations about people who work in Treasury and their inability to forecast in order to disguise the fact that they have not released any costings. They are not coming clean with the Australian people on what they intend to do and the cuts they intend to make once they come to government. We have seen this with virtually every incoming Liberal state government in the last year and we can already see the Leader of the Opposition manoeuvring his arguments to engage in savage cuts if he is lucky enough to win the election in September.
I want to start by looking at the arguments to see if there are any grounds to them at all. In order to do that, I am going to go back to a document that was produced by the Minerals Council of Australia in June 2012. It deals with the volatility of resource rent taxes. It deals specifically with the petroleum resource rent tax and compares it to the incoming minerals resource rent tax, and includes some interesting information. When one reads it, one would wonder why the Treasurer believes that the difficulty in forecasting resource rent taxes is so serious that we need to actually change the tax law in such a fundamental way, on the basis that the public interest and transparency around the operation of this particular tax is so important that it overrides the interest of maintaining the confidentiality of taxpayers. It is an extraordinary change to tax laws. One wonders why, if he thinks it is such a big issue, it was not a big issue for the 12 years of the Howard government because according to this report—and the figures are quite clear—the accuracy of forecasts for the petroleum rent resource tax was as much as 40 per cent to 100 per cent out in virtually every budget.
The Australian government had indicated that it expected revenue from the new minerals resource rent tax to be volatile. The government indicated that from the beginning, and the Minerals Council prepared this report in response to the expectation that it would be volatile. They had a look at how volatile it would be and to what extent forecasts could be relied on.
The reason why they are volatile is simple: resource rent tax changes according to global prices, what is happening in other countries of the world, who is growing and who is shrinking—a whole range of things. It also has quite a lag, because capital investment is brought to account. It is extremely volatile and, when you look at the graphs for nominal petroleum resource rent tax revenue between 1989 and 2010-11, it looks a bit like a sawtooth. It goes up and down on a regular basis quite extraordinarily—sometimes going from $500 million to $2½ billion in just one year. It is incredibly volatile compared to the graph of aggregate tax revenue, which tends to be a fairly stable line.
The errors for the resource rent taxes are sometimes three times the magnitude of the errors in the standard tax and, when you look at the actual errors, you find that there were times in the Howard-Costello years when the forecasts were 100 per cent out and many times 40 per cent out. Over the last five years of the Howard government they averaged 27 per cent, but were more than 40 per cent on three occasions. If the opposition believes that the accuracy of the forecasts—which incidentally have been inaccurate now for a long time—is so serious now, one wonders why it wasn't serious when they were in government. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I introduced the Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill to safeguard safety standards in our marine industries and in particular to respond to the reduction in standards brought about by the passage of the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill which, despite containing positive elements, has had a problematic effect on those industries and the men and women who work in and depend on them.
The national law bill was proposed by the government despite it being aware of the risk that standards would decrease as a direct result of the bill. In fact, the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers has been concerned for some time about the risk of lowered training standards and consequently, following a meeting in 2009 between the Engineer's Institute and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, a number of standards were agreed to that would have enhanced the qualification requirements for engineers. I regret to say that here it is, 2013, and that agreement has not progressed beyond a draft marine order.
This bill, the Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill, will go some way to remedying things and in doing so help to improve the workplace health and safety of many Australian workers, because this bill directly affects workers on our transport ships, offshore oil and gas facilities, and harbour-management vessels. It also indirectly affects travellers on all our passenger transports, fishermen on small to large vessels and in fact all those who use the seas for their work or transport. By simply ensuring that all work done on Australian marine vessels is achieved to the highest possible standard, the very safety of everyone on board those vessels is genuinely enhanced.
Such reform is imperative for Australia. As an island nation, with Tasmania additionally separated by Bass Strait, the proper maintenance of our vessels and safety of our maritime workers is obviously essential.
I will now draw the House's attention to some of the key features of the bill. Firstly, it creates a much needed minimum time requirement for training on operational vessels, something urgently needed, I suggest, in light of the continuing concern in the institute that AMSA has an interest in reducing the onboard training period by two-thirds. I think it is obvious that training cannot be so drastically decreased while the same safety standard is expected. So clearly the longer training period should be codified, and this bill achieves that.
Consistency in training is every bit as important as the length of training when safety is concerned because, unless the industry can be sure that all those who achieve a marine qualification do so to the same standard, there simply can be no confidence that all the workers have the vital training necessary for their roles. To provide that confidence, this bill will standardise the examination of competency and include mandated written and oral components. These will provide examiners with a broad range of information about an engineer and together build a more complete profile of their capability.
Consistency must work both ways. While a standardised examination method provides confidence to the industry, creating uniform requirements consolidated into one piece of legislation also provides confidence to the engineers themselves. In other words, this bill makes it easier to determine which standards apply and to whom. But the bill does not simply establish the standard and leave the industry to its own devices, because there is provision for ongoing auditing of organisations that offers engineer accreditation to ensure that an adequate standard is maintained in line with industry best practice.
Australia has some of the highest safety standards in the world and, as I have said before in this place, a strong tradition of appropriate wages and working conditions. But, when this parliament passed the national law bill we, and inadvertently most of us, put in place a regime that has resulted in working and safety conditions going backwards in one of our most vital industries. We need to set it right. It is that simple.
I commend the bill to the House and encourage members to put politics aside this time for the good of our marine engineers and all those who travel and work on the water.
I would like to thank the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers—in particular, federal secretary, Henning Christiansen; national organiser, Michael Bakhaazi; and Terry Snee, a fellow North Queenslander. I will not go over and repeat what was said by the mover, the eloquent member for Denison.
I represent most of the Great Barrier Reef—more than any other members do. Constantly we have boats whose motors break down or who go adrift, and we get wreckage on the reef; we get damage to marine life; and of course enormous costs on our rescue services in Queensland as well.
A lot of the people on these ships call themselves engineers when they would not qualify as a fitter in any respect in Australia. We strongly urge the government to set in stone three years training. If you have 10, 20 or 30 lives at risk, and there is incredible potential damage to flora and fauna—fauna in this case being marine life—then surely there should be a standard of responsibility. Your captain has navigational qualifications; you need your engineers to have proper serious qualifications. A lot of the vessels coming from the Northern Hemisphere are very substandard.
What we are asking for here is that boats working on the Australian coastline meet a standard where the accreditation takes three years. The entrance examination requirements, if you like, the tests that they have to go through, should ensure that a person who works on that boat can work in safety. That is not the situation at the present moment. The current proposals that have been continuously coming through under successive governments reduce training, engineering and certifications standards. Ultimately that puts safety very much at risk.
The other effect, which is a very minor effect, is to provide jobs for Australians. At the present moment there has been a deliberate lowering of standards so they can bring people in from overseas to undermine our pay and conditions. Even if you agree with that, to put lives at risk so that someone can make a few extra bob every time a boat puts to sea is not a fair exchange and not a fair deal for the wider population of Australia.
So, on behalf of all those people who live in and along the Great Barrier Reef areas of Australia, I very strongly endorse the proposals put forward by the member for Denison in the Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013. We carry a particular investment in the proposals that are coming forward here. I think they provide an excellent model, quite frankly, for other industries, such as the mining industry, as well. We commend this bill to the House.
I am pleased to speak on this private member's bill, the Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013, moved by the member for Denison. It is an important matter and the bill goes to the qualification standards of marine engineers, watchkeepers, deck officers and others in the Australian maritime industry.
It is important for the reasons that the honourable members have outlined: it goes to safety in an important industry; it goes to the safety of the men and women who staff our vessels up and down our coastlines; and it goes to the safety of our marine environment more generally—not only human safety but environmental safety, as the honourable member for Kennedy alluded to.
I want to focus on the matters that the member for Denison and the member for Kennedy have dealt with. The concern arises out of changes to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, which was agreed to internationally a few years ago and which reduced the minimum standards of training from three years to 12 months. I know there is genuine and valid concern about that. I understand that these changes, which were negotiated through the International Maritime Organization, were instigated by Iran—and I am not sure that that is necessarily an indication of world's best practice when it comes to maritime safety.
I note that AMSA has given sworn evidence before Senate estimates that it has no intention of reducing the requirement from three years down to 12 months. That was almost exactly 12 months ago, on 23 May 2012, under questioning by Senator Williams:
Mr Kinley: There is no proposal to compress that from three years to one year.
Senator WILLIAMS: It will not happen?
Mr Kinley: No.
This was then prosecuted again a few months later in the estimates of October 2012, where again Mr Kinley made it clear that there was no intention of doing that—and that is very welcome, I must say.
I understand the intention of the honourable member for Denison to enshrine this in legislation. There have been concerns expressed by the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers—which, in my experience, is a very considered body that makes considered approaches to public policy and in the national interest. They have expressed an ongoing concern to ensure that there is no diminution of the requirements of training and qualifications. I do understand, let us be clear, the worldwide move to more competency based standards and the focus on outcomes rather than inputs when it comes to training. But there do need to be minimum standards, and they are currently outlined in regulations.
As I said, the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers has taken an approach which I think is a considered one, and I would certainly encourage AMSA to engage with the institute in a considered, thoughtful and open-minded way. AMSA has important responsibilities which it does acquit, but it is important to be consultative with the key players and experts in their field. The institute has, for example, recognised that there are skill shortages in the industry and has taken steps to work constructively to see those skill shortages met through sensible immigration. I would again say that that is an approach that should be welcomed and I would encourage AMSA to work constructively with the institute in that regard.
The government's position is that the requirements are appropriately dealt with in regulation and, as such, this legislation will not be supported by the government. But I do take this opportunity in the House to indicate that I do think it is important that AMSA and the government—and AMSA, in particular, as the regulator—constructively work with all stakeholders, including the institute, which has brought some expertise to this field and has taken a constructive approach.
Obviously any moves to reduce the requirements for training for marine engineers, deck officers, watchkeepers and others will be very closely scrutinised in the public and in this House and the other place, as they should be. AMSA have an important role to play in regulating our marine and transport safety, and I am sure that they will continue to engage very constructively with all stakeholders, including the institute, as they carry out that role.
The Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill proposed by the member for Denison seeks to codify in legislation the qualification and examination requirements for marine engineers in Australia. This differs from the current model under which the Australian Maritime Safety Authority establishes these standards which are set out in a legislative instrument known as Marine Orders Part 3. By way of background, it should be noted that last year AMSA undertook a formal review of Marine Orders Part 3, releasing a draft order and seeking industry feedback on its proposal. It was through this process that concerns were raised with me by some maritime engineers that the proposed new standards would see AMSA water down the qualification requirements for marine engineers. I have received emails and letters from a number of marine engineers and was contacted by the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers—whom I note are represented in the gallery tonight—who I understand represent around 3,000 marine engineers, all expressing the same view—that is, that marine engineer qualifications and certification requirements were being downgraded.
Australia prides itself in many areas as having world's best practice, including our standards for education, safety and training. Yet the contention from marine engineers is that training and certification requirements would be lessened as a result of AMSA's proposed reforms. However, in this respect it should be noted that AMSA has subsequently withdrawn its draft of Marine Orders Part 3 to allow further consultation and consideration to be undertaken. Despite this, marine engineers continue to have concerns, particularly as the election date draws closer, and with only four weeks of sittings remaining there is a desire to tie up loose ends before the parliament is prorogued.
They know that this government, particularly the currently minister, is particularly close to the Maritime Union. They observed how this government puts MUA demands ahead of the interests of Australian industry, with its so-called shipping reform package that was rushed through parliament last year, and they do not trust the government not to do some sweetheart deal with the MUA to squeeze engineers off Australian ships.
I understand that as far back as 2009 AMSA and the AIMPE were negotiating an update to Marine Orders Part 3 to better reflect current industry realities. In that respect, it is important to acknowledge that in general terms we have a shortage of skilled seafarers in Australia and an ageing workforce. This is in part because our marine engineers are so well-regarded they are often poached overseas. Having said that, addressing a skills shortage does not necessitate a lowering of the bar for qualifications and the coalition would be concerned at any attempt to do so.
It is vital that, in the isolated and inaccessible environment in which many of our ships operate, they have the requisite skills on board to address any problem as it arises. The private member's bill before the House establishes that certification of competency for marine engineers must be made by a suitably qualified examiner employed by AMSA. The bill also requires that prospective marine engineers must undergo an oral examination. The bill also sets out the standards for becoming a qualified engineer watchkeeper and engineer classes 1, 2 and 3. Finally, the bill sets out standards for the recognition of foreign certificates and where alternative methods of skill acquisition are appropriate to warrant the grant of a certificate of competency.
The bill, in taking qualification and certification standards out of the hands of AMSA and putting them into the hands of the parliament through an act, will, over time, make the evolution of those standards more cumbersome. However, it should be noted that for the time being the bill simply intends to codify the arrangements that we currently have in place. I acknowledge this point but I also acknowledge the concern of marine engineers that standards should not be decreased if there is a possibility that to do so could decrease safety standards on vessels.
In conclusion, I acknowledge the important work that our marine engineers, deck officers and seafarers do. Shipping is a significant part of our transport network—a part I would like to see grow in importance in the future. It is imperative that we get the regulatory settings right to ensure that our shipping industry is as safe, efficient and productive as possible. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013. This minority parliament has been very good for the people of Australia. Because of this minority parliament, we have seen $13 billion put into clean and renewable energy, and the tax-free threshold will be lifted to $18,200 for many, many people from the start of next year. The Greens have been able to negotiate that, from 1 January 2014, parents will be able to take the kids to the dentist and use their Medicare card to get free dental treatment. We have also seen a lifting in the standard of protection offered to firefighters around this country. If this building were to catch on fire, I imagine most of us would be running out while the firefighters are running in. There is every chance that, as they run in to fight a fire, they will breathe in toxic smoke and that has been causing them cancer. Because of this minority parliament, we have been able to increase the protections and compensation that is available to those firefighters.
In these remaining few weeks of the parliament, we can do more for the Australian community and lock in some further protections for people right across this country. I have been approached by members of the Maritime Union of Australia, who have said that their long-running campaign for a national stevedoring code of practice to ensure safety on the docks was threatened to be stymied at the last minute, but now may not happen at all as a result of intervention from some large employers. I have written to the transport minister and the workplace relations minister offering to legislate their protection in the remaining weeks of this parliament. I have not yet received a reply.
One thing that is here, that we could do right now, is to enshrine the standards for our marine engineers. We have a good shipping industry in this country. It faces its challenges, in part because successive governments have not understood the importance to our trade or, indeed, our defence—let alone our economy—of having a good Australian owned shipping industry. We have a safe shipping industry. It is safe for the people who work on the ships. It is safe for the people who are out at sea. It is safe for our environment. One of the reasons for that safety is due to the high standards and the level of qualifications and professionalism of our marine and power engineers. Unfortunately, that has had to be defended against attacks. We have seen some of those attacks in recent years with the attempt to reduce the minimum time of study to become a marine engineer from three years to one year. We have been able to stop that. One thing worth noting is that that attempt to reduce the time from three years to one year was, in essence, reneging on an agreement that had been reached with the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers.
During my working life, including in parliament, I have had the privilege of working closely with a range of workers and their unions as well as with a range of organisations that might be described as craft unions. They are often smaller unions, organisations and professional institutes, and they are often non-political and nonpartisan in the sense that they do not necessarily hitch their wagon to a particular star but are prepared to work with those who will advance their interests. When one of those comes knocking on your door and says, 'There is a real concern about safety and we need you to stand up in parliament and fix it,' I for one am very happy to work with them.
There is a continual move to erode protections and minimum standards, and we must be always vigilant. This is not about enshrining anything like a closed shop. If anyone who is a member of another union, or not, wants to come in and work as an engineer, they should be able to; but that should not come at the expense of reducing the minimum standards. The minimum standards should be the minimum standards and whoever meets them can go and get a job.
There are a number of things we are still waiting for from the government. I am still waiting to see when we are going to redress the Allseas decision, which allows people to come and work without the appropriate labour standards applying. I am still waiting for advertising before we offer people work on 457 visas. But this legislation is something we can implement right now. I commend the bill to the House and I congratulate all the members of AIMPE who are here on their advocacy.
There can be done no doubt that an efficient, competitive and safe shipping industry is a critical thing for Australia. So too, therefore, is public confidence in the people who build, man and repair the vessels which fleet the industry. When all is said and done this private member's bill, the Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013, seeks to address what appears to be a dispute between the government, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the AIMPE, which is the union that covers marine engineers, over the standards required to qualify as a marine engineer. I know there are other issues. For example, one issue at the heart of the dispute is the decision to dramatically reduce the number of training years required to qualify from three years down to one. Another is the decision to abolish the current requirement that applicants must pass a verbal test by an AMSA examiner in order to be issued an engineer's certificate of competency.
As I understand it, over many years the union has conferred with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority on the engineering reforms needed to the regulations that are known as the Maritime Orders Part 3. The orders prescribe the safety training certification requirements for marine engineers. I further understand that, in recognition of the fact that reform is required, the union had agreed in principle to a number of changes which, from its perspective, went to the heart of maintaining qualifications and standards—things like the formal recognition of prior learning experience and pathways to higher positions of responsibility.
We all understand the shift in recent years from the traditional, time based model to a competency based system. However, there appear to be legitimate concerns about some aspects of that new system. On the other side of the debate, the minister has pointed out a number of concerns with respect to this private member's bill. He says, 'The passage of this bill would result in Australia introducing outdated standards, inconsistent with global shipping, resulting in Australian shipping contravening international training and certification standards and conventions.' It appears to me that this issue could best be resolved by sitting down with the industry and discussing these issues.
Debate interrupted.
I rise to highlight concerns being raised by local residents in the south of my electorate of Farrer. This affects not only the Albury region as it is an issue that also deeply concerns people over the border into Wodonga and the north-east of Victoria, a region represented by my colleague the member for Indi. The issue concerns funding for our local public health system. If would be fair to note that this issue is not unique in being raised in this place. It is certainly not the first time that funding for local hospitals will be mentioned in this House, and it is not likely to be the last. But in this instance it is a unique set of circumstances that I seek to highlight. And to do that adequately I will need to give the House a brief historical overview.
For those unaware of this, Albury and Wodonga are two separate cities in two separate states, New South Wales and Victoria, but to all intents and purposes—apart from the way they are governed—they very much operate as one city of approximately 100,000 people, with a wider regional cross-border population of over 200,000. And if you were to count that wider population based on the number of people using our cities for their primary and specialist health care, you could add another 100,000 people to that figure. And that is why the funding and future of Albury Wodonga Health is so vital.
The separate NSW local health service in Albury merged with its Victorian counterpart on 1 July 2009, making it the very first cross-border public health service to exist in Australia. Under that intergovernmental agreement, the Albury Base Hospital and Wodonga Regional Health Service combined to create one of the largest regional public health services between Sydney and Melbourne.
Early last month I spoke at a rally attended by hundreds of local residents organised by a new community based group simply asking for an adequately funded public health service. This was not, and still is not, just an angry mob. These are local community leaders, health professionals, patients and, in some cases, staff employed by the local hospital service backed up by a petition calling for help which has been signed by over 10,000 local residents. Specifically, we need an upgraded and re-sized emergency department, additional beds and operating theatre and funding to reduce unacceptably high and growing waiting lists. There is also need for a cardiac investigation unit and other improved primary care services in an effort to help reduce actual hospital admissions to ease the pressure on doctors and staff. Underpinning all of this is the urgent need for an increase in recurrent funding.
Now these are not overt demands from a region that wants any better facilities and service than anywhere else's. This is simply a minimum to ensure our community is not put at harm through understaffed, overcrowded, substandard facilities with overworked staff forced to make do with ageing equipment. I am not here to argue whether the most recent federal budget allocated enough resources to the Health portfolio. It is a well-worn maxim that governments—any governments—could spend more on health services. But what I am here to argue is that as medical services—by necessity—contract to metropolitan and major urban centres, a place like Albury-Wodonga be recognised for the role it is providing.
Combined, here is a health service which aims not only to serve the population that actually uses it but also—if it can play that part adequately—to take pressure off the health services that are located in our major cities. We do not want our patients from Albury and Wodonga to have to travel to Melbourne under pressure and unwell. We do not want them to place that additional burden on the capital city health system.
Of course, as a member of the federal opposition, I cannot be privy to the efficiencies in spending which would allow direct increased funding for Albury Wodonga Health. But what I have promised the people at the rally I attended is that if the coalition is returned to office after the September poll I will track the overall federal health allocation to both New South Wales and Victoria through the new minister for health and we will ensure that a logical and base level of funding for the patients accessing Albury Wodonga Health is written in stone and not subject to the vagaries of politics or quick-fix budgetary priorities. I trust that the health minister and members of the government hear the concerns of my community. (Time expired)
In response to this year's budget, the Australian Diabetes Council noted that support had been maintained for the National Diabetes Service Scheme despite funding constraints. They further noted that amongst new and amended listings to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which totalled $686 million in cost, Juvicor, a treatment for type 2 diabetes, was added and, furthermore, that Medicare Locals were important with regard to access to after-hours care. Finally, it noted that the government also provided support to the families of children with type 1 diabetes through the Type 1 Diabetes Insulin Pump Program. That, as far as it goes, is good to hear. However, I join with my state colleague the shadow minister for health in New South Wales, Dr Andrew McDonald, in saying that the experience of one of our constituents, Allison McPherson, a 43-year-old single mother of Hoxton Park—and that of her father, Mick, otherwise known as Emmanuel Micallef, and her daughter, Carmen—is indicative of continuing problems with regard to care for this health issue in Australia. Carmen received a Liverpool council award for bravery for saving her mother when she fainted from hypoglycaemia in October last year—and, of course, that received some media coverage.
For 22 years Allison had worked with the NRMA, which is now part of the Insurance Australia Group. She expresses some understandable resentment at her termination from employment under the pretext of her inability to work with that organisation when suffering from diabetes type 1. After 22 years of employment, all of a sudden this is the end of Western civilisation as far as that employer was concerned. It was more than coincidental that she had succeeded in resisting that company's pressure, and that of their doctors, for an operation regarding suffering from a parallel carpal tunnel syndrome issue. Interestingly enough, after she had been terminated, all the paperwork within that organisation which testified to her many years of assiduous and recognised service in the organisation mysteriously disappeared from files. Fellow employees were told that she had actually terminated her services rather than the reverse—her being pushed out because of 'it being unlikely that you will be able to return to work'. There was a further comment from medical sources: 'I do not expect her to return to work unless in the coming months there is a great success achieved with the insulin pump.'
This interrelates with the question of insulin pumps. As noted earlier, for under-18-year-olds in Australia there is a degree of assistance. However, in my constituent's case the $9,500 BUPA Australia pump was only provided because of her ability, at great suffering, to keep up private health insurance. However, she notes a further cost to herself of $30 a month and the fact that for another $1,300, which she cannot afford, she can have a continuous blood glucose monitor, thus denying the need to have eight finger pricks daily.
Control is, of course, crucial in this area. It is plausible to have systems integrated with a feedback loop connecting the transmitter and the pump, and thus monitor blood and sugar insulin. We have a situation where 40 per cent of children do have these pumps, but for many older Australians, when the problem can lead to blindness and indeed death or comas, this is not good enough.
I note that another parallel issue is the question of education. It is disturbing to see that last year in Campbelltown there was the closure of a children's education unit. This woman's father, Mr Micallef, is very resentful of the degree to which he and his wife over their life have had to educate the teachers and the education system in general about the needs of their daughter Allison, who has suffered from this problem since she was four years of age.
We have a situation where there is a need for more training in the education system in New South Wales. There is a need for state and federal governments, particularly at the federal level, to look at the cost of these pumps to make sure that they are widely available. We are talking about a significant loss to productivity, as exemplified by this woman's forced departure from the workforce after 22 years of exemplary service. We are talking about people not being able to drive their children to school and we are talking about very major issues with regard to health in this country. I salute this family for their endeavours on that front.
I wish to put on record five outstanding young Australians from the electorate of Fadden who have received recently a sports championship award given from the program that each federal MP administers. I will outline some of the great things they have done and also put on the record my thanks to a great Olympian, Barry Kelly, who is also a primary school teacher at Pacific Pines State School and who is the chairman of the Local Sporting Champions Grant committee on the Gold Coast. I thank him for his commitment and his love of what he does in the service of his community.
The five great Australians are Lauren Nash, Amy Morland, Sariah We Neera, Calvin Quirk and Ben Houghton. Lauren Nash used the contribution that she received to attend the World Free Skating Championship. Her mother sends a huge thankyou for approving the funding for Lauren. She says: ' We are so appreciative as this is our only funding that we have received. Have been driving friends and family mad with Cadbury chocolates and raffles.' Lauren has just returned from competing at the Oceanias with a gold medal and is the Cadet Ladies Free Skating Champion for 2013. She is very happy as her Nan passed away just before she left for the competition and she really wanted to come home with gold for her Nan. She is looking forward to travelling to Germany in a few weeks to compete in the German Cup. Her goal was to skate at the worlds and to compete in the 2013 German Cup, the highest event in the skating calendar. She was placed 10th in the world for her age group.
Ms Amy Morland, in the Australian Schoolgirls Football Tour, started playing soccer at Runaway Bay in my electorate at a very young age. She has had a phenomenal progression through her sport: rep football at age 12. She trains locally two nights a week. The grant has helped her achieve recently at the magnificent Rio De Janeiro. Her team had three wins, three losses and one draw—incredible for a team playing girls football in South America. She was awarded the best player on and off the pitch. She has been offered a trial with the Newcastle Jets and the Brisbane Roar are showing some interest.
Sariah We Neera used her grant for the state basketball under-16 championships. She trains six days a week and before-school training starts at 5.45 am. She has played in the under-23 league to qualify. The grant has helped her to achieve attendance at the state championships where her team came seventh. Based on her performance at this competition, she was selected to play in the Queensland state under-16 team. She will head to Adelaide in July and she has continued to fundraise as this trip will cost $300. So far she has sold 30 boxes of fundraising chocolates to raise almost $1,000.
I'll take a box.
She has received the most valuable player award for the season. My good friend Andrew Laming has just said that he will take a box. I will join him and also take a box to help Saria We Neera get to Adelaide. That is fabulous.
Calvin Quirk had to qualify for the National Schools Cross Country Competition by running in the school regional and state carnivals. He has qualified for seven national events in the past 18 months in athletics, cross country and triathlon. Last week he competed in the schools APS cross country championship beating his nearest competitor by two minutes. The grant has helped him win the national schools cross country championship. After another stellar year of achievement, he is hoping to qualify later this year for the 2014 World All Schools Cross Country Championships where he will represent Australia. It is an impressive effort from a great young Australian.
The fifth of the great Australians from the electorate of Fadden on the northern Gold Coast is Ben Houghton, who competed at the 2012 Australian Junior Table Tennis Championships. In 2011 he was runner-up at the nationals in Sydney. He won gold in both the team event and doubles. He competed in the Australian Open and won two gold medals in the under-21 team. He finished in the top four to be selected for the state team. He started playing eight years ago at the age of eight. He has represented Queensland five times. The grant has allowed this amazing young Australian and his team to win silver. It has allowed him to be ranked seventh in Australia. This ranking means that he is now off to the national top-10 event in Victoria and the Australian Closed Championships in Sydney. He was a part of the team that was awarded the Queensland Youth Sports Award by the Premier. His talents mean that he will be attending training camps overseas. His goals are the Brazil Olympics and the 2018 Gold Coast Commonwealth Games.
These are five remarkable young Australians doing remarkable things with their lives in this area in the interest of sport. It is a great privilege to be able to help them with the awarding of the sports championship grants. I look forward to helping many more great young Australians.
I rise to continue a statement I prepared on the beef industry representation I talked to in an adjournment on 16 May. I continue: … and preserve jobs for Australian meatworkers. Producers are frustrated at a lack of transparency and accountability about where their levy funds have been spent. A 2011 Productivity Commission inquiry into rural R&D corporations heard that of approximately 4,000 R&D projects funded by the MLA only 260 had produced a final report. In order to justify its lack of transparency and accountability, the MLA uses commercial-in-confidence caveats, giving producers the impression that they are paying for projects, the outcomes of which they will not be privy to. A 2002 Senate inquiry criticised the industry's lack of transparency and made recommendations for reform; however, few have been implemented. Members want genuinely independent and meaningful audits rather than what they see as superficial assurances.
There are also widespread concerns of insufficient measures in place to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest, with the MLA distributing federal government grants and farmers levies to companies with which its directors are linked. An analysis of MLA annual reports for the past eight years showed that $66 million in research funds went to companies or institutions associated with its board members. Greg Brown, immediate past president of the CCA, says the MLA board selection process lacks independence and he pushed to change it for years. A selection committee provides recommendations to levy payers on which candidates should be voted onto the board. The selection committee comprises a cattle producer, a sheep producer and a lot feeder; three members appointed by peak councils and three incumbent directors. Greg Brown said this process gives directors the greatest degree of influence, yet he could see no reason why they should be involved.
The MLA's voting structure is undemocratic: the bigger your herd, the more votes you get, effectively giving control of the industry to a group of large corporations, some foreign owned. In 2008 the average Northern Rivers cattle farmer with 350 head of stock had less than 1,600 MLA votes, whereas Swift Australia, the world's largest meat company, had an entitlement of 504,045 votes. The MLA has 47,500 members and many are uncomfortable with large corporations and foreign competitors apparently being able to dominate the MLA board and influence the Australian beef industry.
The whole industry structure is dysfunctional, producers say. There are too many peak councils—the Red Meat Advisory Council, Meat and Livestock Australia, the Australian Lot Feeders Association, the Cattle Council of Australia, the Australian Meat Processor Corporation, the Australian Meat Industry Council and others, as well as the state based organisations and other groups, all making representations to government with no united vision of the industry's future. As Luke Bowen, the head of the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association has said: 'The system isn't providing a singular voice to represent us at a national level.'
The majority of producers I meet are over 60, heavily in debt and feel broken by this. Younger generations are not taking over their farms for many of the reasons I have outlined. With the state the industry is in, there soon will be few left in it. The risk exists that one of Australia's most important resources, our prime agricultural land, will eventually be sold to the highest bidders. Independent producers and processors say the status quo is regulation by conglomerates, not self-regulation. They are asking the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to intervene on their behalf. To begin an independent review of the beef industry is needed, especially of the MLA and its R&D performance, starting with the recommendations of the 2011 Productivity Commission report. The minister can exercise power through the terms set out in the MOU between the government and MLA in relation to matched R&D funding which binds MLA to act ethically, efficiently and effectively. Self-regulation is currently failing beef producers.
In June 2012 I hosted a meeting of a broad cross-section of the beef industry in my office in Lismore. Local producers attended along with key reps and people from around Australia. The minister said if the industry asked him to act he would be able to undertake certain things. The minister did his bit at the time and the industry reps did not do their bit.
A quality meat-grading system would also bolster the industry. A meat industry strategic plan forecast in 1996 showed that if a consumer oriented beef-grading system were introduced resulting in every person in Australia eating just one extra serving of beef every three weeks it would provide $1.2 billion annually. (Time expired)
I rise to speak about the Gillard Labor government's plan for its so-called 'school improvement' and how this plan will not advantage 22 out of the 54 schools in my electorate. The Gillard Labor government tried to spruik its plan as the Gonski reforms, and now we learn that David Gonski is not very happy with what the Gillard Labor government is proposing. It is no longer called the Gonski plan; it is the National Plan for School Improvement. The Gonski report definitely did not advocate cutting funding to universities, so why is the Gillard Labor government doing this?
Australians need to know that the Gillard Labor government is spending millions of dollars on new websites and advertising campaigns to try to sell its school plan. The plan is a $2.8 billion cut to education, bringing the total Commonwealth cuts or redirections in education to over $11 billion. Universities and students across the country are outraged at the cuts to university funding. Charles Darwin University, in my electorate, does not come away unscathed by the Gillard Labor government's harsh cuts. The Vice-Chancellor of Charles Darwin University, Barney Glover, said in an email to all staff: 'The impact of these cuts is likely to total a decline in funding of around $14 million.' For 2014 alone CDU will see a cut of around $1.4 million. Professor Glover is concerned about the financial burden and the impact that this will have at a time of strong growth for the university that for the next few years will be challenging for CDU.
Let us summarise: under Labor school funding is in decline. There is a clear choice between the coalition, which guarantees that no school will be worse off because we will keep the existing system at least until such time as we can have a consensus on the need for change, and the Gillard Labor government, which is cutting money out of schools. A close look at the budget over the forward estimates shows funding for schools goes down, not up as Labor claims. The Gillard Labor government said it is giving schools more money, when it is very mendacious of it to say that. It is cutting more than $300 million out of school funding over the next four years. It is clear that the only new or additional money for education comes from the states and territories.
In my electorate, 22 of the 54 schools will not be advantaged under this program. To take funding from urban schools across Darwin and Palmerston and redistribute it to remote schools is not fair, because the biggest issue facing remote NT schools is getting kids to schools. The 22 schools that will not be advantaged in my electorate are: Alawa Primary School, Anula Primary School, Darwin High School, Jingili Primary School, Kormilda College, Larrakeyah Primary School, Ludmilla Primary School, Malak Primary School, Millner Primary School, Moil Primary School, Nakara Primary School, Nightcliff Middle School, Nightcliff Primary School, Palmerston Senior College, Parap Primary School, Rosebery Primary School, Sanderson Middle School, Stuart Park Primary School, Essington School Darwin, Wanguri Primary School, Woodroffe Primary School and Wulagi Primary School. It is interesting to note that a lot of these schools are in Territory Labor seats. As I said, these schools are not advantaged under the Gillard Labor government's current model. The Chief Minister, Adam Giles, is right not to sign up to a scheme that will not advantaged all schools in the NT.
For the record, the Northern Territory average spend per student is about $15,600, which is well above the national average of $9,500 and the Gonski target of around $12,500 per student. The coalition welcomed the release of the Gonski report. We agreed with many of the findings and recommendations. However, it is important that the recommendations of the Gonski report are implemented in a cooperative and a careful way, ensuring that the original intentions are maintained as far as practicable. The coalition have our own education plan, and if elected we will seek agreement from all states and territories to improve educational outcomes for all schools.
In conclusion, there is a clear choice between the coalition, which guarantees that no school will be worse off because we will keep the existing system at least until such time as we can have a consensus on the need for change, and the Gillard Labor government, which is cutting money out of schools. As a constituent said to me, come 14 September they hope that the Gillard Labor government is not returned. (Time expired)
I take the opportunity to rise tonight and raise what has been a very topical issue over the last few weeks. All of us have heard discussion about the topic of live odds betting and betting advertising on our TV screens. Over the weekend we heard the very welcome announcement from the Prime Minister that all promotion of odds by gaming companies and commentators will be taken off our screens during live sports matches. This is a very welcome move by the PM and all involved. I have seen a groundswell of support for moving in the direction of taking off our screens this type of advertising during major sporting events, as have many of us in this House, through contact with constituents.
Particular congratulations should go to the Premier of South Australia, Jay Weatherill, for announcing last week that he will introduce extensive changes to the South Australian gambling laws which will ban live odds promotion and gambling advertising at South Australian stadiums. This very good announcement was made at the launch of Responsible Gambling Awareness Week in South Australia.
I know firsthand this is an area of great concern to many Australians. All of us enjoy watching sport on TV. If you come from my state of South Australia, Aussie Rules is the game to watch, while in New South Wales it is the NRL, and in summer we all watch cricket. Watching sport is a favourite pastime. When watching games on TV, we have been seeing more and more live odds betting commentating which has crept onto our TV channels in such a way that slowly it has become a part of the game itself. As the South Australian Premier said last week, we do not allow children into pokie venues, we do not allow children into the casino, we do not allow unaccompanied children on the racetracks, but we have not quite regulated the way that the advertising of sports betting has infiltrated living rooms where our children sit in front of the TV to watch many sporting events.
These announcements mean that bookies will be bounced from the stadium, gambling ads are restricted and live odds are gone for the entire game—a very good thing. Nobody should underestimate the significance of these changes. A clear message has been sent to the corporate bookies, professional sporting codes and broadcasters. They are now on notice. We cannot have a model of professional sport or free-to-air broadcasting that is dependent on gambling revenue for its existence.
As I said, Australian families want to see sport on free-to-air TV. What they do not want to see is odds and betting promotions shoved down their throats, but more importantly being shoved down the throats of young Australians. Families should not have to choose between watching a sports event and protecting their children from gambling addictions. That is why I support an end to all gambling advertising during G rated sports broadcasts. Watching the footy, netball, soccer, rugby and many other sports is a proud pastime for many Australians. I will always remember one of the greatest sporting moments that Australia had, and that was qualifying for the soccer World Cup in 2006, closely followed by the late nights and early mornings to watch us take the fight right up to the best teams in the world. I want our children and grandchildren, the next generations of Australians, to have the same great experience and the chance to watch their favourite teams without being exposed to the world of gambling. Children should be talking about their favourite teams, the skills on the field and their favourite players, not who they should put money on or what the odds are.
There are many good organisations in my electorate of Hindmarsh, such as the Salvation Army in Glenelg, Uniting Care Australia, Bower Cottages Community Centre. All these people work tirelessly to help families and communities cope with the problems caused by betting and by gambling. I have spoken to all of them on many occasions and they have told me firsthand some of the compelling stories of the devastation that has been caused to families by gambling. (Time expired
Before I get onto the topic I would like to address this evening, I would like to respond to the member for Page's comments about the plight of cattle producers across Northern Australia and remind her and members of the House that we have a situation in Northern Australia amongst those cattle producers that is devastating. We have a combination of drought and lack of opportunity to sell the product of their labours because of government policy. We have a reaction from the Indonesian government that is further preventing the sale of those cattle. As a result we have cattle perishing in paddocks. We have a destruction of the environment because the surviving stock that cattle producers are loath to destroy are eating out the last vestige of grass. Whilst members of this place debate the issues of union members' operations in abattoirs, I think it reduces the whole debate to a farcical level that people in my electorate producing stock hoping to export them would find absolutely deplorable.
However, I rise this evening to speak about another deplorable situation, and that is the advance of cane toads across Northern Australia in a westerly direction. They are the scourge of this Earth, they are the enemy of all Australian native wildlife. Previously the Liberal Party has made a commitment prior to elections to address the challenge of cane toads in the Top End and has made substantial funds available to support movements like the Kimberley Toad Busters in their defence of the Australian fauna and their endeavours to prevent the advance of the cane toads. Whilst we are yet to make any announcement in this regard in the upcoming elections, I personally am fighting for a similar commitment in the coalition's environmental policy for this election.
In addition to the Top End cane toad program, the coalition is determined to do all that it can to limit the spread of cane toads through the Kimberley. The coalition has long recognised the issue of cane toad population. Last year Greg Hunt, shadow minister for climate action, environment and heritage, visited in Kununurra at my request to witness the great work of Lee Scott Virtue's Kimberley Toad Busters in Kununurra and he spent the night catching and humanely euthanasing those toads. Members of the House ought to be reminded that Kimberley Toad Busters now estimate their volunteers—around 8,500 members—have since 2005 removed close to 3.2 million adult toads from the system, equating to around 328 tonnes of toad biomass, and potentially prevented the breeding of around 15 billion cane toads by removing around 1,280,000 adult females from the system, with a conservative value of the community efforts since 2005 at around $7,987,200. Cop that.
It is all bush tucker, brother.
The Kimberley Toad Busters have done everything except present them as bush tucker, I might add. They are now winners of 11 state, federal and international awards. They were finalists in nine other awards. They established a biodiversity recording and monitoring program 'What's in your Backyard?' now embraced by the WA Education Department. They established successful research programs and a 'Youth at Risk' positive outcomes program in Kununurra. They have embraced Aboriginal communities across the Kimberley and they are maintaining the frontline of resistance to the advance of cane toads.
Cane toads are destroying our fauna, they are destroying the top of the food chain, bungarras, Johnstone River crocs et cetera. It is something we must not ignore and we must in this House do everything we can to put resources into funding a finding of a biological solution to the advance of this incredible scourge of Australian wildlife.
I think the House should praise the Kimberley Toad Busters. I call the member for Greenway.
Tonight I raise a pressing local matter, being the current political agenda and direction of the Blacktown City Council, particularly those aspects which are being pushed by certain elements of the Liberal Party, motivated by ideology and an unhealthy obsession with asset sales, meagre public services and neglect for those in our community who need it most. Blacktown council covers the most populous local government area in New South Wales, currently serving over 300,000 people, according to the most recent census figures. Due to the massive growth we are seeing in Sydney's north-west, this is expected to increase to half a million people by 2020. With this size come challenges for all levels of government. To Blacktown council's credit, it has always met these challenges with an eye on the future, in no small part due to its award-winning, highly skilled and dedicated staff. I want to place on record the very professional relationship I enjoy with council, where I have had the opportunity to facilitate worthwhile partnerships with this federal Labor government, delivering Commonwealth investments in several important local projects over the past three years that would otherwise not have occurred; and working together to secure even more in future.
Today, local government is responsible for far more than 'roads, rates and rubbish', a mantra which was reinforced in the recent inquiry I chaired into constitutional recognition of local government. It is crucial that local government continues to provide services and facilities such as childcare centres, libraries, parks, pools and other recreational facilities. This is one of the reasons I am such a passionate supporter of constitutional recognition. Indeed, Blacktown City Council has provided these services in an efficient and excellent manner for decades, but in 2012 Blacktown City Council became controlled by an Independent-Liberal administration and since then we have seen certain sections of the Liberal Party in Blacktown pursue an agenda of privatisation and cuts with little if any public consultation.
The community I represent is dependent on the facilities and services provided by local government—in some areas more than others. Families rely on childcare services provided by council, organisations rely on community infrastructure for meetings and social gatherings, and residents young and old rely on libraries and sporting facilities, but since the new Liberal administration came to power in Blacktown we have witnessed some truly retrograde decisions: a cut to the pensioner rate rebate; removal of the recognition of traditional landowners from council meetings, something that I introduced in 2004 when I was first elected to Blacktown City Council; and the closure of Mount Druitt swimming pool without any public consultation. And we know more is afoot in relation to other aquatic centres, with deliberations on the report The function and strategic direction of councils' aquatic and leisure centres continuing. There is an investigation into the potential sale of small parks and reserves; voting down a motion proposed by Labor councillors to save residents' homes from potential compulsory acquisition, as drafted in the proposed 2013 Blacktown Local Environment Plan, or BLEP; flagging the sale of council operated childcare centres; and a resolution to investigate the renaming of the Blacktown city.
One of the most distressing of these items is the proposed 2013 BLEP, which includes the possibility of residents' homes being rezoned and acquired to expand larger parks such as International Peace Park in Seven Hills in my electorate. Astonishingly, that means that there is currently a proposal to enable the acquisition of people's homes in order to increase the size of existing parks, while also looking at the sale of other parks. Over the past few months I have been contacted by scores of local residents, including Darryl and Kim Green of Seven Hills, two of the many thoroughly decent people whom I have come to know as a result of this matter and for whom the BLEP is occupying an inordinate amount of time and energy precisely because it is about their homes, the life they have made in Blacktown, their future. They are residents who are gravely concerned about the BLEP—and rightly so.
Residents know that, while the BLEP issue is a proposal, one of their primary concerns is the uncertainty of waiting a couple of years or even a couple of decades before knowing whether council will elect to compulsorily acquire their properties. This is an unsustainable position in which to place people who have established their homes, many of whom are approaching retirement and as a practical matter cannot envisage being granted and servicing a new mortgage to purchase another property if their existing home is acquired by a future council.
I, along with my colleague the member for Chifley and the state members for Blacktown and Toongabbie, John Robertson and Nathan Rees, stand with our Labor colleagues on Blacktown City Council who are fighting these proposals and the ideological ruthlessness of some elements of the Liberal Party. It is time for the Liberal administration of Blacktown City Council to recognise the negative impact their actions are having on the wellbeing of its residents, abandon its reckless pursuit of an ideological agenda and refocus on the people. (Time expired)
Once again this government has been warned in today's media by the world's biggest energy companies that it must cut regulation, rein in labour costs and deliver a stable tax and better political environment if we are to be competitive with other countries for our major resource projects in the future. This government has been given warning after warning about these issues and seems intent on enduring the same. The Gillard government persists with creating more red and green tape and more taxes which are driving investment and jobs out of Australia. In Gladstone, the home of $65 billion worth of LNG projects, we are looking to the future to see what else is in the pipeline that will sustain growth and stable employment to allow the region to prosper into the future. Are future projects like the Arrow LNG venture at risk if the Labor government continues in this way? Yes, they are.
In Australia we currently have a high cost to build big gas projects, $150 billion worth of LNG projects under threat, the world's highest labour costs, overregulation and red tape, changing regulations, an increasingly unstable tax regime, an increasingly unstable political environment and speculation on leadership and an early election call. This does not go well with business. Woodside has already pulled out of the James Price Point project. Much of the equipment coming into Gladstone has come in from overseas because we could not supply it. For example, there are the pipes for the projects of three companies 500 kilometres to the west. The processing modules are coming in by barge.
There are plenty of global competitors around. East Africa, Canada and the USA are competing for this LNG industry. There is a 160-million-tonne global shortfall of the supply of LNG which will be filled by us or any of those competitors mentioned before. There is a need for LNG as the new, lean, clean, green fuel of the future. We are already facing in Australia a shortage of fossil fuels—and I am talking about oil based petroleum products. We cannot keep that up. Our Bass Strait oil has dropped from 85 per cent of self-sufficiency to about 15 per cent and falling. Coal, gas, fossil fuel, uranium, ethanol and the renewable energy methods are the only things we can rely on in the future.
There are $100 billion worth of projects in Australia which are now on hold. QCLNG, APLNG and GLNG are all currently under construction but battling budget blow-outs. These projects are about 30 per cent finished. Investment falls away, with $149 billion worth of projects lost in the last 12 months. I refer to Woodside Petroleum and James Price Point in Western Australia; Sunrise LNG in the Timor Sea; BHP's Olympic Dam; the Port Hedland outer harbour in Western Australia; Aquila West Pilbara iron ore mine in Western Australia; Xstrata's Wandoan coalmine in Central Queensland, which affects the rail and port and farmland properties; the Rio Tinto project at Mount Pleasant; Peabody Energy's Wilkie Creek mine; BHP Billiton's Saraji East and the Monto coalmine, which is in my electorate. It is a fact: Australia's international competitiveness is at risk and must be a real concern to all Australians.
In conclusion, a good federal government, facing the current global economic environment, should be focused on encouraging investment in Australia for projects that are sustainable, provide jobs and stimulate the economy. In Gladstone, Flynn and Central Queensland we need certainty, sustainability and stable development to break the boom-bust cycle of a two-speed economy. The writing has been on the wall for a long time and these latest warnings serve as proof that the Gillard government is not listening.
I will continue to highlight these issues because in Central Queensland we are copping the brunt of bad federal policies. I get it, and the coalition gets it: we have to return to sound policies that encourage jobs and investment so that towns like Gladstone, Emerald and the rest can survive.
I have previously spoken in this place about the very important role community sporting organisations serve in communities across Australia. In addition to providing sporting opportunities and contributing to a healthy lifestyle, they bring families together and engender local pride and community spirit. It is also the local sports clubs, who do all of the foundation work, which the professional and elite sports recruit from. As the Crawford report into sports funding points out, elite sport performance ultimately depends on the depth of participation.
When the associated advertising, telecast rights, sponsorship, players' payments, gambling and so on are all taken into account, elite sport is today a multi-billion-dollar entertainment industry. Yet for all of the money generated by the commercialisation of sport, very little ends up in community sports groups.
Earlier this year I attended a presentation evening of the South Australian Amateur Football League. The SAAFL manages one of the largest community football competitions in Australia with around 40,000 players, officials and supporters through 66 member clubs. In his address on the night, South Australian Amateur Football League President Gino Capogreco provided some very concerning statistics relating to the level of funding that reaches community football in South Australia. In a letter that he subsequently sent to me, Mr Capogreco stated:
Our information is that the AFL currently provides the following financial support to state peak Australian Rules Football organisations—approximately $20 million to New South Wales and Queensland combined; $5 million to Victoria; $3 million to Western Australia and only $1 million to South Australia. Victorian community football receives $1.5 million, Western Australia receives $850,000 and in South Australia no money is allocated. In recent years the AFL has cut funding to the SANFL which in turn has reduced funding at a community league level. With our clubs predominately run by volunteers and an increasing cost of running facilities, at least a dozen of our clubs are under financial stress.
I bring those comments to the minister's attention.
Furthermore, the figures reflect my own observations and my discussions with local football clubs, who all struggle to fund their ongoing operating expenses, and have little hope of raising the funds needed to upgrade their often outdated facilities.
I acknowledge that considerable amounts of the federal government's stimulus funding, provided under the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, found its way to community sporting clubs. It was very welcome and appreciated. However, we need to do more.
I am conscious that all three levels of government share responsibility for community sporting groups and that governments have competing demands for available funds. However, it would make an immediate and real difference to community sports clubs if more federal funding went directly to community clubs rather than to national sports bodies from where very little ever trickles through to community sports. Indeed, there is a perception that currently too much of the funding is swallowed up by self-serving national and state administrations.
Furthermore, it is not just the facilities that are looking tired and worn out; it is also the thousands of volunteers who devote an extraordinary amount of time and who are not being replaced because no-one else is prepared to take on the burden of and responsibility for struggling clubs. As the Crawford report stated:
The supply of volunteers, often the lifeblood of any club or association is under pressure.
… … …
Compliance obligations and duties of care are increasingly onerous. Volunteers face increasing costs. There is rarely any reimbursement for required courses such as coaching, first aid and necessary police checks or other out of pocket expenses including telephone calls, travel cost, accreditation costs and sporting equipment.
… Volunteer coaches and administrators are overloaded and under-resourced and feel trapped in their roles with little support.
Community sport is central to Australian life. Regrettably, it is getting to a point where only those children whose parents can afford the ever-increasing participation costs can play sport, even at community level. I can only speculate as to how many potential champions and future Olympians are forced to drop out of sport because of the high participation costs forced upon community sport clubs in order for them to survive. We all lose out when that happens.
I believe that elite sport has the ability to generate most of its own funding. The government's focus should therefore be on supporting community sports and I urge the minister to consider more direct funding of local sports clubs.
I would like to echo the words of my colleague from across the chamber, the member for Makin.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the representatives from a number of community organisations who attended a recent round table with Senator Michaelia Cash, the shadow parliamentary secretary for the status of women, and me. The round table was attended by representatives from the following organisations and the following individuals: Beenleigh PCYC; Caring Women United Logan; Mrs Robin Gallen; Quota Beenleigh; Lighthouse Care; the Soul Centre Pantry at Upper Coomera; Soroptimist International of Beenleigh; Night Light/CentroCARE; Daughters of Promise; Wesley Mission Beenleigh; Logan City Council, represented by Mayor Pam Parker and Councillor Jennie Breene; Beenleigh, Eagleby and North Gold Coast Family and Domestic Violence Outreach Service; Faith Revival Christian Church; the Eagleby Community Association; and also the Twin Rivers Centre, which provided a written submission.
The purpose of the round table was to seek a better understanding of the issues affecting women in the Forde electorate. Some of the most pressing issues raised were: domestic violence as a major cause of homelessness; the fact that there is nowhere for women and their children to go once they become homeless; and the fact that, currently, the onus is put on the victims of domestic violence to leave, not on the perpetrator to stop the violence or leave.
It was also pointed out that a framework is required whereby collaborative work can be legally, fairly and professionally carried out between services and organisations which deal with domestic violence issues to enable better protection, conviction and intervention in these cases.
There was also a suggestion that some national legislation on violence against women be created and made effective across all states and territories of Australia and a recommendation that a national campaign combating the issues also be undertaken. It was also pointed out that financial stresses are being felt hugely by the middle class and, increasingly, this sector needs to access emergency assistance for food, accommodation, medication and a range of other items.
Another issue was raised regarding changes to parenting payments. It was pointed out that there was either inadequate warning or inadequate support provided. Mention was made of the fact that there appeared to be a lack of framework and funding around assisting mothers back into the workforce and the fact that women affected are operating at high levels of stress and anxiety, directly affecting their own and their children's wellbeing.
It was also pointed out that most women want to work but have little or no support, so maintaining work is difficult, particularly for single mothers. They need a supported employment option—something to help them break that cycle—perhaps an in-home option as well.
Affordability around the costs associated with seeking and sustaining work such as child care, fuel, vehicle costs, public transport, clothing et cetera was also raised; also, juggling casual work where the hours of work and income are changeable, making it difficult to manage a household budget. The issue of greater flexibility in childcare options was also raised—the availability outside standard hours; casual childcare options for those working casual hours; and an increase of in-home care options.
It was very evident during the day that there are many dedicated organisations throughout my electorate which work unceasingly to make a difference in many women's lives, often with none or very little funding and few resources. One of those organisations, Soroptimists International Beenleigh, runs a program called The Dating Game, which educates young women on what is and is not acceptable in terms of controlling behaviour or dangerous behaviour when dating.
We also took the opportunity to call into a women's pamper morning, conducted for the sixth year in a row by Twin Rivers Church. This was a free event to show women in the community that they are valued and was attended by over 200 women giving or receiving manicures, pedicures, hairstyles, shoulder massages and makeovers. And we had a wonderful morning tea!
I would like to, again, thank all the participants for their insight and willingness to bring to light the issues which they see facing women in our community today. Following the round table, I now have plans underway to conduct a more in-depth forum in the near future to further address the issues raised. The complexity of these issues requires a whole-of-community effort. They will not be solved overnight. I am committed to working with the community to ensure that the women of Forde receive the support and acknowledgement— (Time expired)
The way we deal with animals in our care speaks volumes about our values. That is why every parent teaches their children the importance of caring for their pets. It does not always follow that people who are kind to animals extend that affection to their fellow human beings, but it is one insight into our humanity. That is why I have expressed more than a little concern in this place and elsewhere about the treatment of livestock in the live export trade. As custodians of these creatures we have a duty of responsibility.
When we apply these values to the subject of live animal export we are found wanting. If ever we were able to turn a blind eye to this issue, the internet extends our gaze and our television can bring it into our lounge rooms on an all-too-frequent basis.
In recent times we have been shocked at footage of barbaric treatment of animals in slaughterhouses around the world. We cannot distance ourselves from this horror, as we are critical links in the supply chain that ends in this misery. It is not just the end point of the process because, when we export livestock to another country, we know that it is done for a purpose: the animal will be slaughtered for food for others. I have no quarrel with this.
It is not just the end point in the process that should attract our concern. The transportation of distressed animals in crowded ships over long distances is accompanied by high mortality rates, which is also of deep concern.
I believe that Australia will play an increasingly important role in the supply of food, including protein, to the growing, developing population of our region. That is one reason why we have to get the trade right.
I want to see an end to the live export trade. I do not think it is sustainable on humane grounds and I think there are sound economic grounds for acting as well.
We talk about value-adding to our raw materials for national wealth. We should also look at the live export trade through the same prism. I believe that it is far better that we should be developing our meat export market on the basis of domestic slaughter than on value-adding. It is better for jobs and it is better for wealth generation that we do it this way.
When I have raised this issue in parliament in the past I have been met with numerous arguments. I am told that we have a lack of infrastructure, particularly refrigeration infrastructure, in the regions we wish to export to.
I am told we no longer have export abattoirs in the regions where the cattle are raised and exported from. I am told that the disruption of the live export trade would have a significant impact on jobs and income for the businesses and workers involved. I do not lightly dismiss these arguments. They are not without merit, but they must be met.
It is true that the lack of refrigeration in, for example, Indonesia is a barrier but this will not always be the case. Indonesia is our most important regional neighbour and should be at the front of our economic and diplomatic planning.
Indonesia is a rapidly-developing country. It currently accounts for around 40 per cent of our live export trade. Clearly, it is significant. But it also has an avowed policy of reducing its reliance on our live exports. Self-sufficiency targets for beef have been set. We need to develop a plan which accounts for these changes and which also acknowledges that the capacity and demand for boxed meat will expand. Quite simply, we should be working with Indonesia as a trading partner to transform and expand our trade, including our trade of meat, respectfully and without the shocks and surprises that sudden changes in policy bring to those relationships. Of course, Indonesia is not the only country to which we export meat, but it is the biggest. Other countries where issues have been raised include Egypt, Pakistan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Kuwait and Israel. Over 100 countries are involved in the live export trade.
I am proud to say that Australia has the strictest standards for the export of live animals of any country in the world. That is an achievement of this Labor government. But there is no doubt that there has been a breakdown in the trust the community has on this issue. Graphic evidence of far too many cases of animal abuse have shone a light on the dark side of the live export industry. That is why I say we need to have a plan to address this. The community's confidence in the way we are doing it at the moment has been broken. There are many people within my electorate who contact me on a daily and weekly basis and demand action from the government. I add my voice to theirs and say we need a change of policy. It cannot be delivered overnight, but we cannot assume that we can continue to do things the way we are doing them at the moment. So I say that, on the basis of humane treatment of animals and on the basis of a sustainable economic model, we need to change the way we are dealing with the live export trade.
Order! It being 10.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 22:31
On 1 May I hosted the 4th Annual Casey Apprentice/Trainee of the Year Awards at the Montrose Football Club. As I have told the House before, in 2009 I initiated these awards to recognise and reward excellence and achievement and to encourage careers in local trades and small business. Four prominent local business leaders again kindly volunteered their time to sift through the nominations and select those they thought most deserving. I want to thank those four: Phil Munday of Phil Munday's Panel Works, who chaired the independent judging panel, along with Sue O'Brien of Chateau Yering, Nick Fraraccio of Stevens Glass and Clive Larkman of Larkman Nurseries.
The industries represented this year included horticulture, landscaping, carpentry, electrical, glazing and hairdressing. From the applications received, the judging panel decided upon 10 finalists, and of those 10 there were two Overall Winners: 18-year-old Blake Collings from Wesburn, who is a horticulture apprentice at Oz Watergardens in Monbulk, and 17-year-old Jayden Battaglene, from Chirnside Park, who is a landscape construction apprentice at Coolabah Landscaping in Rowville. The Runner-up Award was won by 20-year-old David Graham from Monbulk, who is an apprentice electrician with Everyday Air & Electrical Solutions in Seville, and 21-year-old Ryan Adams from Mooroolbark was awarded the Encouragement Award, and he is an apprentice carpenter with MN Constructions in Warrandyte. The other finalists included Nick Distefano, a 24-year-old apprentice in carpentry and Jordan Iverach, a 20-year-old apprentice in Horticulture Turf Management. There was also Joshua Mayall, an apprentice electrician; Reece Miles, an apprentice glazier; Joshua Sperring, an apprentice horticulturist; and Nicole Van Tonder, an apprentice hairdresser.
I want to pay tribute again to the committee and my congratulations to all of the finalists and to their families and friends, who all came along on the evening to celebrate the great success of all of those in the apprentice trainee of the year awards.
I recently had the pleasure to spend an evening with local volunteers at the 2013 Ballarat Volunteer Recognition Awards, which were organised by United Way and Volunteering Ballarat. It was a terrific event, and I want to recognise all of the volunteers who were nominated and those who were award recipients.
Volunteers are one of the best things about our community. Their service, dedication, compassion and care for their neighbours is what helps to make local communities great. There is a certain irony, however, in acknowledging the service of volunteers with an award ceremony—after all, volunteers do what they do for the sake of people around them and they do not do it for financial reward or for recognition; they do it for the sake of their local community. But when you consider some of the statistics of volunteerism in Australia, it is absolutely necessary that we celebrate their contribution and that we say thanks.
Thirty-six cent of the adult population in Australia are volunteer, and that is more than six million people. The volunteering sector contributes more than 730 million hours of unpaid work each year in Australia, and that is valued at around $16 billion. Whether they are providing support to families who find themselves in crisis or defending communities during floods or fires, whether they are helping our new migrants to settle in the community or recognising the work of men and women who have served their nation in wartime and peace, whether they are creating a community garden, assisting children with learning difficulties or simply serving in the local op shop, volunteers give their time, their energy and their hard work to serve a purpose beyond recognition.
I also want to particularly take this opportunity to reflect on the efforts of one very special volunteer in Daylesford, who sadly passed away earlier this month. Roz Moynihan was the epitome of a volunteer—someone known by an entire community for her decades of tireless commitment to the welfare of others. I first encountered Roz and her husband Danny when they ran the Daylesford Post Office. Despite having incredibly busy working lives, they were actively involved in the community, particularly in providing training opportunities for young people. For almost 20 years at any event for any organisation in Daylesford was made brighter thanks to Roz's involvement. If you attended or were part of the speedway, the RSL, the ChillOut Festival, the art show, the urban fire brigade, the ladies auxiliary, Girl Guides or Rotary, you would find Roz there lending a hand, rattling a tin or just making you feel welcome with her wonderful smile and her laughter.
Roz is remembered by her husband, Danny, her children, Justin and Natalie, and their extended family members. In fact, it was the biggest funeral we have ever seen in the Daylesford community, with almost 1,000 people lining the streets to farewell Roz. We will certainly miss her. She was someone I certainly counted as a friend. She always warmly welcomed me and my family into the community. Roz, we will sadly miss you, but it was a life well and truly lived to the full.
It is with great pleasure that I bring to the House's attention a story that has been shared with me from a Bonner constituent. For the purposes of this speech, let us call her Mary. In a nutshell it encapsulates the true essence of the NDIS and what it will mean for people living with disabilities and for those who lovingly give their time to care for them. I think it is high time that every Australian stops and thinks but for the grace of God there go I because none of us know when we or one of our loved ones may, through no fault of their own, become severely disabled. People like Mary need a safety net and they will need to know the quality of life that remains for them.
Mary became a full-time carer for her late husband when he was suddenly struck down with motor neuron disease. This is a rapidly progressive neurological disease with an average life expectancy of only two to three years from diagnosis. Every day two people die of this cruel disease. Sadly, Mary's husband progressively lost the ability to speak, swallow, walk, even to stand, grip with his hands and finally even breathe without mechanical assistance. These disabilities require a range of very specialised and expensive aids as well as physical assistance with daily functions. She relied heavily on the support of the Motor Neurone Disease Association for the provision of some of these resources.
She also had to make a co-payment to receive five hours per fortnight of in-home assistance provided by Anglicare. Any increased assistance was not possible due to the lack of funding available to the service providers. Her husband was assessed by disability services as eligible for 40 hours per week of in-home care but, sadly, no funds were available to actually provide it. When Mary's circumstances became quite desperate, emergency funding for a total of 40 hours was made available; however, she was able to find available staff to provide only nine hours per week. As her husband could not be left alone, she too became housebound and relied heavily on family support for their daily needs—a stark reminder of the immense load on the shoulders of carers.
This story is why we must ensure that the NDIS comes to fruition as quickly as possible and to keep up the scrutiny that the scheme warrants to ensure that it will deliver where it is most needed to people like Mary and to her husband. To echo the sentiments of our shadow Treasurer, Mr Joe Hockey:
… Australians want tomorrow to be better than today.
Australians want their government to reflect their aspirations.
And, Australians want their government to reflect the very best qualities of our people.
The NDIS reflects the very best qualities of our people by providing the best quality of life for its disabled.
I am really pleased to be updating the House today on the recently completed GP superclinic at south Tweed Heads in my electorate or, as the clinic is known as, Tweed Health for Everyone. This is a great project. We are very excited to see that it has been completed. Of course, this was an election commitment in 2010. We went to the people saying that if we were elected we would deliver $7 million to build a GP superclinic in the Tweed Heads area. Of course we did this because it is very important in this area to take the pressure off the local hospitals. Also, many people in the community called for better integrated health services in this area. It is particularly important for this area in my electorate because there is a very large proportion of older Australians who need to access health services such as these. So I was very pleased to be making that commitment.
Soon after the election, it went out to tender, and the successful applicants were a company known as Ausjendia Pty Ltd, which comprises three outstanding local GPs: Dr Di Blankensee, Dr Jenny Soden and Dr Austin Sterne. These three GPs have an extensive history within our area. They are particularly regarded for the GP services they provide but also for their GP registrar training. So an outstanding group of doctors with decades of local experience were the successful tenderers for the superclinic.
We are now seeing the final project. It is great to see the vast array of services they have. The building features 22 consulting rooms for GPs, nurses, dietitians, podiatrists, physiotherapists, speech pathologists and psychologists. It has two minor procedures rooms, a four-bed emergency room, a pharmacy, a dentist, pathology, a coffee shop, conference facilities, very easy ground-floor access and, importantly, free on-site car parking, including space for motor cycles, bicycles and gophers. The whole place has been designed to make it easy for people to access and to get the health care they need.
I want to take the opportunity to commend the architect, Andrew Armstrong from Fulton Trotter, who did a remarkable job in the design. I have just outlined some of the features. The design also incorporated a lot of natural light, with ventilators, water tanks and sun shading, and it reflects a lot of the environmental features of the North Coast as well. Most importantly, the design is very conducive to people coming to access health services.
We are very excited we are going to have the official opening next month to celebrate what really is a great community victory. For a long time, people had called for an integrated health service like the GP superclinic. I am very proud, as the local MP, to be to be delivering that, particularly one that is going to give such an array of allied health services all in one spot, which is important for anyone accessing health care, and particularly for the older Australians within our area, who are very excited and have a lot of ownership of this local GP superclinic. We are looking forward to the official opening next month.
I rise to advise the House of a little-known organisation that does a mighty effort in communities right around Australia. I speak of our school chaplains. Last week was Chappy Week, which is an annual event held to raise awareness of school chaplains and the valuable service they provide to students, parents and teachers in our schools. Chaplains provide spiritual but, more importantly, emotional support to school communities. They work at helping students find a better way to deal with issues including family breakdown, loneliness, drug abuse, depression, anxiety and, more recently, cyberbullying. Chaplains encourage responsible behaviour based on sound and acceptable social skills.
In my day, you were the odd kid out in a classroom if you did not have a mum and a dad. Today, it is the opposite. Most kids in the state schools now come from a broken family—not all, but these are problems that chaplains are now confronted with. I remember we used to ride our bikes or walk many kilometres, in a safe community environment, to get to our school. Misbehaviour in a small, tight-knit community was reported expediently back to parents. Misbehaviour on the streets of our community was not tolerated and you were quickly dealt with by a responsible parent at home if you were throwing rotten mangoes at the next-door neighbour's dogs!
More than ever before, Australian children are experiencing family problems, confusing relationships, friendship issues, peer pressure, self-esteem issues, bullying and depression. School life and playground dynamics have changed enormously since we all went to school. Without getting into the psychology of it, it seems that nowadays it is much more difficult for a kid just to be a kid. This is why I am a supporter of the chaplaincy program in my community and right across the nation. In a national government school survey recently, 92.5 per cent of chaplains reported dealing with bullying and harassment, 92 per cent reported dealing with peer relationships and loneliness, 91 per cent reported dealing with family relationships and 85 per cent reported dealing with students' sense of purpose and self-esteem.
In my electorate, bullying, harassment and peer pressure were major issues in the schoolyard and affected the wellbeing of a significant number of students. Fortunately, the school chaplaincy program has been adopted across several schools and significant changes have been noted. I often use schools in my electorate of Wright as an example of where the chaplaincy program has been a success. The obvious benefits which come from the chaplaincy program confirm the need for widespread participation during Chappy Week, which raises much needed funds for the program. Almost 50 per cent of Queensland state schools have a chappy, which I am very proud of, but unfortunately that leaves 600 state schools without a chappy, and in my opinion that is 600 schools too many.
If any more evidence were required to demonstrate that a possible Abbott government will become the greatest environmental wrecker in this nation's history then the recent call to remove 'environmental propaganda material, in particular postnormal science about climate change' by extremists at the Queensland National Party conference in 2012 should be more than sufficient. Twelve months earlier Liberal-National Party President and powerbroker, Bruce McIver, accused Queensland schoolteachers of 'brainwashing' their students about climate change, yet Queensland has, as we know, experienced unprecedented weather related natural disasters that have been strongly linked to the effects of global warming.
Do the members of the Liberal-National Party expect all reports of the worldwide increase in the frequency and the intensity of extreme weather events be expunged from classroom textbooks? What about the measured increase in the acidity of seawater threatening mass extinction in the oceans that has been unarguably connected to the measured increase in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide? Do members of the Liberal-National Party believe that chemistry, physics and geography textbooks should also be removed from school libraries, since these evident works of propaganda contain materials that could lead to students forming an opinion that carbon dioxide emissions could actually be responsible for the measured increase in average global temperatures?
I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to repudiate the statements of the members of the Queensland Liberal-National Party and to affirm that any government that they may form will accept that global warming is without question being driven by carbon dioxide emissions. Further, I would ask that the Leader of the Opposition state there is a direct connection between the burning of fossil fuels and the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and that urgent measures to rapidly reduce emissions are required. Not that I have an expectation that the Leader of the Opposition will respond to these requests, but I do have one other question: why is it that the leader of the party, distinguished by his own academic prowess in a country that prides itself on the education of its people and the success of its scientists, should reject all the evidence that shows an unarguable connection between carbon dioxide emissions, global warming, climate change and ocean acidification unless his only purpose is to use public ignorance of a complex issue for crude political advantage?
In early May our atmosphere crossed an important and potentially dangerous milestone. Based on readings from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, we reached 400 ppm of CO2 for the first time in about three million years. The last time that atmospheric carbon dioxide reached these levels icecaps in the Arctic and Antarctic collapsed and sea levels rose by 14 metres over a number of centuries. In concluding, is this report just propaganda or should it be seen as a warning that we cannot ignore?
Long have I feared circumstances developing in my part of regional Victoria where some lenders have not behaved with decency and commercial common sense in addressing large debt exposure. For many years now I have been providing advocacy to many constituents where economic downturn has caused their businesses to struggle. I believe strongly in standing in the breach for enterprising constituents whose only folly is to overextend themselves in difficult economic circumstances. I have enjoyed some success in this with help from the Australian Bankers Association, and many thanks are due to their CEO, Steve Munchenburg.
Members of the ABA advise that negotiating the best outcome is the most sensible commercial option in these situations. Initially this involvement of mine was in relation to primary production, but of late has now involved commercial lending. I was extremely grateful for my Victorian state colleagues for legislating for compulsory debt mediation at my urging but it is now time to consider compulsory debt mediation for commercial lending as well. Both the ABA and its members agree with me that mediation can take a lot of pain out of the process and lead to sensible and commercial settlement of these matters. It forces the lender but most particularly the borrower to accept the fragile position that has developed. Sometimes borrowers can bury their head in the sand and this can lead to the lender taking unnecessary hasty action.
All 44 members of the ABA agree with me—except one bank. I am so close now to naming this bank for some of the unconscionable conduct that they perpetrated on my constituents. I have rung the CEO and advised him. An unbelievable level of arrogance at midmanagement level has developed at this bank and I am tired of it. All I ask for is that my constituents get treated properly and in a decent manner. I do not ask banks to forsake their security. The whole financial system would break down if we did that. Borrowers enter into commercial responsibilities and banks need to be conscious of that and honour it.
All I ask for is for this bank to comply with a protocol that has been established to the ABA and behave itself and comply with it. I have seen some terrible outcomes for my constituents—tragic outcomes in fact for my constituents—as a result of the bullying process that lawyers and liquidators can create by going the big biff, and I am tired of it. I am so close to naming this bank that if they do not lift their game, I will. Before I retire from this place I will show up at shareholder meetings and advise shareholders that this bank and the dividend it delivers is delivered out of the blood of my constituents. Behave yourself, do what the ABA recommends you do and what I have warned you to do.
Throughout the electorate of Jagajaga there are some fantastic people who work very, very hard together to improve their communities. Today I want to pay tribute to the people who live in postcode 3081, West Heidelberg, and the work that they have been doing to renew their community.
It is true that West Heidelberg faces very high levels of disadvantage, but the people who live there recognise that it is a place that has a lot to offer. There are people there who are very, very proud and very strong. In 2005 the Victorian state Labor government acted on the needs of West Heidelberg by including it in the Neighbourhood Renewal program. One of the goals of the program has been to increase community pride and participation. As this Neighbourhood Renewal program draws to a close in West Heidelberg, I want to acknowledge and celebrate the terrific work that has been done by a large number of volunteers and staff who have really made a difference to this area.
This part of Melbourne actually includes the 1956 Olympic Village and of course that celebration saw much infrastructure come to this part of Melbourne. But over time the infrastructure has really been allowed to decline and it has been seriously neglected. The Neighbourhood Renewal program has really taken on the task of giving locals the opportunity to revitalise this great area.
One of the best signs has been the rejuvenation of the Olympic Village shopping strip. It is no longer the very sorry place that it used to be. Now it is a place where families can come together. There is a popular Makers Market for craft makers and musicians. One of the other areas that has been rejuvenated is the Malahang Reserve where lots of people and families come. There is a skate park. We have seen terrific play equipment and landscaping put in and, instead of just a dry paddock, it is now a place where many, many people can enjoy themselves including at the annual Eid celebration.
Another space has been the new community garden. That too is a place where people develop new friendships and connections. Soon we will see a new child and family centre at the Olympic Village Primary School campus of Charles La Trobe. All of these initiatives are part of the pride and development of 3081. Today I am wearing my 'I love 3081' T-shirt. I am not the only one. I am reliably informed that these T-shirts are selling very well and I join with everyone in celebrating the terrific work that is been done by Neighbourhood Renewal.
One of my local schools is today concluding a fundraising effort which will provide an opportunity for its students to come to Canberra this year. For the last few months, the school community of Edney Primary School in High Wycombe has been raising money to enable its students to travel to Canberra this year, during Canberra's 100th birthday. Deputy Speaker, as you would be well aware, it is a big effort for any school to be able to travel to Canberra, but it is an even more costly and difficult effort for schools from my state of Western Australia to make it all the way to Canberra, which makes this achievement even greater.
The sport teacher at Edney Primary School, Ms Cathy Heyes, has organised a fundraising drive as part of the school's Keep Fit program, to encourage the students not only to have a healthy lifestyle but also to raise money for their trip to Canberra. The students—and I think this is a very innovative approach—have been running or walking laps around their school oval to collect tokens. These tokens are then converted into 'kilometres' for the flights to Canberra. On a Wednesday morning before school, students and parents have been running and walking as many laps around the school oval as possible. In their Physical Education classes, the students have also been running and walking laps around the oval, all in an effort to gain more tokens to contribute to their Canberra trip. At each assembly, an update is provided to the school community on how many laps have been walked or run and a map shows the students how many 'kilometres' they have covered in their walk to Canberra.
What is particularly excellent about this project is that it has brought the entire school community together to strive for an important combined goal. Not only are the students getting to take ownership of what they have achieved; they are also being rewarded through points for their school factions. The entire project has been a great way to help the students truly appreciate just how special such a trip is, and Edney Primary School should be congratulated on their efforts. All too often in life we take things for granted, but I can imagine that this experience will not be one that the students will forget any time soon. The teachers have reported back to me that the project is also helping the students to get to know more about Canberra and about Australia generally. I have no doubt that the students will learn even more when they make it to Canberra in person to visit parliament and the many other sites that our capital city has to offer, particularly with all of the information around its centenary year.
I congratulate the students who have taken up this project with great enthusiasm. I also thank the parents who have taken such an active involvement in it by walking and running laps with the students to help them accrue even more tokens. I know that the Principal, Shirley Duggan, and the rest of the leadership and staff at Edney Primary School have worked extremely hard to promote a close-knit and supportive school community. Finally, I offer my special thanks and congratulations to sports teacher, Cathy Heyes, whose coordination of this project has given the students a great learning opportunity. To the students, I say: Well done. You have achieved something quite amazing. Congratulations to you all.
Last Wednesday, I attended the launch of Entry 29, a co-working innovation space located just on the edge of the ANU campus in Acton. The name Entry 29 has a terrific connection to Canberra's history. In the federal capital design competition to design Canberra, 137 entries were submitted and the winner was the 29th entrant. In memory of Canberra's history and with an eye to Canberra's future, the Canberra community decided to call this innovation space Entry 29.
Entry 29 is a community-driven, not-for-profit company, whose aim is to provide a social and inspiring work space, where entrepreneurs can connect, create and collaborate on new and exciting opportunities. It also offers meeting facilities, access to mentors and service providers, including access to business advisers and financiers. Entry 29 has been driven by Canberra's start-up community in direct response to the need for affordable, collaborative accommodation for entrepreneurs and start-ups. It adds significantly to Canberra's track record as Australia's ideas capital—and we need to turn these ideas into business ventures in the marketplace. This is where Australia has great potential but has historically been weak.
Canberra has a wonderful record of innovation: Wi-Fi from the CSIRO; Nobel Prize winner Brian Schmidt's work on the expanding universe at ANU; and the great public policy entrepreneurs who populate the Australian Public Service. But the success of Entry 29 will be when one sees the office spaces around the ANU precinct being taken up by new business innovators, as one sees around the campuses of MIT and Stanford in the United States. The hard work of volunteers from this community has gotten the facility ready for business. I want to thank Rory Ford, Nick McNaughton, Marcus Dawes, Craig Thomler, Anna Pino, Mick Cardew-Hall from the ANU, Peter Davison as well as my friend Andrew Barr, the Minister for Economic Development, for the ACT government's support for this vital innovation space.
I have spoken many times in this parliament about the need to support innovation. It was my pleasure last year to participate in a roundtable at Government House, along with Senator Sinodinos, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. The roundtable was organised by Brian Schmidt in order to boost innovation in Australia. I regularly hold breakfast meetings for social entrepreneurs in my electorate because I believe we need to do more to encourage start-ups in the not-for-profit space. Entry 29 adds to that. It fills the gap that Australia has between the creation of ideas and the commercialisation of them. I wish the team at Entry 29 every success.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
Deputy Speaker Scott, I know you spend a lot of time coming through South-East Queensland and so will be particularly interested in this motion. I have moved:
That this House:
(1) opposes the Queensland Government's plans to cut local bus services in South East Queensland;
(2) notes that these cuts will:
(a) affect many vulnerable residents that can least afford it—seniors, pensioners, part-time working mums and dads and students …
They will particularly affect people who are ill and have to travel to the QE2 hospital, the PA Hospital or the Mater hospital. The motion also asks the House to support better public transport in Queensland.
I put this motion to the House in the context of the announcement by the Queensland Minister for Transport and Main Roads, in July last year, of a review into TransLink's South-East Queensland bus network. I flag up-front that I have a bit of a conspiracy theory about this, and that is that it is a precursor to the selling off, the privatisation, of bus transportation. The Labor Party has a long, proud history of making commitments to public transport. However, the privatisation agenda of the Newman government has to be seen to be believed. The reality is that bus networks are not super viable. During peak hours they are, but, during the off-peak times, particularly when seniors travel, or when people who are ill need to go to hospital, bus companies do not make a profit. My understanding of this review is that it will be a precursor to privatisation.
I will be interested to hear the contributions of those opposite on this motion. We have already seen a bit of a north-south divide when it comes to public transport in Brisbane. The Labor government is committed to looking after trains, buses and roads, particularly on the south side of the river. One of the first things that I made sure happened, going back to 2004, was the Elizabeth Street rail crossing initiative down in Beaudesert Road, something that the member for Wright would travel through pretty regularly. There used to be a wait of up to 13 minutes. Then we secured federal government funding to make sure that the boom gates were taken off Beaudesert Road, and that freed up transport all the way down to Beaudesert and beyond so people were not sitting there waiting. We all know that if you are sitting for 13 or 14 minutes at a boom gate you are not using your time productively and it is not good for business and it is not good for environment, with cars pumping out carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide—and diesel engines running at that low speed put out more diesel particulate matter, which is carcinogenic. So it is always good to have public transport and roads working as efficiently as possible.
With that in mind, I wrote to the transport minister, the Hon. Scott Emerson, who is one of the few state MPs whose electorate includes areas both north of the river and south of the river. He shares quite a few suburbs with me. I asked him: what can we do to make sure we have public transport in Brisbane operating as efficiently as possible? Obviously buses are part of the campaign, but it is also about making sure our rail crossings are safe. I have two of the worst level crossing locations in Brisbane. In fact, I refer to an article in the Brisbane Times that rated the 10 worst level crossings in Queensland according to train drivers, and two of them—one is at Rocklea and one is at Coopers Plains—are in my electorate. Interestingly the one at Coopers Plains—I looked at the speech by former member for Moreton Gary Hardgrave to see if he had made any comments on this and in his first speech he said, 'I will fix this intersection'. That was back in March 1996.
With that in mind, I wrote to the Hon. Scott Emerson, the Minister for Transport and Main Roads, and pointed out that two of the 10 worst Queensland crossings are in my electorate and would there be funding available. And he said: 'Yes. The state government does believe in introducing grade separations to remove level crossings.' He said, 'In fact, we're doing it at two locations in Brisbane'—both on the north side—'Robinson Road at Geebung and Telegraph Road at Bracken Ridge'. Both of these are on the north side. In fact, I quote from his letter. He said:
If you would like to upgrade the level crossings in your electorate, I would welcome you securing Commonwealth government funding.
It is a letter from Scott Emerson, so it is worth something. Although I have seen when a letter from him does not necessarily mean that it will result in anything. I notice that he wrote to the federal government seeking money for the big public transport infrastructure that the City of Brisbane is calling out for, something that will benefit my electorate, something that will benefit the north side, the electorate of Brisbane. As we reach rail capacity at the South Brisbane Grey Street Bridge in three years time, this will impact on trains all the way to the Gold Coast, all the way to the border basically.
An opposition member: There's no money.
It is interesting to see: Scott Emerson requested $750 million from each level of government, and built into that an agreement of fifty-fifty funding for the availability payment for the private sector financially for the project—just to alleviate those concerns about there not being any money available. So our transport minister, Anthony Albanese, responded saying, 'Yep; tick. We'll do all of those things.' They asked for funding principles, we agreed to every single one of the funding principles. Every single one. But then Scott Emerson went into the cabinet and was rolled by the Deputy Premier, Jeff Seeney. He was rolled by Jeff Seeney. I will quote from the letter that Scott Emerson wrote to the transport minister, Mr Albanese. He said:
Once I have your confirmation of the funding principles, it is my intention to seek cabinet approval to engage with the market to confirm the constructability and validate the business case estimates. I will also instruct my department to develop an MoU between our respective departments to detail arrangements moving forward.
A direct quote from the letter from Scott Emerson saying, 'We're keen to do this.' He was saying, 'I'll be out there fighting for it'.
Infrastructure Australia, that body well-respected on both sides of parliament, has said that it is its No. 1 priority. It will benefit the people in South Queensland, and South-East Queensland and my electorate of Moreton in particular. Without it we will be moving towards gridlock not just because of rail but also because of roads. Once the trains reach capacity—they cannot pull any more train seats out of the trains going all the way to the Gold Coast; you cannot have people standing for an hour or an hour and a half going to work in Brisbane. I am not sure if that is what those opposite are suggesting, but the federal opposition leader has said, 'No, no, we won't fund any urban public rail project. We will not fund it.'
However, I thought, 'Wait a minute: in 2010 didn't the opposition leader commit to funding a rail project?' I looked into it and, sure enough, as long as it was a rail project on the north side, not the south side, he was happy to find money for it. But then, when it comes to 2013 we have a different story. Sadly, the people in my electorate are suffering because of this failure to commit to public transport, both to the bus network and to the trains. The reality is the Queensland Minister for Transport and Main Roads, Scott Emerson, could not give a quicker flick past when it came to this TransLink South-East Queensland review.
We will see in the next couple of weeks how the Lord Mayor responds to these cuts to services that have already been flagged as impacting particularly the people of Acacia Ridge—a suburb that is crying out for public transport. It is an elderly suburb with a Labor councillor, so maybe it is not a voice that is being heard in the council chamber like it should. The reality is, despite Steve Griffiths great efforts, the people of Acacia Ridge are going to be shafted by the Lord Mayor and by the transport minister, Scott Emerson.
I rise to speak on the motion that has just been moved by the member for Moreton, who seems to have a bit of a chip. Every time I go to his electorate he calls me 'that person over there who comes from the northside'. I am delighted to speak to the motion that he has moved today because we need to put a few facts on the table.
As a member that represents an inner-city electorate that contains the CBD of Brisbane and numerous inner-city suburbs, I am very conscious of the importance of public transport to my electorate and to my constituents. I will start on the Cross River Rail because he mentioned the Cross River Rail. It is a cruel hoax what you did the other day announcing the Cross River Rail because these projects are normally funded 50-50. But what you and your party did was offer to provide 25 per cent of the funding and claw back the other 75 per cent through GST revenues. That is not a fair deal; that is not a good deal and that is why it was rejected. The project will cost over $4 billion. You know it; you have got no money to contribute. All you are doing is providing a cruel hoax on the people of Brisbane.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton knows better than that.
I want to draw attention to the use of the word 'you'. Address your comments through the chair.
I will refer to the member for Moreton by his correct title.
It is a habit of many in both chambers. As the occupier of this chair, I try to get people to direct their comments through the chair.
When you go out and announce a rail project with no proper funding, that is a cruel hoax on the people of Brisbane. That is what this government does all the time: make an announcement, worry about the funding later. No one doubts that it is a good project. I am very supportive of the project if there is funding. There is no funding that is indicated—in the perilous state of the budget—to proceed with a project of this magnitude. It is important for us to discuss this topic because I have workers making the daily commute in and out of the city, students going to universities and pensioners using local services to do their shopping. The use of public transport is very wide and very varied.
The challenge for the three levels of government in our capital cities across Australia over the next 50 years will be how we manage our infrastructure challenges, how we control the congestion issues and how we find the right balance between investment in public transport and investment in road infrastructure. This motion is essentially now outdated because a lot has happened in this space since the member for Moreton submitted his motion, which is sadly something that he has not even bothered to keep up-to-date with.
The motivation behind reviewing the bus network was never to cut or decrease services. As the member for Moreton well knows, the investment in new buses is not infinite and it is not unlimited. So it is really important that the buses are used efficiently and are used effectively to provide the best value for the commuters. There is nothing more frustrating than watching some buses carry two or three passengers on a consistent basis go past and then the next minute seeing some buses leaving passengers behind bus stops because they are so full. If Labor members think that those situations are okay then they should stand up here and say so. The motivation behind the bus review was not to cut services. The Newman government's bus review was announced in July last year because people were walking away from buses. As the Queensland Minister for Transport and Main Roads, Scott Emerson, said when he announced the review in the middle of 2012, the aim of the review was to eliminate service duplication, to manage the infrastructure capacity, to get more people on public transport by simplifying the network, to get better connectivity between services and models and to redirect those services to routes where there is overcrowding.
Interestingly, those 10 worst performing routes cost more than $5 million a year with less than five per cent of the cost paid for through fares. As we know, the Queensland government's agency TransLink handed down the review in March and it was released for public consultation. There was immediately a massive reaction, with 40,000 website visits in the first week and a half since the report was made public and 1,700 comments were received in the first 24 hours. Many of my constituents contacted my office. There was also concern raised about the TransLink proposal by the Brisbane City Council.
I think the problem with the TransLink proposal was that it tried to overhaul the whole bus system in Brisbane as opposed to just making the necessary changes. Consequently, Minister Emerson handed over the Brisbane portion of the review to the Brisbane City Council. He also made it clear that there would be no changes to bus routes in Brisbane without the full support of the Brisbane City Council. Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said:
It is my view that the proposed changes represented a revolution rather than an evolution in public transport services.
The BCC then conducted its own review and handed down the revised review in April. There was a four-week consultation period until 20 May, with a report back to the Queensland government due by 1 June.
The Brisbane City Council's bus network review assessed 235 routes. They identified 146 routes with no changes and removed nine routes. They had 80 service changes, including 46 timetable changes, 34 route changes and three route amalgamations. Of the nine routes removed most of them had a ridiculously low number of passengers per trip. Some of them already had services available from the new BUZ or CityGlider services, which are incredibly popular with their high-frequency services.
Most of the 80 changes were timetable variations. However, 19 services are to get improvements, including extra stops and rerouting as well as servicing previously underserviced areas of Doolandella, Calamvale and Drewvale. The changes that affect my electorate are as follows. There is an additional stop on the Maroon CityGlider along Macgregor Terrace to service the Bardon shops. How bad is that? It is a good thing, member for Moreton. Rerouting the 199 through the Ivory Street tunnel to improve travel times—
Honourable members interjecting—
Hang on, we're going west now. We are off to the western suburbs now. Adding a stop on the 384 at Red Hill will provide passengers with additional city travel options in peak hours. Rerouting the 310 service through the airport link will improve travel times. Extending the P341 to service Fitzgibbon and Rogan roads will provide direct access to Chermside, the Royal Brisbane Hospital and the CBD for the very first time. There will be better access to the Royal Brisbane Hospital on the 363 by altering the route via Butterfield Street. These are some of the positive changes that have come about for my constituents from the bus network review.
Following the review being handed down I received a representation from a young constituent regarding bus services from the inner west suburbs. She raised the issue of bus routes from Ashgrove, Paddington and Bardon and the fact that there is no direct link between these suburbs and the University of Queensland. How crazy is that? All of these people living in the western suburbs cannot go directly to the University of Queensland. They have to travel into the city and then they have to travel out to UQ. I bet there are a lot of UQ students who would welcome that.
A huge number of students reside in these areas and attend UQ at St Lucia. Currently there are students living in these suburbs who are required to catch a bus to the CBD and transfer to a bus that goes back to the University of Queensland.
That is despite the fact that there are many major roads and many links towards the University of Queensland from these suburbs without travelling back through the city and adding more travel time and more congestion for students wishing to travel directly to university to attend their classes. I have been encouraged by the particular student that contacted me and I encouraged her to make a submission to the review. I hope this issue will be addressed in future and I know that the member for Ryan will have many students in her electorate with similar issues.
I would like to draw the attention of the chamber to the fact that despite the desperate politicking of the member for Moreton and many others, the Newman government actually halved the public transport fare increases of the former Bligh government—and he did not mention that today—and before losing office the Bligh Labor government announced an annual increase to public transport fares of 15 per cent. The Newman government has halved that increase to 7.5 per cent for this year and next year. That is a very positive outcome for many of the constituents that use public transport. I challenge the ALP members who follow me in this debate to say whether they agree with the fact that public transport fares were going to increase by 15 per cent had their party been re-elected in the state government in Queensland. The second positive initiative the Newman government introduced is free public transport after nine journeys, and that is very welcome thing for many people in my electorate. (Time expired)
Ms Gambaro interjecting—
I note that last intervention from the member for Brisbane. It fails to address one core fact in the debate in the last week in Brisbane on the provision of public transport services. She raises the question of fares. In fact, what has been floated by the Liberal National Party government through the pages of The Courier Mail in the last week is the proposal to increase train fares during peak times in order to deal with the impending crisis in Brisbane's passenger rail network.
Secondly, the way of dealing with such a crisis is in fact to proceed with a project which the member has herself locally backed but which her national leader has publicly repudiated, and that is the Cross River Rail. The Cross River Rail was proposed initially with a feasibility study when I was Prime Minister of the country, with $20 million. It was put to Infrastructure Australia and subsequently with the support of the state Liberal National Party government—and prior to that, the state Labor government—it was approved as a priority Infrastructure Australia project. The state government asked for $715 million from the federal government. It wrote a letter through state transport minister, Minister Emerson. Each of the conditions was met by the federal transport minister, Anthony Albanese.
Then on budget night, they walked away from the project. Therefore, we have had the member for Brisbane jumping up and down locally saying that she sort of supports this project, but her federal leader has now repudiated it. State transport minister Emerson has gone around the place saying, 'Well, we kind of like this thing. I know that I have written to the minister about it. I know that I have asked for $715 million. I know that I have promised to actually match it but, whoops, the national leader, Mr Abbott, has said that they cannot do that because they cannot be seen to be politically cooperating with the federal Labor government.'
This is just part of a broader picture. It goes to the provision of public transport services across all of Brisbane. No. 1, we have been talking about the Cross River Rail, which until budget night had bipartisan support. No. 2, we are talking about local bus services, which the Liberal National Party government took a meat axe to in their statement as a government some months ago. Members such as those supporting this motion rose up as one in support of their local communities and, as a result, the state Liberal National Party government ran a million miles, passed a $20 million hospital pass to the Liberal National Party Brisbane City Council and said, 'You find the savings but, please, don't find those savings until after the federal election.' There is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that these bus routes will be preserved in the future once a certain electoral event occurs.
This is part and parcel of a broader phenomenon that we see unfolding from the Liberal National Party in Brisbane in particular. We have had them rip the guts out of health services at our hospitals because of the cut by the state government of 4,000-plus health workers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. I ask you to direct the member to the motion. We are not debating health services here today.
The member for Griffith has the call.
Of course, bus services are public services, and one fully understands how the member for Brisbane—and, for that matter, the member for Ryan—would be intensely sensitive about the slashing of bus services across their side of Brisbane, given the enormous number of university students who rely on those services about whom ultimately, given the posture taken by the Liberal National Party government in Brisbane, they actually do not give a flying fig.
On the question of broader public services, we have the Cross River Rail; on top of that, the attack on public health services; on top of that, the privatisation of school playing fields by the Liberal National Party government, at my local school of Balmoral High and also at—
Ms Gambaro interjecting—
Order! Member for Brisbane, I will handle this. Member for Griffith, this is a motion moved by the member for Moreton. I bring you back to the motion before the chamber.
The honourable member for Brisbane is a little desperate to prevent the debate from proceeding on the slashing of public services, including bus services, by the Liberal National Party, once they actually had their hands on the reins of government. They also proposed school mergers or closures, and ripping up and disconnecting the National Broadband Network—
Order! Member for Griffith, I bring you back to the motion before the chamber—
and, therefore, bus services, including those in my electorate—
Member for Griffith!
are deserving of— (Time expired)
What a day we are having. Labor members have finally discovered public transport! Where were they for the last 20 years when the Labor state government in Queensland neglected and ignored public transport completely? Where were they? Did they speak up for their residents then? No, they did not. The member for Moreton has two new bus depots on the south side; did we get recognition of that? No. What about Willawong, or Sherwood, in the member for Moreton's own electorate? They did not want a bus depot because they do not want the increased services that go with a new bus depot because they are not in favour of public transport. Indeed, a senior Queensland Labor figure to whom I was speaking this morning said, 'My God, what are the federal members of Labor doing down there? Challenge them: when was the last time they were on a bus?' The bottom line is that the Labor members in this place have neglected public transport for years, as did their colleagues in the state government and their colleagues on the Brisbane City Council. It was a Campbell Newman led city council that delivered for public transport. It was a Campbell Newman led city council that delivered over 800 new buses, without the support, without the help—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
No, no; you were against it, remember? What did you do?
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member on my right will remain silent.
As we heard from the member for Brisbane, what did the Labor state government do? They hiked up the prices. They took all the fares. Don't believe for a second the propaganda out there. Who gets the fares? The state government get the fares. Yet the Brisbane City Council put new buses on the road and put in new community services.
I note with fascination the point in the motion that says:
… changes are geared towards cutting ‘community’ bus services …
It was the Brisbane City Council that introduced the Spring Hill Loop, in the member for Brisbane's area—a free service for the community, because they knew that elderly people had trouble getting up the hill to Wickham Terrace and the hospitals. We went to the Labor state government and said, 'Will you please contribute,' and their answer was a resounding no. In fact, to support the community, they even went one better! They used to have a government bus that supported their public servants travelling from Boundary Road down to the government precinct. When the council put on this free community bus service, not only did they not help us; they cancelled their own government bus and told the public servants to use the free community bus. That is the sort of support that we get from Labor when it comes to public transport.
For the record, when we talk about the increase in buses, we mean the Brisbane City Council built two new depots, with a third on its way, and they built a new bus-building factory that is churning out one new bus every three days. We compare that record of over 800 buses in eight years with that of the Labor council. How many would you think they delivered in 13 years—maybe a couple of hundred at least? They averaged just 30 a year. They promised loads, just like this Federal Labor government. They promised the world. They delivered a yearly average of 30 buses in 13 years of government in the Brisbane City Council. That is the track record of Labor when it comes to public transport. They might try and talk about it—never let it be said that you would ever see a member on a bus—but the bottom line is that they never deliver.
Indeed, if we are talking about patronage, despite a 24 per cent increase in population in those 13 years, patronage on the buses only increased by 10 per cent. Yet, under the LNP council, patronage increased by 66 per cent to a record 80 million patrons in 2011-12. That is because the Brisbane City Council pensioned off the old Labor buses. Every single bus is now air conditioned. Buses have disability access.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I tell you that all the Labor state government did was take the fares and increase them. It is a disgrace. That is the sort of interest. They helped finance it—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order!
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The track record for Labor is an embarrassment. They do not support buses. You would never see them riding on one themselves. And yet they stand here today and try to lecture us on what to do.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek an intervention.
Is that agreed to?
No.
Thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker, he has already had 10 minutes. Indeed, within minutes of starting he moved on to rail because he knows that, when it comes to bus services, the Labor Party in Queensland have an appalling track record. They have no idea. They have failed the people of Brisbane and South-East Queensland time and time again, and it is a great embarrassment to them.
I note the motion of the member for Moreton and thank him for it. It goes way beyond simply bus services in Brisbane. It talks about public transport in Queensland. It talks about the LNP state government's privatisation plans regarding state assets and government services. It condemns their sell-off of Queensland's public transport network, road, rail and ports. To confine this to simply bus services in Brisbane is a nonsense, because that is not the intention or the wording of the motion by the member for Moreton.
The LNP Queensland government is an object lesson in what conservative governments do: slash, cut and demoralise the Public Service; reduce services, including bus services; and refuse to invest in the future. They abandon those most in need and let them fend for themselves. Every Queensland state LNP candidate campaigned for improved bus services, yet they are utterly silent as the LNP state government cuts, slashes and burns public transport in Queensland. How disingenuous and deceptive they were.
Assets were sold to assist in funding investments in infrastructure made more urgent during the devastation of the 2011 flood. That is what the previous government did: selling assets in Queensland to make sure that we could invest in infrastructure, jobs and growth. But this LNP state government is simply slashing and burning. The LNP state members and the federal members opposite, my opponents opposite, take the blowtorch to the Public Service and would do so if they got onto the treasury bench federally.
Front-line services, including bus services, are under threat in Queensland, all in the name of the right-wing ideology of economic rationalism. They claim that it is because they cannot afford them. They quoted a $100 billion debt level, a figure made up by former Treasurer Peter Costello. After campaigning in the last election against asset sales and then using rubbery figures, the LNP state government in Queensland set about slashing 2,000 full-time jobs from Transport and Main Roads, including closing down the Main Roads office in the Ipswich and West Moreton region, in the heart of Ipswich Central. They closed it down. At the time, we had major road infrastructure and public transport taking place in Ipswich.
The LNP state government have abdicated their responsibilities for services not just in rail and not just in bus services but also in education and health, slashing bus services in South-East Queensland and asking councils to pick up the cost. Now there are 111 bus services in South-East Queensland that are on the chopping block.
It was only strong community protest in the Somerset region, led by fearless Somerset regional councillor, Jim Madden, and community groups which saved route 529 from Toogoolawah to Ipswich. This is a service that makes the people in the Brisbane Valley able to get to health, education, recreational and other services and pursuits in Ipswich. This is the only viable public transport option for the people in the Somerset region who require access for medical services in Ipswich and Brisbane.
But those opposite have been silent as Campbell Newman has slashed and burned services—not just bus services. So those opposite have some things to explain. We saw the member for Ryan talking about bus services and buses provided by her former colleagues in the Brisbane City Council, failing to recognise the huge capital infrastructure spend by the former Queensland Labor government, which invested money to purchase those buses. That is what she fails to do. She does not seriously believe that the ratepayers of Brisbane paid for those buses? They were purchased by funding from the state Labor government.
So I wonder how people in Queensland are meant to get to work if the bus services are slashed across Brisbane and the rest of South-East Queensland? To hospitals and to universities? This is the heartlessness of those opposite. This is the heartlessness and the silence; the inaction and inertia from the LNP state members opposite from Queensland. Campbell Newman claims that he wants change, but Campbell Newman wants change in Queensland for the worse. He deceived the people of Queensland; he deceived them on bus services, he deceived them on rail services and on road infrastructure.
What about the rail crossing in Brisbane? The member for Brisbane, my political opponent over there, claims she supported it. Now she opposes it; she is topsy-turvy, Arthur or Martha! Guess what? The road infrastructure in Queensland will be slashed under a Tony Abbott government. Even the Ipswich Motorway— (Time expired)
It is a pleasure to be able to jump in on the back of this debate, where we speak today about public transport cuts in Queensland.
Can I share with the room and the parliament that public transport cuts have had little or no effect in the great seat of Wright, my electorate—
An honourable member: Because they have a good local member!
Because I can tell you we do not have any! There are a number of towns—small towns under 500—that have no bus service. Twenty-five years of Labor rule. But Queenslanders are very loyal—very, very loyal. We had 25 years of Labor in state rule and then we had 25 years, roughly, of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen-led government and then we have just come out of roughly a quarter of a century of Labor rule again under a—
An honourable member: How was that?
We had Beattie, Goss and Anna Bligh.
An honourable member: Some of those Joh Bjelke—
Can I tell you that it was interesting today to be able to stand here before the House and to contribute to the debate. Why is it that we are debating state issues in this House? I would suggest that there is one reason. There is one reason why we are debating state issues in here. It is because here we have a Labor government federally that have run out of things to say when it comes to selling the benefits of Labor federally because they cannot talk about boats. We have to talk about public transport; we cannot talk about the 40,000 illegal immigrants who have reached our shores.
We cannot talk about health; in fact, the Labor member spoke about the blowtorch to Queensland Health. Can I tell you what Queensland Health is dealing with at the moment? There is currently court action for a Queensland Health worker who embezzled $16 million out from underneath the nose of Queensland Health officials—
An honourable member: $16 million?
$16 million.
An honourable member: Half your campaign budget!
Hah, yes! And not a word to be said about the management of Queensland Health. Not a word. Why are we talking about this?
Can I also make the point, while we are talking about the blowtorch to the public service: in the last Bligh-led term of Labor's last legacy, there was an increase of 23,000 public servants. There was a mandate that was set upon by this government. Twenty-three thousand public servants: we have made a commitment that when we get in I think we will make rational cuts to the tune of around 11 or 14,000 personnel by not renewing contracts. No-one should ever dance on the grave of someone losing their job, and it is an area that I do feel uncomfortable with and would like to speak on in another debate in a different forum.
Could I also remind this House as to why we would be speaking about the public service when we have been talking about cuts to public transport services in Queensland? It is because they cannot talk about the blowout of the economy up there when it comes to putting in a water grid when not a litre has gone through?
We have a desalination plant up there which has not had one litre of water—
Honourable members interjecting—
I do not know what the cost of it was, but not one litre has gone through. I thank the honourable members for their assistance in highlighting the devastating inefficiencies of the Labor government in Queensland.
Democracy is a beautiful thing. Guess what it shows—people have had enough in Queensland. It is widespread. I do not think there is a state anywhere in Australia which saw such a widespread shift away from the inefficient, dysfunctional Labor government, which we saw up in Queensland under the direction of Campbell Newman. A recent poll, in the newspapers this weekend, has Campbell Newman at the same level of popularity as on the day he was elected to the parliament of Queensland. That is a rousing endorsement for what Campbell Newman and his government are doing up there! That is waste and mismanagement which we as the LNP will have to preside over for many years. Getting the credit rating back for Queensland is one of our priorities in doing that so that we can secure funds to build the infrastructure needed for the future.
In closing, Acting Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that, when this Labor government come to this house and speak on state issues, the only reason is that they have simply run out of things to say from a federal perspective. It is an embarrassment. Hopefully democracy will rule and show the true way on 14 September in Queensland. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This is a bill that invites the parliament to end the greatest market failure in Australia today, a regulatory rort that has cost electricity consumers $3 billion since 2009. Of this $3 billion, $1.9 billion has been transferred from the pockets of New South Wales electricity consumers to the pocket of the state government—costing the average customer somewhere around $100 extra each year. This is not spending on new poles or wires or better reliability; it is just extra dividends alone to a state government. In my view, that definitely a rip-off and a rort.
The concept of gold plating came from my region. One resident, a Burrell Creek farmer, took on a local electricity company on this issue and was successful despite, on the way through, being challenged legally to prove his case. He did so, the state government tentacle backed off and the term 'gold plating' is now part of the language of public policy. Unfortunately, part of the mythology that we have a national electricity law that can be changed or altered by this parliament remains to be corrected. We cannot in this parliament at this moment do anything to amend the laws known as the national electricity law. This tries to address it. Currently, the national electricity law is what is known as a 'uniform' national law, but it is only so by virtue of the adoption of a South Australian act of parliament by all other state governments and territories. The National Electricity (South Australia) Act 1996 has been adopted by other states and territories forming what is known as the national electricity market. The purpose of this bill is to adopt, as far as practicable, the existing National Electricity Law and to make the National Electricity Law actually an act of the Commonwealth—one set of laws that can be amended by agreement to the benefit of all consumers rather than being blocked to the benefit of one state government.
This bill would incorporate as far as possible the existing Australian Energy Market Act 2004. The bill would adopt, in as far as possible, the Australian Energy Market Commission Establishment Act 2004, which is also a South Australian act, to make the commission a statutory body of the Commonwealth. I have brought this bill before the House because there is widespread consensus that the electricity sector has experienced a profound regulatory failure when it comes to network prices. Electricity network prices are determined by the Australian Energy Regulator under the National Electricity Rules subject to review by the Australian Competition Tribunal under the National Electricity Law.
The national electricity objective seeks to balance investment with price. But in recent years that balance has been utterly lost. In a further red herring, governments are failing to deliver the national electricity objective. Some state energy ministers are now blaming the Australian Energy Regulator despite detailed independent reviews that prove them wrong. This has been acknowledged in the Council of Australian Governments communique of 25 July 2012. It was acknowledged by the Prime Minister herself in a speech on 7 August. This issue has been picked up by the Liberal National Party. Wrongly, the Leader of the Opposition on 8 August 2012 was asked: do you think there has been gold plating of the wires and cables in some states? Effectively the response was: it is a federal government regulator. It is Julia Gillard's own regulator so if there is a problem it is her fault. That is wrong. That has been proven wrong by detailed independent reviews.
The Productivity Commission's report titled Electricity Network Regulatory Frameworks, which was released on 18 August, is one such example that I would encourage the opposition to consider when making further statements in this area. The key fact that we need to fix is that the National Electricity Law is a creature of state parliaments. State parliaments are reaping dividends from this market failure. We need to address it and get a uniform national set of laws. It is not a take over. It is trying to get a fair and balanced playing field in the interests of consumers, not in the interests of state governments.
Hear hear.
Keep it down, member for Kooyong. I am trying to concentrate on a very important issue. The government and a lot of people recognise the need to make reforms to the electricity sector, particularly with the objective of reducing the pressure on household budgets. I have no doubt this is what has motivated the member for Lyne. A lot of what he said in the House back in October—having read his speech—I have some sympathy with. That said, however, the government has indicated it cannot provide support for the bill. The reason for this is—
A big stick.
You keep talking about that big stick, member for Lyne. Keep it away. Through the standing Council on Energy and Resources, an energy reform agenda is being progressed, as it has for many decades, cooperatively with other jurisdictions and it has been endorsed by COAG. There are many factors contributing to rising electricity prices across Australia, particularly in my home state. The member for McMahon, who is here in the chamber with me, and also the member for Lyne hail from New South Wales.
Most notably there have been concerns about what is regarded as an over investment in electricity infrastructure, the so-called gold plating of the network. In the shadows of this claim there has also been a lot of focus on the New South Wales government continuing to draw a dividend from their state owned corporations in the generation and transmission space. What has been interesting is there has no doubt been a significant shift in household usage of electricity. You can see that over a number of decades. This has been driven by air-conditioners in particular being a lot more available, and by the use of electricity for hot water heating and for pool pumps. These are the big three drivers of jumps in demand, plus the fact that the size of households has increased. This has meant that networks based on previous demand profiles have been unable to keep pace with changes in demand.
Since 2000, electricity generators and transmission agencies and distributors have been investing in dealing with this issue—bearing in mind that in greenfield sites households already pay for new investment to match predicted demand. A December 2010 report from the New South Wales Department of Industry and Investment, titled NSW Electricity Network and Prices Inquiry found that prices in New South Wales have increased by 43 per cent over the last three years, and they are expected to rise by about the same amount over the next three. The report went on to conclude that there are two main drivers for this. The biggest driver of network costs, as I suggested earlier—with the more than doubling of the annual capital expenditure and increased operating expenditure for New South Wales transmission and distribution businesses since 2004, driven by a growth in demand for electricity, replacing ageing networks, enhance reliability and performance standards—is the escalation of opex. This rapid rate of growth is set to continue for the remainder of the current price period. It is noted in this report that there is an 80 per cent increase in the IPART 2010 determination of regulated retail tariffs attributable to network charges.
The second important driver, which has received a lot of focus recently, is the introduction and expansion of state and national government schemes that encourage the development of renewable energy sources, and the cost of these schemes being recovered from customers through electricity bills, and not funded by taxpayers. These costs are expected to jump sharply in 2011 because of the recovery aims of New South Wales government's solar bonus scheme.
Just to give you a suggestion of the impact, those, as they are passed from the retail customers in Country Energy's areas, may add 10 per cent from 1 July. In the EnergyAustralia and Integral Energy footprints, you can expect price increases of between five per cent and six per cent respectively. So, it is clear we need to have reforms to bring down prices, and we need to do this in cooperation with states and territories. Not having that cooperation would lead to further uncertainty in the market because states have their own energy laws, which I understand the member for Lyne was trying to deal with in the legislation that has been put forward to the House.
I do not have as much time to speak on this issue as I would have liked, but certainly priority needs to be given to ensuring the delivery of agreed market reforms. We do not want to hinder further progress by adding another layer to the mix. We have seen new rules for the regulation of networks, and we would hope that new ways of reducing these prices can be developed.
I rise to speak on the member for Lyne's private member's bill, the National Electricity Bill 2012. Australians want to see real action to reverse the huge increases in electricity prices seen across our nation since 2007. Unfortunately, this bill from the member for Lyne does nothing to address those concerns, and fails to address the real underlying issues that have caused electricity prices to rise. Prices began to rise significantly in 2007 as a result of rising charges for our energy networks, including over-investment in infrastructure such as poles and wires, increases in wholesale energy costs, and other government policies—most notably the carbon tax.
First and foremost, the member for Lyne voted to pass the world's only economy-wide carbon tax. So I do question his genuine commitment towards lowering the cost of electricity for Australians. The carbon tax is expressly designed to make electricity more expensive, and to hurt the hip pocket of Australians. We know that higher electricity prices as a result of the carbon tax are already having a significant impact on Australians. In March a major energy company revealed that 65,000 customers a month are seeking extensions to pay their rising electricity and gas bills. In addition, there is the 14.5 per cent average increase in electricity costs for our manufacturing sector, which only adds to the pressure on jobs. Worse than that, Australia's carbon tax does nothing to help the environment. Instead of making any real difference in Australia, we have to buy almost 100,000,000 tonnes of emissions reduction from overseas at an annual cost to Australia by 2020 of approximately $3.7 billion per year, each year, rising to $57 billion per year by 2050. The Prime Minister promised last December to reduce power bills by $250 a year and to date has done nothing to further that goal. The Prime Minister noted that there had been significant overinvestment in poles and wires, but failed to point out that all of this occurred under decades of state Labor governments and has been noticeably silent on the situation in Queensland. We know that in Queensland in the five years to 2012 capital expenditure on poles and wires increased to more than $11 billion, resulting in an increased debt of more than $6 billion. This debt and consequent interest repayments are passed on to consumers.
As the Newman government noted in its submission to the Senate Select Committee on the Electricity Prices, these costs have been the key driver of electricity price rises over this period of time. The federal Labor government only made this pain worse by imposing the carbon tax. While the vast majority of regulatory responsibility was transferred to the Australian Energy Regulator from 1 July 2010, this is only in relation to investment in electricity distribution. That change, therefore, does not address the many other important policies which have driven up electricity prices. Ultimately I understand that significant work is being undertaken across all levels of government in Australia to address what reforms can be implemented, a process not significantly addressed by the member for Lyne's private member's bill today, nor is that process assisted with the introduction of new taxes such as the carbon tax and the mining tax.
Australians do not currently have a government that is looking after their interests. As the Leader of the Opposition highlighted in his reply to the budget, the Prime Minister guaranteed that there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads, but there is. The Prime Minister guaranteed more than 165 times that there would be a surplus, but there is not, and there never will be under this Labor government. Australia is instead now faced with seven deficits totalling $220 billion. On day one of an incoming coalition government, we will begin the process of removing the carbon tax. Legislation to scrap the carbon tax will be the first legislation to be introduced in the new parliament. The coalition will abolish the carbon tax because that is the quickest way to reduce power prices and to take pressure off the cost of living and job security. The coalition will offer hope, reward and opportunity.
The member for Lyne, who presented this private member's bill, the National Electricity Bill 2012, just asked me, as we were sitting here, how long it would take me to get to the real crux of this. I said that I have it in my introductory paragraph. Make no mistake: the carbon tax is the biggest driver of electricity prices. The member of Lyne knows it, the member opposite knows it, as does everyone else in this chamber. There can be no doubt that the reason electricity prices have started to climb so dramatically is the carbon pricing mechanism.
Honourable member interjecting—
I said 'carbon pricing'. The member opposite knows that it is a tax. The member for Lyne, who is sitting beside me, knows that it is a tax and certainly the public know it is a tax. The coalition signalled this before the carbon tax was implemented by the Labor government and since it came into effect on 1 July 2012 we have seen the impact it has had on power pricing.
Honourable member interjecting—
There are certainly price rises in your electorate and Labor members who are honest with their constituents—and I am sure they are all honest—if they are absolutely upfront and frank with their constituents, would be telling them that the reason their electricity prices are rising is the carbon tax. The consumer price index figures for the first quarter in which the carbon tax was applied confirmed the impact it had on the cost of electricity and on the cost of day-to-day living. Electricity prices had a 15.3 per cent rise and household gas and miscellaneous fuels had a 14.2 per cent rise. These were the largest quarterly increases on record. How the government can consider such a rise a modest increase is, quite frankly, unbelievable. How rose tinted are the glasses they are wearing?
However, this bill, which seeks to make the national electricity law an act of parliament, has so far received no support from either side of the parliament. The Minister for Energy and Resources at the time this bill was introduced, the Hon. Martin Ferguson, stated:
The states do not control the regulatory authorities that set prices and any suggestion that they do has no basis in fact and is a cheap shot … it is a complex reform that won't be solved by cheap front page headlines.
Mr Ferguson is not the minister anymore—because the Prime Minister is running out of loyal lieutenants, quite frankly, and all the ministers are getting lumped with portfolio after portfolio. There is another one sitting opposite.
The shadow minister for energy and resources, the Hon. Ian Macfarlane, has said that the coalition understands energy market reform is a long-term process and 'fragmented or political attempts to address the issue of rising power prices will have no meaningful impact on the energy sector.'
In my electorate of Riverina, I have been contacted by a number of constituents, on a daily basis, about their ever-increasing power bills and especially the note printed on these power bills stating:
NSW Govt estimates that the Federal carbon tax and green energy schemes add about $316 a year to a typical 7MWh household bill …
Just consider that: households who are already overburdened by rising grocery and fuel costs now are copping $316 in additional costs due to the carbon tax.
In December last year the Prime Minister promised to reduce power bills by $250 a year, and yet, as the member for Kooyong knows, nothing has happened. There was certainly nothing in the budget recently which would assist in bringing power bills down. Indeed, in the budget we see even further costs imposed upon families who are already struggling with household costs. A simple way to reduce power bills to some extent would be to scrap the carbon tax. It is going to be the first order, the first bill, the first priority, of, hopefully, an incoming coalition government to do just that. The coalition has promised that, should we have the good fortune to be given the faith of the Australian people to form government after 14 September.
Mr Oakeshott interjecting—
I hear the member for Lyne calling out, and I know he is worried that Dr David Gillespie is breathing down his neck. I know he is worried about the fact that the Nationals are going to take the seat of Lyne, which they will after 14 September. I know how keen David Gillespie is to deal with the carbon tax, the tax that we were promised would never come in but which did, thanks to the government that the member for Lyne keeps maintaining a protection racket for, thanks to the cobbled-together government that he gave power to. That carbon tax will go, thanks to David Gillespie, who will be the next member for Lyne, and thanks to the Tony Abbott-Warren Truss government which will form after the next election.
Debate adjourned.
In the budget just a couple of weeks ago, the government outlined a list of its infrastructure priorities for the next five, 10 and 20 years, but the key omission from the list was the funding of the East West Link in Melbourne. The motion in front of us today argues strongly that the government should reconsider its decision not to prioritise this road and indeed should match the coalition's funding commitment of $1.5 billion to go towards it.
What is the East West Link, you may ask. It is an 18-kilometre stretch of road which would go from the end of the Eastern Freeway in Melbourne, tunnel underneath most of inner-city Carlton, the cemetery and Royal Parade, and join up with the Tullamarine Freeway and the Western Ring Road. As I said, the proposal is to tunnel from the end of the Eastern Freeway under all of the inner-city areas, thus avoiding and protecting those inner-city assets, and reappearing on the other side of those parks.
Now this is the Victorian government's No. 1 priority project. It is also the RACV's top priority infrastructure project that it believes we should be investing in. On 7 May this year, the Napthine government said that it would make this project happen if there was a federal contribution towards it. It made a commitment in its budget on 7 May of $294 million towards this particular project, and it said it would start next year and it would finish within five years. The initial stage, stage 1, which this would fund, is the most difficult and complex stage but arguably also the most important—that is, connecting the end of the Eastern Freeway to the Tullamarine Freeway. It would cost in the vicinity of $6 billion to $8 billion and, from their analyses already, most of this could in fact be funded by private contributions. But they also need a federal government contribution, and the Premier of Victoria has specifically called for a $1.5 billion contribution from the Commonwealth government, which is what Tony Abbott, on behalf of the coalition, has committed to. This would take five years to complete if this was to begin next year, as stated.
This is such an important piece of infrastructure; it would be the most important road in Melbourne to be developed to ease the congestion pressures. Anybody who has been to Melbourne in recent times, or lives in Melbourne, as you do, Mr Deputy Speaker Cheeseman, or just outside it, would know the amount of congestion that is coming on to Melbourne's roads. There has been a marked difference over the past five, 10 or 20 years. Whereas previously it used to be a half-hour journey from my electorate of Aston into the city in the mornings, now it can be a 60- or 90-minute journey, if not more, just to get into the CBD. The cost of this congestion is already estimated to be $2.7 billion per year in the city of Melbourne. And because Melbourne is growing so rapidly, in fact it is the fastest-growing city in Australia, the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics believes that the cost of congestion will escalate to $6.1 billion by 2020. So we are going to see a doubling of the cost of congestion by 2020 if we do not take any remedial action now.
For those who live in electorates like mine and yours, Mr Deputy Speaker Cheeseman, such as the member for Kooyong and the member for Corio, congestion is one of their absolute top issues. They know that when they are spending time stuck in traffic it is time away from their families, it is time away from work, it is time away from recreation. It is just lost time that they will never get back. From a business perspective, congestion just adds to the difficulties of making ends meet. It means that, if you are a business transporting goods or a tradie trying to get from one side of the city to the other, you are just spending time on the road and you are not getting to the destination or the project that you have been engaged to do. All of those costs, the added transportation costs or the added costs to these other small businesses, then just get passed on to everyday consumers in higher prices.
Like the carbon tax!
A bit like the carbon tax, as the member for Kooyong pointed out. The East West Link will not solve all of these problems that I have been talking about, but it will make a difference. I believe it would be the single most important road that could be built in order to address congestion in Melbourne and in Victoria. For people in the eastern suburbs, like in my electorate and like the member for Kooyong's electorate, it would give them a pathway across to the west of Melbourne. For those who are from the western side of Melbourne it would make a tremendous difference, because at the moment if they are trying to get across into the city they only have one avenue and that it is through the Westgate Freeway, which we know is clogged almost every single morning and almost every single evening. What this road would do is to provide a further linkage from the west across to the east, and the east across to the west. Instead of having the one pathway from the east to the west, there would now be two broad freeways. It would have two impacts: it would make it easier for those in the eastern suburbs—particularly around the northern parts of my electorate in Bayswater, Boronia and Wantirna as well as in the electorates of Deakin, Casey and Kooyong—to get into the city along the eastern freeway and across to the other side of Melbourne. To those people who take the Monash Freeway or who rely upon Westgate to get to work it would also make a big difference to have the East West Link built, because it would take pressure off those existing assets by having a further arterial which is also linking up the east and west of Melbourne. Furthermore, by completing this road Melbourne would finally have a ring-road. We are one of the only cities of this size in the world that does not have a ring-road. If we finally connect up from the east to the west we would have a ring-road that would go all around Melbourne.
As I mentioned before, the coalition has made a commitment of $1.5 billion towards the construction of this project. Should we be fortunate enough to win the election on 14 September, then this project will go ahead. It will start within a year and it will be finished within five years. It will create thousands of jobs in Melbourne, particularly construction jobs, and we know that the construction sector is struggling at the moment. It will make it better for businesses and it will make it better for the economy because it will reduce those costs of congestion. Most importantly, it would make it better for families, because people would not have to be in their cars for so long, wasting time. The member for Kooyong pointed out that it would also be good for the environment because traffic which is moving better pollutes less. There would be fewer particles going into the air and less CO2emitted.
People right across Melbourne are going to be beneficiaries of this great project and therefore it is hard to understand why the government has not even listed this project in their 20-year horizon. Perhaps they could not afford it this financial year, but it is not even listed in their 20-year infrastructure horizon which they documented in this year's budget. Through this motion I implore the government to reconsider their position in relation to the East West Link, because it is the top priority for the Victorian government; it is the top-priority project according to the RACV, and for many families and businesses it is also their top priority. We call on the government through this motion to fund the East West Link and match the coalition's commitment.
In rising to support the motion of the member for Aston, I do so in an amended way. The first point to make is to take up what the member for Aston said in closing about cajoling the Gillard Labor government to invest in the east-west project on infrastructure. It is astounding to have a member of the coalition to be talking about infrastructure in this place, particularly given the appalling record of the Howard government during its 11½ years in office. The fact of the matter is that $13.5 billion is being invested by this federal Labor government in Victoria's transport infrastructure alone. That more than doubles the annual infrastructure spend as against what was occurring under the Howard government. Under the Howard government about $89 a year per Victorian was being spent on transport infrastructure. Today $201 per Victorian is being spent on the state's transport infrastructure. So to stand there and suggest that this is a government not committed to the infrastructure and the infrastructure of the state is plainly wrong. In that respect, there are a number of infrastructure projects that the government has committed to in Victoria in relation to transport which I will go through.
I do want to say that, to the extent that we agree with this motion, we absolutely agree with the premise that traffic congestion in and around Melbourne is a very significant issue and is one which needs to be addressed as soon as possible. To the extent that this motion highlights the need to address the issue of traffic congestion around Melbourne, it is an important motion before this House, but it fails to address the critical process that we need to go through and the decisions that then need to be taken to address that traffic congestion. All the goodwill in the world can lead to a vey bad result if we do not get the decisions around the traffic congestion right. It is in this respect that the East West Link has flawed thinking associated with it.
The East West Link in its totality as a project where we are able to wave a magic wand and have it appear tomorrow is a great thing. There is no question about that. But the problem is that too often we hear from the opposition a kind of Harry Potter version of going about public policy where they imagine that there would be a magic wand that you could just wave and make things happen. We had Tony Abbott come down to Geelong about a month ago. His solution in relation to the issues of Ford was to just convince Ford to go and export their Territory models as though Harry Potter style you could wave a magic wand and get Detroit to do whatever you want.
Actually, it does not work that way. I am not sure that Tony Abbott has ever done any advocacy on behalf of trying to change the production line in Corio to produce a left-hand drive vehicle but that is what we would like to see. In any event, what we have seen from the opposition and what we see from the state government is this waving of the magic wand. The reality of what the state government is doing has two very significant consequences and they are very adverse to the people of the Greater West of Melbourne and that very much includes Geelong in terms of our access to the Melbourne CBD.
The first issue is this: it completely ignores the role of rail. Rail is a really important part of building our transport infrastructure, in terms of building a first-rate metropolitan transport system within Melbourne. That is why we have committed to Melbourne Metro because you do not have a modern train system within Melbourne without having Melbourne Metro. The state government proposal of funding a rail link to Avalon would be wonderful were we to ever see it, but nothing like that happens without the Melbourne Metro project going ahead. In the prioritising of the East West Link, there is a total ignoring of the situation in relation to rail. We have committed to Melbourne Metro in this budget and, through the regional rail link which is a $3.2 billion project, we have also committed to increasing the rail links of Victoria's major regional centres including Geelong to the Melbourne CBD by having a dedicated rail line which will see people from Geelong—and for that matter Ballarat and Bendigo—get access to Southern Cross Station without having to go through the train traffic congestion which is on the metro rail line at present. That is why the regional rail link is very important.
The second issue, which is why the East West Link proposal is flawed, is that we need to see a proper process undertaken whereby Infrastructure Australia gets to examine the priority in which it is built. In other words, do you start with east or do you start with west? Again, in terms of the Harry Potter-style public policy that we see from the Liberals, we have had this vague sense from the Victorian government towards Infrastructure Australia that 'We would really like you to build the East West Link but we would like you to give us some money to do that,' without them ever going through a detailed assessment as to where the need is.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you know this as well anybody that, when you get on the road today and commute from Geelong to Melbourne, that commute is now 10 or 15 minutes longer than it was five years ago. The congestion that you hit at the Western Ring Road interchange is enormous. As somebody who has done this commute for the better part of 10 years, prior to entering this place, I know that doing that trip now at peak hour is about 15 minutes longer than it was just five years ago. That oughtn't to be a surprise. It oughtn't to be rocket science to reach that conclusion. Why? Because the south-west of Melbourne is the fastest growing area in the country.
We know that in 2012, Wyndham council, which is based in Werribee, grew at a rate of 7.6 per cent—second only to the Serpentine Jarrahdale council in Perth. In 2011, Wyndham was in fact the fastest growing local government area in the country. Through all of that growth, including growth in Geelong, in your electorate, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the Armstrong Creek project will in the fullness of time essentially attach a city the size of Ballarat onto the southern edge of Geelong. All of this is creating enormous traffic congestion on the commute from Geelong to Melbourne and, for that matter, on the commute from any of the western suburbs—such as the member for Gellibrand's area, Werribee, into the CBD.
Essentially, funding the East West project from east to west means that the traffic jam that you encounter today when you get to the Western Ring Road interchange, going from Geelong to Melbourne, will be what you will encounter for the next 10 to 20 years, because that is how long it is going to take by the time all the work is done in the east, which you have just described—
Opposition members interjecting—
Five or six years, my foot! It will be 10 to 20 years before we see real action on improving the access byroad into Melbourne. When Tony Abbott—God forbid if he is elected to govern this country—stood up in his budget reply and announced that within 12 months he would start work on the East West project, what he did at that moment was turn his back on everyone in Geelong. What he did at that moment was turn his back on the tens of thousands of commuters from Geelong who hit that traffic jam when they get to the Western Ring Road interchange. He stands to be condemned for that. That is the basis on which—
Opposition members interjecting—
Every one of those commuters will have that first and foremost in their minds when they seek to cast a vote in September this year. The intent of dealing with traffic congestion around Melbourne is a good intent, but the motion as it was originally put before this place by those opposite has whiskers on it. We have put in place a set of amendments which have a process around them, which would see a business case put to Infrastructure Australia so that a sensible decision could be made.
I rise to oppose the motion put by the member for Corio, because it is outrageous. What he is doing in this chamber is denying the best interests of people in his own electorate, the best interests of people in my electorate, the best interests of the member for Aston's electorate, and the best interests of the electorates of those sitting opposite. Our motion, which was first put by my colleague and friend the member for Aston, is the right motion, because it shines a light on Tony Abbott's commitment to spending more than $1.5 billion on appropriate infrastructure for the East West Link. This money that will be supported by the state government, the Denis Napthine state government, which announced nearly $300 million in the last budget in order to get construction up by the end of 2014. Then you have those opposite. You have Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister of this country, promising $1.8 billion for WestConnex—which the member sitting opposite is happy to take—without Infrastructure Australia seeing it as a proper priority akin to the East West Link.
We will get an east-west link up-and-running without tolls, which will increase the ability to support the new extension of the ports of the Port of Melbourne at Hastings. It will allow people to spend less time in their cars, it will allow people to get to the knowledge precincts in Carlton and Parkville. This motion that has been put by my friend the member for Aston is the right motion, and this amendment put by the member for Corio is the wrong motion.
This project is a wrong amendment, because this motion put forward by the member for Aston supports the East-West Link, which is an 18-kilometre road. It will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion. It will take five years or more and it will take 3,200 jobs—important jobs for people who have lost their jobs under this Labor government. They are people who have lost their jobs because of the carbon tax, the waste, mismanagement and more than 20,000 regulations and nearly 30 new taxes that the government has introduced. They are people who are losing their jobs in manufacturing, losing their jobs in small business and losing their jobs in industry. These are people we can help to find a job with this major infrastructure project.
This project, as the member for Aston referred to, is also the priority of the independent RACV. They put out a document called Driving the agenda! ahead of the 2013 election. There are lots of names at the bottom of this: NRMA, RACV, RACQ and RAA et cetera. They have a list of priority projects for Victoria. I go to No. 1 on that list, which is the east-west road link—from the Eastern Freeway to the Western Ring Road with a tunnel to CityLink. That is what these guys have said is their No. 1 priority.
Government members interjecting—
I know that you are totally embarrassed, members of the Labor Party, because under your government, which preceded John Howard in 1996, your average infrastructure spending was about 2.95 per cent of GDP. When we left office in 2010 we had over five per cent of GDP. In fact, in your infrastructure spending, which was part of your response to the GFC—only 14 per cent of which went to economic infrastructure—you were preferring to spend money on pink batts and over-priced school halls than infrastructure that gets productivity going in this country. All those members on your side sitting in marginal seats, whether they be in Deakin, Chisholm or La Trobe, secretly support this motion put by the member for Aston.
In fact, the member for Deakin and the member for La Trobe have said, 'You know what, we don't mind this thing. We'd like to see an east-west linkup'. They have come out and said, 'You know what? There is some merit to this project.' Only you are standing out denying the realities of this. We want families to spend more time with each other; we do not want them to spend more time on the road. We want people to access the knowledge precincts. We want small business people to get to jobs. We want people to reach the airport. We want to send fewer emissions into the atmosphere. How can we do that? By supporting the East-West Link but by supporting the state government and by allowing Tony Abbott, if he gets his chance on 14 September, to implement the East-West Link strategy.
I remind members that we are debating the amendment. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
I am pleased that we are finally having a discussion about transport and congestion in Melbourne in this place. I will not be supporting the motion, but it is well overdue that we had a discussion about the issue.
If you look down the Eastern Freeway on any given morning during the working week you will see two things. The first thing you will see is cars backed up bumper to bumper, and you will see something very similar along Alexandra Parade or going down Hoddle Street. The second thing that you will see, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a great swathe of green land down the middle of the Eastern Freeway heading out. That land was reserved over 30 years ago for a rail line out to Doncaster. If you can get your hands on a copy of the 1980 Melway, you will find stops marked out along the route that was meant to be for a rail line out to Doncaster. That line has never been built. Successive state Labor and Liberal governments have promised it and never delivered on it. As a result, the people who live in the eastern suburbs either side of that Eastern Freeway have no real public transport option to get to work. And as a result, we see this congestion every morning in my electorate on Hoddle Street, on Alexandra Parade and on the Eastern Freeway.
If we are serious about fixing congestion in Melbourne, the first step should be to build that rail line out to Doncaster, and the second step should then be to supplement that by building the Melbourne Metro rail project. What common sense and reason tell us—but also as every study that has been conducted shows—is that most of those people who are coming in from the east don't want to go west; as good as the west is, that is not where they are wanting to go. They are wanting to come into the city—to go work, to study or for other reasons. And so what do they do? They come down Hoddle Street or Alexandra Parade, or they take the rat runs through other parts of our electorate. This idea of the East West Link, and that there is somehow a massive, unmet, east-west demand from the cars that are coming in is just a furphy. People are wanting to come into the city. All that the proposal for an east-west tollway—which was first floated by the state Labor government, and now it has got legs from the federal opposition—will do is increase congestion in the inner city of Melbourne. It will turn the electorate of Melbourne into a rat's nest of on and off ramps. It will do nothing to relieve congestion and allow people to spend more time with their families or more time at home.
One of the best ways that we could free up space on our roads for light commercial freight to get around is to get people out of the cars and into trains; into a train coming down the Eastern Freeway and then into a Metro train. But because of that lack of vision we now have the very real prospect that one of the things that makes Melbourne such a great place to live is about to be wrecked. I know that for many of the people sitting here in this chamber or elsewhere, the inner suburbs of Melbourne are just a place that you go through on your way somewhere else. But for us, it is where we live. People are sick of the congestion. They want to see effective public transport in Greater Melbourne, because they know that the alternative of building more roads is just building more traffic jams. We have seen that with every proposal that has come into Melbourne that has been supposed to solve some kind of congestion. Building more roads to cure congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity. All it will do is extend the traffic jams further and further.
The people of Melbourne and those public transport advocates have been fighting this proposal for years. We first heard it floated by the Labor Party in Victoria. Then when it faced such stiff opposition it adopted some kind of middle position in the lead-up to the last state election. Now we are seeing it coming up again. I congratulate the government for committing to Melbourne Metro rail. I think it is a very good initiative and one that has been pushed for for some time—it is $3 billion, and a very worthy investment. But what I am worried about is this: if the polls are right at the moment and we have a change of government come September, there is a very real risk that the Melbourne Metro rail project—which is the number one priority identified by Infrastructure Australia; the East West Link is not does not even make the list at all because there is not even a business case for it—will not be built. And so earlier today I introduced into the House of Representatives a bill that would Abbott-proof the inner-city suburbs of Melbourne and ensure that Melbourne Metro rail gets funded first—before we fund East West. And I hope that the government, having taken the first step to build Melbourne Metro rail, also gets behind the bill. I am very worried that we are yet to find out Labor's true position on the East West Link.
The question is:
That the amendment be agreed to.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I was pleased to support the original motion about an important project for the great city of Melbourne, and I will talk to the amendment as well. It is bewildering to me—and I have been in this parliament for many years—but it seems that whenever it comes to major infrastructure projects, Labor is always late to the party. We in this place would remember the extraordinary battle that coalition members had to get the Scoresby Freeway off the ground. We remember the betrayal of Labor when they promised before a state election that there would be no tolls on the Scoresby Freeway but the freeway became a fee-way under Labor. They abandoned the commitment they used to try to show the electors of the east and south-east of Melbourne that they finally got the issue in relation to a toll-free Scoresby Freeway only to betray that electorate shortly after.
We have seen it again down my way. I have had to work year after year to try to get the Peninsula Link, the Frankston bypass, constructed. Labor ministers like Peter Batchelor said: 'There's no need for this. There's no case for it.' Have a look at the success of that project—one that was instigated by the Howard-Costello government. Peter Costello came down to the Dunkley electorate, stood at one of the most congested intersections on the continent of Australia in October 2007 and made a $150 million commitment to the construction of a toll-free Frankston bypass. That built the momentum of that project. Again, where was Labor? Running around saying it was completely unnecessary and would not add anything to the community. Yet we know in the Dunkley electorate and in the region what a vital carriageway that is for enterprise opportunities, for access to education, for people to access a livelihood and for the quality of the experience that many visitors to the region can have on the peninsula. It is a wonderful asset and a wonderful commitment. Again Labor was late to the party.
Here we see it again when it comes to this east-west project. This is an important project critically for the east and south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Those against it seemingly only think that what needs to be moved around the great metropolis of Melbourne is people. Moving people is an important task, but moving freight, businesses and enterprise is equally important. You never hear that being spoken about by those who criticise the east-west link.
The RACV has made it clear that it is a No. 1 priority. The state government has made it clear it is a No. 1 priority. There was chaos and mayhem when a recent truck accident on the Bolte Bridge brought much of the city to a standstill. Some of the representatives talk against the very project that would have given their constituents in that part of the community some relief and their businesses the capacity to continue to operate. They talk against it yet the evidence was enormous in people's eyes there. How could you be against that proposal?
You hear some people say that it is all about moving people, but that is only part of how a city functions. You cannot get a tradesperson to park their trailer on the back of a train to get to a job. You cannot get a manufacturer from my community moving their highly transformed and high-value products to the market on a train. The future prospects of the Port of Hastings will provide enormous relief in terms of congestion in and around the city, but you cannot move a container on a passenger train. You actually need capacity, infrastructure, resources and a balanced approach to your infrastructure planning.
This motion talks about that but the amendment seems to turn its back on the need to get that east-west project off the ground. Is it merely a very poor, timid effort by a dysfunctional and divided Labor government to turn its back on this priority? Is this just a smokescreen to try to make it look like they kind of care but not really care enough to do something about it? This election will not only be a referendum about an appalling government that has mortgaged our future and future opportunities for many who rely on the smooth movement of people, equipment, assets, business and product; it will be a referendum on the east-west tunnel—whether Labor back up its talk, its weasel words, its timid head nod to what is an important project while they try to create another distraction so people do not look at this important project.
For my community this project is important. It is about getting our assets, our enterprise, our business outputs and our opportunities better connected with our marketplaces wherever they might be. It is a further investment on the infrastructure strategy that we have pursued that has been opposed every step of the way by Labor. What is it about Labor? They always come late to the party on major infrastructure projects. We saw this with Scoresby. We saw it with the Frankston bypass. We are seeing it again here. At least they are consistent. (Time expired)
The amendment actually speaks about putting a business case forward, so this is about getting the East West Link done. We just heard from the missing link that he has not even read the amendment, because he does not know what it is about. He has just come in here, blah-blah-blahed and delivered nothing. It just shows that he is full of wind but has nothing to him. He is all froth and no substance.
This is a potentially good project. I say that because it is a project that is still in the early stages of planning, in that Infrastructure Australia have not received the business case. Mr Abbott promised $1.5 billion to begin building this road, saying that Infrastructure had told him that the East West Link was the No. 1 priority. He not only said that once but repeated it many times, and that is plainly untrue. It is untrue because Infrastructure Australia have not told him that. He went out and deliberately and knowingly misled the community by saying that he had taken the advice of Infrastructure Australia, when they had not received a business case. Isn't that against everything that the Liberals espouse? They say, 'Oh, you must have a proper business case.' Their hypocrisy is endless.
When it comes to infrastructure, this government can stand tall because federal Labor has more than doubled the annual infrastructure spending from $89 to $201 per Victorian. We have spent an unprecedented $6.8 billion from our six-year Nation Building Program to renew states' road, rail and public transport. We are determined to try and take the politics out of infrastructure funding decisions. We have a proper process—and that is what we are asking for—where projects get assessed before funding decisions are made.
You only have to look at the Victorian Liberal government to see that they could not manage a chook raffle in a pub, let alone a multibillion-dollar road project. Look at the road project history in Victoria, such as the lie that is the Kilmore bypass. The Liberals promised to build a $130 million bypass to take truck traffic off Kilmore and Wallan streets to improve traffic flow. In announcing the project, the then Liberal leader and the local MP said that if they got elected they would scrap the link road that was being proposed. The roadworks now being proposed are not a bypass but a destruction of heritage areas in Kilmore and a destruction of sporting precincts, and now the proponent, who was the Liberal MP, is cutting and running, trying to distance herself from this disaster.
Kilmore Racing Club chairman Lawrie Boyd said:
… sports grounds used since the 1850s were at risk of being damaged or lost.
''The majority of the community are appalled by the thought of slicing up a public reserve and recreation area that's been there since 1853,'' …
He said the options put forward by the Liberal government cut straight through the equine district, which is the largest employer in town. So they asked: 'Why won't the Liberal government listen to the community's voice? Why the deceit?' That is a question that is being asked of the Liberal candidate in McEwen, who was the driver behind this bypass option.
And now they say that they want to deliver a tunnel road that will cost billions of dollars and cost Victorian users tolls of around $10 each way for a couple of kilometres. This east-west road tunnel, which The Age points out has a cost-benefit ratio of 0.5, not only will not make a return for the community but will not make an economic return for private investors. The private consultants stand to gain a lot. They are going to gain about $294 million in the next two years to put together reasons why this should be built.
We know that the Victorian government is desperate to be seen to be building something but not to pay for it. To promote the idea that the tunnel is not simply about facilitating access to the city for drivers, to limit the destruction of Royal Park from new exit and entrance points, unrealistic requirements are being written into the specifications. There are no off ramps into the city, which goes to say that what Mr Tudge has put forward is absolutely false. It is an appalling project, and it would be appalling if that were made into the final project. As The Age pointed out on 15 May:
The east-west tunnel is a road to a loss. The only question is who will lose and by how much—
whether it is the public through taxes or motorists through tolls.
Compare that to the rail project which has been put up: the Melbourne Metro. Mr Abbott went out and said that the Commonwealth government has no history of funding an urban rail and he thinks it is important that we stick to our knitting. Mr Abbott was again proven wrong, because the Commonwealth does have history in supporting rail projects. The rail projects that are being put forward, like the Melbourne Metro, will deliver an extra 24,000 passengers per day. That will take cars off the roads and ease congestion.
They have shunned the northern suburbs by cutting out the funding for the Moondah rail extension, which is overdue and much needed, and also the Sunbury line. If you have a look at the cost per person and capacity per hour, the metro rail tunnel will cost $83,000 to $150,000 per person, whereas this road project will cost $416,000 to $555,000 per person. (Time expired)
I support the motion of the member for Aston, and I commend him for putting the motion to the House. The member for Aston understands the importance of transport not just in and around Melbourne but right throughout the outer suburbs of Melbourne. He knows that in his electorate, which adjoins my electorate of Casey, an efficient and productive road network is important for families, it is important for everyone travelling to and from work, and it is absolutely vital for our businesses that are selling products right across the Melbourne network. I want to address a couple of things at the outset. It is very clear that the Labor Party oppose the East West Link. It is very clear, and who is here—
Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite has misled the House deliberately, because we have not opposed it. We have asked for—
The member for McEwen will resume his seat.
Let me say that—
Government members interjecting—
What was going to be a short summary, I will now redouble, because it is very clear that the interjections and the interruptions from those opposite belie a guilty conscience. I say it again: they oppose the East West Link.
Mr Deputy Speaker, under the standing orders, I seek to ask the member a question.
Is the member for Casey willing to take a question?
No, I will use my time for my speech. The previous speaker, if I heard him correctly, called the East West Link project 'an appalling project'. The member for McEwen called it 'an appalling project'. His constituents will make up their own minds, but what we are seeing is that the Labor Party are opposed to this. Have a look at who is on the speaking list—the member for Melbourne, from the great coalition of Labor and the Greens—and have a look at who is not there: the member for Deakin. Where is the member for Deakin? I can tell you that the member for Deakin, as he moves around his electorate, would not get through a weekend at shopping centres without people calling for the East West Link. We have the member for Melbourne teaming up with the Labor Party—
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
Let me say again to the member for McEwen: the more you interject, the more you confirm your opposition to this sensible piece of public policy. We had the member for Melbourne in here earlier, talking about his opposition to this motion. Let us just say there has not been a freeway proposal that the Australian Greens have ever supported. If they had existed when the first freeways were built, they would have opposed them—
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
And your interjections continue to confirm your guilty conscience—they do.
Ms Roxon interjecting—
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
Order, members for McEwen and Gellibrand!
Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, the member for McEwen is constantly interrupting. This may be involuntary on his part. He should control himself. We listened to the member for McEwen politely, without interrupting—
No, you didn't; that's a lie.
even to his incoherent sentences.
The member for McEwen will not use that word. The member for McEwen will withdraw his use of the word 'lie'.
I happily withdraw for you.
The member for Casey has the call.
But it is quite obvious that members on the other side have come in here with a cobbled-together motion full of spelling mistakes, put together in a rush, just to avoid engaging on the subject. You have the member for Melbourne and the member for McEwen—all opposed to this. They fail to understand not only the traffic needs in Melbourne but the fact that with this motion you could link up the freeways. Who could be opposed to linking up the freeways? You have freeways that do not connect at one point near Melbourne. The member for Aston has rightly said the benefits of linking these up are obvious to all. (Time expired)
There is a lot about this motion that is good; it is just that it would be even better if it were amended. That is why we are supporting the amendment. If I were totally free, I would make a further amendment. I would call this the 'West East Link' not the East West Link, because, as the member for Corio pointed out, the most pressing pressures are coming from the west, and even the member for Aston himself made that point. Yet without this going through Infrastructure Australia or any other processes, his party is also arguing that it should start at the eastern end rather than the western end, which means that the pressures that exist at the moment in the fastest-growing part of the country are not going to be met for quite some time.
I would like to make sure that Hansard recorded the member for Kooyong's commitments that this project, if the Liberals form government, will be completed in five to six years. I think there is absolutely no chance that this project would be completed in that time. A business case has not yet even been put to Infrastructure Australia, which is actually the key point that the government is trying to make. There is a lot of value in looking at the right infrastructure projects for cities across the country. The problem is, you actually have to get your mates in the state parliament, who are in government, to put together a proper business case so it can be assessed. So what you are interpreting wilfully as us not supporting the project is instead us saying: use the proper process to make sure that it stacks up to ensure that the proper work has been done.
I cannot believe that the Greens would have the cheek to come in here and say, 'It's not too bad that there is $3 billion in the budget for the MelbourneMetro, but now we also want the next thing.' At least, though, they did acknowledge the project, which is the No. 1 project supported by the Victorian state government and by Infrastructure Australia as the most important for Melbourne.
In a perfect world, as the member for Corio said, if you had an unlimited amount of money, this West East Link would also, hopefully, have gone through its proper business case and be on the table for expenditure. And as someone who represents the inner west of Melbourne where the tunnel would come up in my electorate—although that site is not yet determined, it would on any one of the options right in the middle of my electorate—this is of serious importance to the commuters in the area and to those who might be affected by the infrastructure and the build, and it needs to be assessed properly and it needs to be done properly.
Rather than it just being a bid for politicking in the eastern suburbs, we want it to be a proper assessment of what is needed for infrastructure across all of Melbourne. When we look at who is speaking on all of this, we have every ministerial hopeful in Victoria—and actually quite a lot of those who might be more deserving than some on the front bench—putting forward their bid and letting out their frustration. It seems to me that Mr Abbott, in refusing to put the member for Aston, the member for Casey, the member for Kooyong on his front bench, is throwing them this as a sort of political bone so they have got something to campaign on. Really, if the member for Aston was serious about what would happen in government if they were elected, he would be much more worried about getting some decent people on the front bench. I make an exception for the member for Flinders who does have some talent, so I am not criticising him. There are a few others that I think would be replaced.
But the point I am trying to make is: if this project has merit, the state government should put in the business case. They should look at where the pressures are greatest, which is in the west, and they should start to build at the western end not at the eastern end. We have heard nothing about that.
Also I think we have not had any acknowledgement about the massive amount of infrastructure that is already occurring. In fact the member for Aston suggested—and I think the member for Dunkley also—that the Labor Party had never been on the right side of any infrastructure project in Melbourne. That just shows how little they care about the more than a million people who live in the western suburbs, because it was Labor that delivered the Western Ring Road. It is Labor that has invested more and more each time, as we did again in this budget, for extensions and for other things. I have made quite clear, despite the complete distortions being made by the Liberal Party, that we are not saying this project is not a good project. We are saying that you need to get all your ducks in a row—get the business case done. Do not have Mr Abbott just pulling it out of his back pocket. Melburnians deserve better and the western suburbs should also be paid attention to whoever is in government.
It gives me great pleasure to follow the member for Gellibrand on this motion moved by the member for Aston. I support fully, completely, absolutely and unequivocally not only the project but the member for Aston's motion. I met by chance on the weekend with our candidate for Gellibrand, David McConnell, who was completely and utterly supportive of the East-West Link project. The reason why he is supportive of that project is it helps the people of the west. He viewed it as a lifeline to people from the west in reducing congestion on the streets of Williamstown in Gellibrand, in Lalor and in so many other areas.
In her twilight days I can also express my respect for someone I have known for many years, the member who is opposite at the table now, the member for Gellibrand.
Unprompted, without any input I asked David McConnell, our candidate for the seat of Gellibrand, what was his No. 1 issue. He said, 'The East-West Link because that is what matters to the people in my area for whom I am meant to stand up.' He was a little bit surprised that there was a great ambivalence and uncertainty on the ALP side as to whether or not they should support the project. He knew his mind. He knew the constituents.
I stand here today not just as a representative of a parliamentary party but much more importantly as a representative of the people of Flinders. They have already had the success of the Eastern Freeway, the East Link project and the Peninsular Link project. The missing part now is the East-West Link. So whether it is the people of the west or whether it is the people of the east, this project is fundamental to quality of life. It is also fundamental to Melbourne's economic health and future. It is about productivity, it is about reduced congestion and also, as a consequence of that, it is about safety on our roads and on our neighbourhood streets. For all of these reasons, Melbourne should be allowed to proceed, Victoria should be allowed to proceed with the East-West Link project. To that end the coalition government, if we were elected, would allocate $1½ billion dollars. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, has made it absolutely clear our commitment is not in doubt. There is no dispute. It is a projected, funded forward commitment which we will deliver.
We want to work with the Napthine government. They have been tremendous in setting out both the vision and the hard reality of plans with which we can assist. We will do that. We hope that we will not be opposed either by the state ALP or the federal ALP. If there were no change of government at federal level, I would hope that there was clear bipartisan support for this project because this project is about reducing traffic in the east, in the west and also in the north where many people take the streets in order to avoid congestion. In addition, as I say, it is about jobs, not just jobs during production but, even more importantly, it is about long-term jobs in our manufacturing and logistics sectors because it will make Melbourne more attractive as a place to build, create, develop and do business.
If we can work, as I have previously said, towards a network of transport hubs around our city then ultimately we will have the completion of the road quadrant. The ports, both the Docklands area and the Corio Geelong area, need support as does the Western Port area. Then we have the basis for an orbital network, which takes jobs and transport to the periphery. This unclogs the centre, and this project is part of that broader 30-year vision for Melbourne as a great manufacturing capital of the southern hemisphere.
I support the amendment moved by the member for Corio. There is indeed a transport congestion issue for Melbourne, and we are presently growing by 200 people a day: 1,500 people a week, 75,000 people a year. It is said that we already have 2 million cars in Melbourne, but by, I think, 2036—20-odd years away—we will have an extra one million cars. That is truly mind-boggling. So there is certainly a transport congestion issue.
But there are better transport projects than this. The member for McEwen pointed out the proposal for rail to Mernda and there are projects that would be much better for the member for Aston's own constituents, like the rail to Doncaster link, a public transport link to the Monash University and the Melbourne Metro.
I have supported road projects over the years. I have supported the Western Ring Road, I have supported CityLink, I have supported EastLink and I have supported the Craigieburn bypass. But there is always one more road to build; the problems are never solved in this way.
By contrast, federal Labor's plan to keep Melbourne moving involves investing in both its road and rail infrastructure. That is why we have been working on the Melbourne Metro project. It was, after all, $40 million in funding from the federal government which enabled the Victorian government to get this project shovel ready. The Melbourne Metro project will untangle the inner core of the rail network and open it up for the future. The recent budget allocated $3 billion for the Melbourne Metro, and the Victorian transport minister recently said:
It is our No. 1 transport priority.
The fact is that it will improve existing services and allow for more and longer trains to move across the network. It will make sure an extra 20,000 people an hour can travel on the Melbourne rail network. And, as Melbourne grows, the Melbourne Metro is the core that is needed before you can start building new spurs, like a future Doncaster railway line, a new link to the Melbourne airport or the Avalon rail link.
By contrast, if the Leader of the Opposition were elected he has made it clear in recent weeks that there would be no federal funding for any public transport infrastructure project, not just in Victoria but nationwide. Regrettably, such an unbalanced, roads-only approach will lead to more gridlock, worsening congestion and a poorer quality of life in our cities.
Furthermore, it is a con job. The amount of money being proposed by the opposition is way short of what would actually be required in order for the East-West Link road tunnel to be completed. The opposition leader talks about $1½ billion towards construction of the tunnel. However, estimates of the tunnel talk about $5 billion, $6 billion or even $8 billion. Just as Tom Cruise said in Jerry Maguire the question here is, 'show me the money'. At present it is a con job.
The question for motorists is: how exactly will the Victorian government fund this proposal? They have talked about tolling the proposed tunnel. Adam Carey reported in The Age on 15 May that a study by University College in London found that the tolls on the planned East-West Link would have been three times the current cost of an average trip on CityLink for the project's investors to make a profit. So, given that an average trip on CityLink costs $3.50, tolls would need to start at around $10.50 for a car trip of a couple of metres.
There have also been reports that the Victorian government would consider selling off, tolling or privatising existing roads, such as the Eastern Freeway or the Westgate Bridge, to pay for the East-West Link tunnel. I think these are ludicrous proposals, but the coalition needs to rule them out. The public should not have to be paying tolls on roads that have been public property for decades.
There is also a mountain of evidence and community feedback casting serious doubts over the viability of the proposed tunnel. Josh Gordon reported in The Age very recently that the Hoddle Street traffic nightmare would still remain, or even possibly worsen, after this tunnel was completed. We have heard concerns expressed from residents in Flemington and Travancore about how it is going to affect them. We have had the spokesperson for the Protectors of Public Lands Victoria, Julianne Bell, raising serious concerns about the tunnel's potential impact on places like Royal Park, Princes Park and Parkville. The bottom line is that the coalition stands for more gridlock, more congestion and a poorer quality of life. By contrast, Labor stands for better, more accessible public transport and more livable cities.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to place on the record of this House my thanks to the firefighters throughout my community and for that matter throughout Australia who keep our communities safe. No matter where you live in Australia your community is protected by firefighters—be they full-time professional firefighters employed by state governments, part-time or more commonly known as retained firefighters, or volunteer firefighters. Each kind of firefighter has a very specific role to play in protecting our communities. On Sunday 19 May I attended the Volunteer Appreciation Day at Doyalson in my electorate on the Central Coast, which included the blessing of the Rural Fire Service fleet and the recognition of the service of volunteers that work for the Rural Fire Service. It was a really appropriate way to end volunteer week and I thank those rural firefighters for the service that they have given to their community, just as I thank the professional firefighters who work each and every day protecting our communities.
Firefighters provide a vital service, a service that saves lives and property. That can only happen if fire crews are located in communities to protect those communities. In recent times, unfortunately, firefighters from the Belmont and Tingira fire stations within my electorate have been taken offline—their stations have been taken offline. And, for a combined loss of greater than 70 hours, those two fire stations have been closed and taken offline whilst the crews go to Swansea Fire Station. There are two issues here: one, there are not enough retained firefighters at Swansea to maintain that station and two, our professional firefighters are being taken across the bridge at Swansea—which has a history of becoming stuck—and leaving those communities unprotected. If the Belmont crew is down at Swansea, it would mean that a fire crew would have to come to Belmont from Tingira Heights, and if that fire crew was fighting a fire at one of the local shopping centres, then fire crews would have to be brought from a lot further away—and we all know that the response time is vitally important. Response time is everything when a fire takes hold. If you cannot get a fire crew there quickly, then that means that your community is at risk. That means that lives are lost.
This cost-cutting practice that is taking place in New South Wales is very foolhardy. It is not the right approach. There are some things that you can cut at a bureaucratic level, but when it comes to the actual services on the ground it really is not good enough. I would like to condemn the New South Wales government for this practice and I do that in the strongest possible terms. By closing these stations, it really is placing at risk the communities that I represent in this parliament. I have had a number of people sign petitions and come and see me about this issue. I believe that the government is putting our communities at risk, simply in order to save a little bit of money on overtime or by not employing more retained or other firefighters.
Even last week both Belmont and Tingira Heights fire stations were taken offline, so whilst I said 70 hours, since then it is well up over the 80 hours. This is not good enough. The people of New South Wales deserve better than that. The people of the electorate of Shortland deserve better than this and the firefighters deserve better than this. They need to know that their government, their employer, is prepared to look after and protect them and employ them in the way that they are trained and qualified to be employed.
Far from being condemnatory, the mover of this motion should be applauding the O'Farrell Stoner Liberal Nationals coalition government for its ongoing commitment to funding and prioritising firefighting services in that state. Indeed, under this New South Wales government, total expense allocations to Fire and Rescue New South Wales have increased by 11.4 per cent. Two country communities in the Riverina in particular are enormously thankful for the new fire stations opened on Friday 12 April with New South Wales Fire Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons in attendance. These will prove much needed bases when the inevitable future bush fires take hold in the areas where they have been constructed—Mandamah near Ariah Park and Tara-Bectric near Temora.
In the past volunteer bush fire fighters struggled to battle blazes because of old trucks and often outdated equipment. They do not anymore, thanks to the coalition state government. The two state-of-the-art stations will each house the respective brigades' two funded tankers and associated firefighting equipment which were previously stored in farm sheds. The two new stations each boast two truck bays, a kitchenette, toilet, shower and 50,000 litre water tanks. As well, both stations are solar powered. Each was built at a cost of just over $101,000 with the New South Wales Rural Fire Service providing nearly $89,500 and the local councils of Bland and Temora shires the remainder. As you can see, this is a really good and significant investment by the New South Wales coalition. Tara-Bectric brigade was established in 1939 and Mandamah was formed in 1948. The new stations are a really welcome boost to the hardworking and dedicated volunteer firefighters in those districts who have persevered with too little in the way of tankers and equipment for far too long.
Whilst referring to those marvellous volunteers, I would also like to pay tribute to the 30 recipients of long service medals presented on 16 March to members of the Humula, Oberne Creek and Tarcutta fire brigades who between them tallied 1,187 years of service. William Belling and Mark Ball of Tarcutta have served for 72 and 67 years respectively. At Mandamah, 33 long service medal recipients totalled 1,165 years including Max Gordon who has contributed 56 years including a remarkable 48 years as deputy captain. Tara-Bectric's 24 long service members recently honoured accumulated 1,137 years with Ray Perry having 69 years of sterling work and Bill Haddrill 61 years.
Another tremendous state funded addition to Riverina's firefighting capabilities is Griffith's new rural fire service control centre on city council land in Wakaden Street. This facility which cost just under $3 million was opened on 19 April by Commissioner Fitzsimmons and the member for Murrumbidgee, Adrian Piccoli. Ironically, recent fires and floods delayed the opening but now that the official ceremony has taken place the centre will serve as the home of the Rural Fire Service and emergency control centre in times of crisis and as a training centre for services across the district.
During the past summer some of the hottest temperatures and fiercest fire conditions experienced caused havoc and widespread damage across the state and elsewhere and certainly in the Riverina. It is vital that New South Wales has the very best stations and resources available when disaster strikes to complement the outstanding efforts of those magnificent people who go to douse the flames whether they are in paid or voluntary roles. The present New South Wales government is doing just that and I commend it for its efforts to improve on what the previous Labor administration provided in its 16 years of debt and deficiency.
Fire and Rescue New South Wales employs a number of strategies to respond to planned and unplanned absences of firefighters and this is very relevant to this motion. This can include using overtime or relieving firefighters to staff a station. It has been standard practice for Fire and Rescue New South Wales to take fire stations offline when firefighters attend training, undertake hazard reduction burns or participate in other non-operational activities. This has been occurring for more than 100 years on a routine basis, so there is nothing new there, Member for Shortland. It has been occurring for more than a century. Under temporary offline arrangements, when nearby stations are able to provide adequate coverage, an understaffed station can be made temporarily unavailable for operational activities. The available firefighters at the station can be reassigned to other stations which are short-staffed due to unplanned absences in order to maintain minimum staffing levels for rostered shifts.
Ms Hall interjecting—
I can hear the member for Shortland arguing and carrying on, but she knows full well the commitment being made by the New South Wales coalition government, which is very admirable. (Time expired)
I rise to support the member for Shortland's motion. In doing so, I must say I greatly regret that it is still necessary to have this resolution before this house. Late last year, on 26 November, I spoke on the same issue, which concerns the threat to vital emergency services in my community in Parramatta and in New South Wales more broadly. I must add that the issue is not confined to the electorate of Shortland but is statewide. Firefighting is not just about property; it is literally a matter of life and death, for the community and for the firefighters themselves. It is an essential front-line service. The responsibility of every government is to protect and fund essential services in their jurisdiction. The state government of New South Wales has failed in this duty.
I say that I regret that this resolution is necessary because the danger—of which I warned in November of 2012—of taking fire stations offline persists. In fact, it has spread, and it has become much more noticeable in my electorate of Parramatta. The practice involves standing down and closing a fire station when a firefighter is unexpectedly unable to come to work, for reasons such as illness or family emergency. The obvious alternative is to call back or call in replacement firefighters to staff the shift. However, under current New South Wales policy, to save money the whole shift is taken offline—so that overtime, or call back costs, are not paid.
What disturbs me greatly is that this practice has now been extended from covering only unpredictable absences to covering absences which are not only predictable but programmed, such as firefighters taking annual leave and long service leave. The original idea of not replacing staff in the case of unplanned absence was bad enough, but the spread, from November last year, to all types of absences is simply gambling with property and with lives. When it comes to the fire brigade, response times matter, and the location of stations matters. Issues such as density, factories and types of industries must be taken into account. When a station is offline, another station, further away, with other obligations, has to step in. Such a station will not be able to match the response times of the closer station.
I am also disturbed that stations are being shut down or taken offline more frequently in some areas than in others. Since I spoke to this house in November 2012, there have been, at the fire station in Merrylands, within my electorate, no less than 56 occasions when the shift has been taken off line, or 'TOLed', as they call it. That means they were unable to be responsive to fires and emergencies in the Merrylands area. Those occasions meant that the station was closed for a range of times, for between two hours and a total 12-hour shift. That meant hundreds of hours of the lack of an emergency service which is needed 24 hours a day and relies upon a call response time measured in minutes—that is the time limit they need to meet if they are to save property and lives. No other suburb in my electorate has such a poor service availability record.
The Rydalmere station, almost in my electorate, has faced it from the other side. It has been a relief station. It has been required to move up on quite a few occasions for stations as far away as Cranebrook in Penrith and Macquarie Fields when they have had units taken offline. This happened to Rydalmere 23 times between November last year and 18 May this year. We had Darlinghurst Station in King's Cross providing relief, or a move up, to the Parramatta station in November last year. That was for a whole day, and I should say that Darlinghurst station is 45 minutes to an hour away from Parramatta, through incredible traffic.
We have sirens on fire trucks because response times matter. If you need a fire station in Merrylands, for example, you need it full time. Fires do not take a break when a fireman gets sick and a station is shut down, and it is madness to bring a fire truck under siren from Darlinghurst to Parramatta to respond to a fire. Travelling under siren is dangerous in its own right.
I speak for every elector and citizen in the federal seat of Parramatta serviced and protected by stations such as Rydalmere, Parramatta and Merrylands when I say: this practice of station closure, of stations being taken offline, is simply dangerous and we are fearful that one day our luck will run out. My local dedicated firefighters cannot speak for themselves; the government that employs them has forbidden that they comment publicly. So I am speaking for them. One day they will not make it in time. A fire that could have been contained will spread to a neighbouring property, and someone who could have been saved will be injured or killed. One day they will be sent to an unfamiliar urban or factory environment where they lack local knowledge and cannot respond as appropriately as they might in their own environment. They will drive far too many kilometres under siren, a dangerous process in itself. Safety is a community issue, and it works best when our local emergency services and our local councils, factory owners and residents work together to reduce risks and when firefighters know where the greatest local risks are. I strongly support the motion of the member for Shortland and I hope that other members in this House also stand up to support their local firefighters and their community.
I accept the invitation of the member for Parramatta to stand up in support of the CFA volunteers and professional firefighters in my electorate of Gippsland, and I acknowledge the very first point of the member for Shortland's motion, where she encourages the House to acknowledge the outstanding contribution made by both full-time retained firefighters and volunteer firefighters within our community. I take this opportunity, particularly in the wake of the extreme conditions that the people of Gippsland endured over the past summer season, to recognise the volunteers from right across Victoria who rallied to support my community in a time of great need, particularly in relation to the Seaton and Heyfield bushfires, where tragically one life was lost. Extensive property damage was sustained across the region, and the impact on wildlife and stock throughout the Heyfield, Seaton and Glenmaggie area was very significant. So I take this opportunity to thank the volunteers who travelled from right across Victoria to support our local crews in our time of need.
The role of our CFA volunteers, in particular, in rural communities is something that deserves recognition in this place. I appreciate the words of the member for Riverina, who spoke about the important investments being made by the New South Wales state government in supporting volunteer services in his community. There has been a similar situation in Victoria, where the state coalition government has increased the investment in new services, in terms of vehicles, and in physical infrastructure, in terms of new sheds for our volunteers.
At the start of this year, I encouraged Gippslanders to consider what contribution they could make to the community and whether they would be prepared to volunteer some of their time to join a community organisation. I can think of no better organisation to recommend to people in my community than the CFA. Right across Victoria, we already have about 60,000 CFA volunteers. The Country Fire Authority hierarchy would be the first to acknowledge that their workforce is quite an ageing workforce. A lot of their volunteers are getting towards the more mature stage of their volunteer life, and they are trying to encourage more younger people to participate.
There is only one thing that it costs you to become a CFA volunteer, and that is your time. The CFA itself provides all the training and equipment, and that is obviously very important for the proper conduct of its roles. I would argue that your time is the most generous gift that you can give. If a millionaire came to a local CFA station and provided them with $10,000, it would be a warmly received gift, but the millionaire knows he has still got $990,000 left. When you give your time, you do not know exactly how much time you have got left. It is a great contribution that many country people make in donating their time to the CFA and to other community service organisations in my electorate.
The CFA is one of the most highly respected and iconic community service organisations in our nation, and I encourage Gippslanders who have thought about perhaps donating their time to any community service to consider what role they might play within the Country Fire Authority. There are roles within the Country Fire Authority which go beyond the most obvious operational ones of firefighting, accident rescue missions, crew leadership, communications, all forms of emergency response, incident controller, pump operator and so on. They are the active roles within the CFA, but there are also non-operational roles, where perhaps people who might not necessarily have originally thought of themselves as a CFA volunteer can play a very important part behind the scenes, whether it is delivering education throughout our communities, fundraising, public relations, catering for the people on the ground at times of emergency or working in the areas of management and recruitment. There really is a job for everyone in the Country Fire Authority in Victoria.
But the benefits that I mentioned before, of helping to keep our community safe and protecting our region, extend beyond the feeling of doing something worthwhile for your community. Being a CFA volunteer allows the individual to also develop a range of skills which will serve them well in life.
They learn leadership and other professional development skills. They receive accredited training which is recognised throughout the world. Australia's volunteer fire services are very highly regarded throughout the world and are often called upon to serve in the United States or New Zealand or in other fire grounds. It is also an opportunity for them to work as part of a team and to meet new people in regional communities, which is often very important.
I commend them to point (1) of the motion which acknowledges the outstanding contribution made by full-time, retained firefighters and by the volunteer firefighters in our community. In doing so, I encourage people who are listening today, whether they be in Gippsland or throughout our nation, to consider whether they could take on a volunteer role in our firefighting services to make their own contribution, to make a difference in their local community. It is an outstanding service. It is something we should be very proud of in Australia and I know that members of this place on both sides of the House value the contribution our firefighters make. I congratulate the state governments for investing in these services. I encourage them to continue to do so in the interests of community safety.
I seconded the motion moved today by the member for Shortland and I did so because this is an issue which we, at a federal level, should look at for a number of reasons, not just in relation to the impact on New South Wales but as a guide to what is going to happen if there is a change of government on 14 September. The motion is specific to the member's electorate, but I want to read those parts of the motion that are generic:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the outstanding contribution made by both full time, retained fire fighters and volunteer fire fighters within our community;
(2) notes with deep concern that:
… … …
(b) the practice of taking fire stations off line is wide spread throughout NSW as a result of cost cutting measures and staffing reallocations conducted by the NSW Government;
On 16 May 2013, I made a speech in this House in relation to this matter. I talked about a visit that the New South Wales opposition leader John Robertson made on 6 April to the Revesby fire station in my electorate of Banks. On that day the station was closed. I also noticed on 26 April that the fire station was closed and I have posted a photo of the sign on my Facebook page. To date, this has received the largest number of hits on anything I have posted a on my Facebook page. At the moment I think there are 7,000-plus interactions, which indicates that there is concern in the community about what the state government is doing. I also visited the Mortdale fire station on their open day on 18 May 2013. I have been doing that for a number of years. Mortdale fire station is also staffed by volunteers, among others. They all have a good reputation. The great tragedy is that that they should not be put in this position in terms of fire stations going off line with a question mark in relation to their jobs. The irony is that, in his first budget, the state Treasurer, Mr Baird, got his figures wrong, according to the Auditor-General, by a billion dollars. In other words, there was a billion dollars more in his budget than he thought. Sadly, that was the genesis of some of the cuts which have been foisted upon the state departments.
Unfortunately, the budget cuts have a disproportionate effect on our emergency services. Firefighting, like policing and ambulance services, is very labour-intensive. While across-the-board cuts to the public sector wages bill were to be 1.2 per cent, for some reason Fire and Rescue New South Wales was set at a 1.75 per cent target in relation to budget cuts. So employee related expenses were to be slashed by 7.6 million in 2012-13 and by a cumulative 64 million over the next four years. I know that members on the other side feel the same as us in relation to a lot of this. Let us be fair dinkum. At times we are putting in a position where we have to defend the governments which are on the same political persuasion as ourselves. I attacked some cuts that were made to the library and other services two budgets ago in relation to savings, because I believe some areas should be off-limits—and I believe our emergency services should be off-limits. These are essential services. They are vital to our community. And, in relation to the Rural Fire Service, there is no chance without volunteers. So it is a partnership between government and the local community, and that is true of a lot of other things. Cuts have already been made to the Rural Fire Service. In late 2012, it was revealed they were to be slashed by $12 million. Now, I argue, because it is a philosophy I hold, that these sorts of services should be quarantined; they should be protected. They should not be cut. If anything, the worst you should do is pause them, not cut them, and then you bring them back with growth figures in the good years.
That is why I lend my support to this motion. I know that on both sides of the House there is enormous warmth and support for the firies, as there should be, because they do a terrific job in our community. I commend the motion to the House.
I want to acknowledge the motion from the member for Shortland and thanked the member for Riverina for drawing out some of the operational facts and realities that respond to much of the motion, which is quite specific to an area of New South Wales. I will focus my remarks primarily on the opening point of the motion:
That the House:
… acknowledges the outstanding contribution made by both full time, retained fire fighters and volunteer fire fighters within our community …
My electorate of Dunkley is one of those 'interface' communities, where the urban sprawl starts and the magnificent Mornington Peninsula begins. It is where we have both firefighting expertise that is at its best in an urban and industrial environment, and firefighting expertise, skills and capability that are ideally suited to the rural fire and bushfire fighting task. It is great to see the MFB and the CFA interact with each other, and I want to put on the record my ongoing admiration and support for their efforts, and encourage all of our community to get behind their work.
It is in that spirit that I think we should set about thinking what else we can do to get behind the work of these two great organisations. We see, from the opposition leader's fine personal example, the commitment he displays in volunteering with the Rural Fire Service. And what a magnificent example that is to all of us about staying engaged in and involved with the communities we seek to lead through our civic service. He not only talks about that; he walks that talk, and I have great admiration for that commitment.
Another example I would like to draw to the House's attention comes from the Rotary Club of Frankston. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you may not be aware—as many are not aware—that there are actually some indigenous Australian plants that have fire-retardant properties. This is a fact that is not well known, not well appreciated and, I think, underembraced in terms of what our fire risk response strategy should be. Alan Soderlund, who has a leading and lifelong involvement in the nursery and garden industry, along with Keith Kimpton and the dedicated crew at the Rotary Club of Frankston, have approached me about a fantastic initiative called 'Fire smart plants'. Their vision is to see the fire-retardant properties of some Australian indigenous plants embraced and promoted in nurseries and at points-of-sale right across our country so that people, like members of my family, who wish to enhance their living environment can choose thoughtfully—particularly in areas where there is a heightened fire risk—between plant species that would act as an accelerant in the event of a fire and plant species that have fire-retardant properties. This could make quite a useful contribution alongside the fire response and prevention plans that are implemented throughout the municipalities on the edge of the urban sprawl like mine, and well beyond, and also support the work of our firefighters. It would help to save lives and property from bushfires, and it is a good initiative.
Their idea is to have these plants tagged in such a way that they are recognised and promoted as fire smart and see some of that revenue come back to Rotary to support its important work but also back to the fire services as a way of saying, 'Thank you for your work; we are doing our bit as a property owner or homeowner by choosing plants with these fire-retardant properties uppermost in our minds.' I commend Alan and the team at the Rotary Club of Frankston for that initiative. I will continue to do what I can—maybe a bit of a shout-out to Wesfarmers and others that are known to be heavily involved in the hardware and garden supply area; they might want to embrace this as part of their engagement with the broader community and get the message about fire smart plants out more widely.
Another area where I think we can do some work is around the coalition's Green Army commitment. Fifteen thousand strong, this Green Army will work in partnership with communities, with land management and Landcare groups, with friends groups and with others that have an important role in caring for our natural systems. Again in my area, we have communities that are blessed by wonderful natural bushland surrounds. But that is also a fuel source that needs to be carefully managed. I see the Green Army playing an important role in working alongside the friends groups and local councils, to work through those natural bushland reserves that are the neighbours of so many of the citizens in my community to make sure we reduce the fuel load. We have a skilled team that can be mindful of the important environmental values and the flora and fauna objectives that are part of the reason we have these reserves, and actually make that contribution to reducing the fire risk and the fuel load, improving access to those areas so our firefighters can respond if called upon. That is the kind of collaboration I would like to see more in our community—a couple of practical initiatives to support the magnificent work of our firefighters.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 13 : 36 to 15:29
Thankfully, this budget is the last Labor budget to be delivered before the next election. This budget proves that a vote for Labor at the next federal election will be a vote for chaos. The Gillard government's financial and budget management is in absolute and complete chaos. Labor's budget gives us more debt, more deficit, more taxes, more broken promises and more uncertainty—all from an incompetent, mendacious government that cannot be trusted.
The Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014 and related bills highlight the contrast between Labor and the coalition when it comes to economic management. For example, the last budget delivered by a coalition government saw a $19.7 billion surplus. The word is 'surplus', Madam Deputy Speaker. The last budget delivered by Labor saw a $19.4 billion deficit—I repeat: 'deficit'. They are very similar figures; however, one is in the black and one is in the red. This highlights the complete reversal in the government's economic fortunes under this Labor government.
Australia entered the global financial crisis with no public debt, a $20 billion surplus, $60 billion in the Future Fund, a $6 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund and a record low four per cent unemployment. Australia entered the global financial crisis with a well-regulated financial sector, a reformed labour market, strong public finance balance sheets and conservative fiscal and monetary policy settings—all courtesy of the former coalition government. As a consequence of the hard work and the economic discipline of the coalition, Australians saw relatively modest effects from the previous global financial crisis.
Despite Labor promising to be an economic conservative during the 2007 election campaign, we saw those TV ads ad nauseam with the then Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, and deputy leader Julia Gillard with hands on hearts, saying: 'We are economic conservatives.' This Labor government subsequently embarked on a massive spending spree that put the federal budget into record deficit. The spending spree included billions of dollars on pink batts, unnecessary and overpriced school halls and $900 handouts. This government failed to get value for the taxpayer's dollar. Yet every dollar the Labor government has spent in this budget is borrowed money. It will all have to be paid back by the taxpayers of the future. This money is borrowed from the earnings of future generations of Australians.
Labor's debt and deficit is true to Labor form. When the Labor government say that this is a Labor budget, they really mean it—a Labor budget of debt and deficit, combined with defeat. There is a member of this parliament, in the House of Representatives, the member for Longman, who has never seen Labor deliver a surplus in his entire lifetime. This Gillard government just does not understand that it is spending other people's money. Labor have not been able to balance those books since 1989. With all the talk about online betting, this mob has got form. If you were to take odds on whether they would ever post a surplus, I am pretty sure you would get very high odds.
Last year, the Treasurer promised a $1.5 billion surplus, but instead he has delivered a deficit more than 12 times as big at $19.4 billion. The deficits announced by the Treasurer this year came after more than 500 promises of a surplus. My favourite line from this mendacious, deceitful government is: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. But I have to say the Treasurer gets pretty close when he says:
The deficit years of the global recession are behind us. The surplus years are here.
An opposition member: That is last year's budget speech.
Last year's speech on the budget, as my colleague here says. So if Australians could not trust Labor's word last year, how can they possibly believe them going into an election year? Previous election: no carbon tax under a government I lead; this election: surpluses in the future. Each of them has about the same level of credibility—credibility because Labor lacks credibility.
Labor's legacy to Australians is more than $250 billion of debt. That equates to debt of around $10,870 for each Australian. By the way, when we left government it was just in excess of $4,000 per person in surplus. So $10,870 for each Australian in debt. A family of four would be struggling with Labor's cost-of-living increases. And not only has the mortgage gone up, but so have the Visa and MasterCard bills. But thanks to the Rudd-Gillard government, their share of Labor's debt could be up to $43,480 per household. And the problem with Labor's debt and deceit and deficits is in fact the waste, the failure to get value for the taxpayers' dollar.
Labor likes to talk a lot about infrastructure, but in 2013-14 they will spend $3.5 billion on the roads. To put that into context, that is less than one per cent of the budget's $398 billion spending. In contrast, the budget papers reveal yet another blowout in the management of Australia's borders by at least $4.7 billion since last year's budget. The $13 billion interest bill that this government now faces because of Labor could have been used to deliver tax cuts or, more importantly, to fund other programs. Both the NDIS and Gonski could have been fully funded and paid for without a levy if we were not paying $13 billion in interest rates. What we have is a government complicit with debt and deficit, and Australians are paying the price for economic incompetence.
Let there be no doubt: the coalition very strongly supports the NDIS. We have been asking the Prime Minister since its inception to form a joint party committee so we can take the politics out of the issue. The Prime Minister, perhaps the most partisan Prime Minister I have ever seen, has declined that offer. Last week I met with the Mai-Wel Group, a disability service provider to the people in the Hunter Valley, just outside my electorate. It is clear to them and it is clear to me that the government still has not done all its homework on the NDIS. There are questions still on when, how, who and where still to be answered fully. The NDIS rolls out in Newcastle in five weeks time, Lake Macquarie in 2014, Maitland in 2015, and yet service providers still have questions that need to be answered. I fear for the expectations being delivered to those with disabilities that they may be let down by this government, but the coalition is right behind the NDIS.
I spoke earlier about how the Gillard government had failed to prioritise infrastructure spending. Its decision in this budget to backend fund projects in the never-never over 10 years is like a scene straight out of the TV series The Hollowmen. Like The Hollowmen: 'Let's make promises in the never-never that we know we're never-never going to have to deliver'. I note the minister for infrastructure, Mr Albanese, and Senator Thistlethwaite have been seeking praise for the budget allocation to the Bulahdelah bypass. In their press release, they talk about $300 million. It is due to open in a number of weeks. Work has been underway on that bypass for the past six years. It was actually started by the Howard government, but this government seeks to take credit for $300 million—all spin instead of the tail-end funding to complete the project in the next couple of weeks.
I would like to quote from an article now that appeared in the Newcastle Herald during the 2010 federal election. It is all about funding and how magnificent local members are. It says:
THE new mining tax would be used to pay for an overpass for the rail crossing on the New England Highway at Scone, in a significant election sweetener rolled out by Labor yesterday.
That was about Mr Fitzgibbon, the member for Hunter. I want you to note that word: overpass. Overpass means when you build this little bridge and the traffic goes up and over the railway line and keeps going. It does not need to stop for trains.
Despite originally getting only a couple of million dollars for a study, the member for Hunter has now been crowing about funds back-ended in this budget for a Scone level crossing. You do no have to be Einstein to work out that there is a lot of difference between a level crossing upgrade and an overpass. The promise originally to the people in that area was for an overpass—and what they will get is an upgraded rail crossing. The member for Hunter will go on promising that this will be delivered, like he promised at the previous election. Now he will hang his hat on the F3 extension. Straight after the 2007 election he said, 'No, it won't be built; there's no money.' It only got built when he got himself into trouble.
How could anybody trust Labor to deliver on anything? It has never delivered on a surplus. It has never delivered on core funding commitments to our community. In this budget alone Labor has broken so many of its own promises, including not proceeding with the increase to Family Tax Benefit A, abolishing the promised tax cuts for 2015-16 and cancelling the company tax cuts that would have commenced in 2012-13. And who could forget the mining tax that was supposed to share the benefits of the boom that has only raised a fraction of what Labor claimed it would? It did not stop it spending the money, but it only raised a fraction.
This is a government that does not understand budgets, does not understand taxation and, worse still, does not understand the expectations of the Australian people. Australian people can understand when you have to deliver bad news and tighten the belt, but the Australian people will never accept a government that breaches fundamental trust by deliberately misleading them before an election and doing something different after it. It started with 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead', it has been escalated with, 'There will be budgets surpluses into the future' and it has been delivered the final blow with the broken promises that I have just outlined.
I will obviously hear members who talk about how magnificent it is that Defence spending has finally been reinstituted. I would also point out that over the last four years $25 billion has been ripped out of the portfolio—that is, projects that have not proceeded, especially small contracts. There has been no substantial planning or direction on things like submarines or the future of frigates. There is so much underspend that it has put a lot of Australian Defence support industries into chaos. Like always, it will be the coalition that has to step in, clean up the mess and deliver national security and real outcomes for our community.
There are two industries in our area where ministers like to turn up, have their photos taken and talk about the great work they are doing. They are not impressed with the Defence cuts and the effects it has had on their businesses. In particular, the workers at those places who face uncertain economic times because of the mismanagement of this government.
I could speak for hours about the impacts of this government on the Australian economy. There are all of the misleading statements and failure to deliver, but there is one thing that concerns me more about this budget. This government talks about the need to support Australian families, to support growth and opportunity. Their favourite catchline phrase at the moment is 'Cut to the bone.' They have not only cut to the bone but also they have cut through the artery of pride in this nation. No longer can Australian people take any resemblance of pride in their government after what they have done, creating a slow death financially for the people of Australia.
I am looking forward to the budget consideration in detail, where I will focus on my portfolio area of tourism and regional development, as I hold the minister to account for the cutbacks and failure to deliver in those portfolio areas.
I stand in support of the appropriations bills before us, which will authorise the expenditure in the terms contained in the recently announced budget. This budget was created to keep Australia's economy strong, making a smart investment for the future and ensuring everybody gets a fair go.
There is a balanced focus on having a strong economy and creating jobs, while assisting families to meet the cost of living. Investments in infrastructure and education also form an integral part of this budget. Good infrastructure is essential to support the growing population among large projects—like the WestConnex project, which will greatly benefit residents of Western Sydney. Many local roads and dangerous intersections will also be fixed as a consequence of this appropriation.
Good education is essential to secure the high-skilled jobs for our young people in the future. Our children deserve the best quality learning environments so they are not left behind in what we see now as an increasingly competitive world. As an example, every dollar the New South Wales government invests in education will be matched by two dollars from the federal government. New South Wales schools will receive an investment totalling around $5 billion over the next six years alone.
Importantly, this budget does not overlook the most vulnerable members of our community, including people with disabilities. Guaranteed funding and the delivery of DisabilityCare Australia will see the National Disability Insurance Scheme become a reality and provide much-needed support for people with disabilities, their families and their carers. Care and support for a person with disabilities will no longer depend on how they acquired their disability or where they live. All Australians will be covered, including the almost 4,200 residents in my electorate that have a disability. We are also facing the challenge of investing in the future and assisting the members of our society who need additional support, all the while making responsible savings decisions. We managed to create a plan that does this while still keeping these cuts to a minimum.
I think it is important in this debate that we look at the position of the other side. I think you will find it does stand in stark contrast. Those on the other side have a plan to rip out the schoolkids bonus, take away the cost of living assistance and scrap the historic pension increases. Among other cuts, they also intend to decrease the tax-free threshold, which we increased to $18,000; they are going to reduce it back to $6,000, and that will certainly hurt the lowest paid workers in this country, many of whom reside in my electorate.
Labor has been trusted by the electorate to govern Australia for 20 of the last 31 years. I say that there is good reason for that. Today one of the main testaments to this government's good economic management is the interest rates, which are now lower than any other time of the previous government, with families on an average mortgage of $300,000, which is the average in my electorate, paying up to $5,500 less now in repayments.
Three times over Labor's period of governing, our nation has faced an economic crisis that has arisen from factors beyond the control of a comparatively small and an internationally exposed economy such as ours.
The first was in the mid-80s when the Hawke-Keating government confronted a dramatic collapse in the terms of trade, which saw a decline in the index from 65.4 to 55.3 between 1985 and 1987, which was the sharpest two-year decline in more than 50 years. Labor responded courageously with a mid-term economic statement that saw a sharp reduction in spending, a dramatic process of deregulation and an opening up of the economy. Two important points need to be made about these initiatives. Firstly, they were certainly far-reaching when they were introduced in such a way as to protect low-paid and vulnerable workers and their families. Secondly, the then opposition fought tooth and nail against many of the key measures enacted as a necessary response to the critical economic situation. There is nothing new about the hidebound negativity of the opposition and their contrariness when it comes to opposing vital and overdue reforms.
Labor faced its second economic challenge shortly after coming to office in 2007 when, in early 2008, the sub-prime crisis of the United States morphed into a near total collapse of major US financial institutions resulting in a full-blown recession across much of the developed world. Many in this country did not feel this recession, but it is one that continues to reverberate today, certainly, through the economies of the US, Japan and many of the European nations. Australia, almost alone across the developed world, escaped largely unscathed from the global financial crisis acknowledged by most economists as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Australia was almost unaffected because this Labor government responded quickly, courageously and effectively with a $10 billion stimulus package and a series of bank deposit guarantees. You will also recall that it was necessary for further stimulus measures, worth $47 billion, which were delivered in 2009. The effect was to defy the dire prognosis of many economists such as Chris Richardson of Access Economics, who in January 2009 predicted a halving of the corporate tax profits. As a matter of fact they grew that year by about three per cent on current prices, and he predicted a rise of 300,000 in unemployment, which was six times the actual figure. He also predicted that the New South Wales and Victorian economies would be stuck firmly in reverse. The truth is, as history will show, that both states outperformed the whole country over the period.
The International Monetary Fund—hardly a hotbed of neo-Keynesian radicalism—is just one of the many organisations to acknowledge that this government got its strategy right. In 2013 it reported that the Labor governments of 2007 and 2010 had been fiscally prudent and that the Labor stimulus spending in 2008 and 2009 was appropriate to stabilise the economy. Another organisation, the OECD, also applauded the stimulus package saying that it had a strong effect in cushioning the downturn. All three of these agencies, for the first time in our history, have given the Australian economy the prodigious AAA rating. That has never occurred before.
Similarly, the Reserve Bank of Australia Deputy Governor Philip Lowe, in an address to the Australian Industry Group on 19 March this year said:
So over these three years we have seen growth close to trend, a stable and relatively low unemployment rate and inflation at target.
By the standards of most other countries, this represents a very good outcome and a high degree of internal balance.
Viewed in this light, how hollow and dishonest is the conservative's rhetoric about waste and mismanagement. The question that has to be asked is: what would they have done if they were in office during these financial challenges? The coalition's favourite economist, Judith Sloan, let the cat out of the bag on ABC's Lateline on 3 May when she said:
I don't believe in this that a government should do whatever it can to keep an economy out of recession.
… … …
There comes a point when a recession, hopefully a mild one, actually can be quite useful and that's what should have been allowed to be done
That is it in a nutshell. That is where they get their economic advice from. That is the difference between Labor and the conservatives. We on this side of the House do not believe that the lives and livelihoods of families should be a blight in the cause of fiscal rectitude whereas those on the other side in their candid moments admit that there is a price to be paid and they are prepared to pay it.
Australia now faces its third economic challenge. The challenge is above all testaments the country's success in weathering the global financial crisis, and so it comes about. As one commentator describes it, the most devastating, long-lasting impact of the GFC is that it created a flight of capital to economic safe zones and in a weak global economy Australia looks very attractive to those investors. Our terms of trade, although still strong, are clearly faltering. Interest rates are low yet our currency remains high, particularly against a weak US dollar, the euro and the pound. This is hurting all our globally exposed industries and is having an especially damaging impact on tax receipts from businesses. It calls for our even-handed fiscal approach, however, that tackles the imbalance between revenue and spending on both sides of the equation. That is precisely, quite frankly, what this government has attempted to do through its budget.
We need to ask what our opponents would have done in these circumstances. Tony Abbott gave a rare insight into the approach that he would favour when he addressed the right-wing Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne on 5 April. The IPA, in addition to being the ideological home to the climate change deniers, also favours the radical agenda of dismantling a large part of Australia's safety net as much as the regulatory frameworks that protect workplaces, households, the environment as well as privatising a wide range of iconic Australian public assets. They recently condensed their extreme agenda into a 75-point wish list, and Mr Abbott was right on board:
So, ladies and gentlemen, that is a big ‘yes’ to many of the 75 specific policies you urged upon me …
There is a very clear difference in the values held by those opposite and those of this Labor government. Our values are clearly demonstrated in this year's budget and the 10-year plan to ensure a fairer and stronger nation for the future. We will continue to invest in the future, to make responsible saving decisions that will strengthen our economy and to provide front-line services that families rely upon all whilst supporting and caring for the most vulnerable members of our society. These are the Labor values. These are the values I stand by. I am proud to support these bills and support this budget.
It was interesting that the member for Fowler did not manage to spend the full amount of time available but the vast bulk of the time he did use he simply trash talked the coalition. How remarkable.
It is supposed to be a budget born out of Labor values, that he struggled to articulate, and somehow it was economically responsible—and he could not point to any real examples of that. And then he went on to talk about how helpful it would be for people in our community and he struggled to identify who those people would be. Instead we got a dissertation of trash talk and assertion, setting up to the coalition all sorts of mischief which does not reflect the coalition's position at all.
And this is where we have got to these days. This government is so dysfunctional, so tired of itself that it cannot even defend its own budget. It is supposed to be the high watermark for government and government members to advocate all the virtue that is in the budget as some kind of fiscal plan to support an economic strategy to strengthen our country. What is missing is that there is no fiscal plan here. There is no clear economic strategy to restore the prospects of a nation, and there is certainly no national interest guiding that just day-to-day survival talk in an attempt to preserve their own positions in parliament rather than look after a plan for the country.
It was interesting to hear that this job was badged as one about jobs and growth. This budget was supposed to be about jobs and growth. Yet remarkably, this budget forecast a reduction in the rates of economic growth in the country and an increase in the unemployment rate—so much for it being about jobs and growth.
But it does put it on par with the last budget. Who can forget the opening remarks of the Treasurer when he said—and this was last year's budget:
This Budget delivers a surplus this coming year, on time, as promised, and surpluses each year after that, strengthening over time.
He went on to promise:
The deficit years of the global recession are behind us. The surplus years are here.
That is what the Treasurer said. That is what has been found to be so empty and vacuous by the numbers that are in this budget. Yet. Yet here you have Labor members harking back to their bad luck, to how everything has been cruelled by circumstances and they are really much better than the facts present. They are really very competent if only these areas of bad luck would not here. Isn't it incredible though? How come that every year Labor is in government there is bad luck? In the community where I was raised, hard work meant you were luckier—you had created your own luck—and it was remarkable how those who worked hard and applied themselves most diligently seemed to be the most lucky. That simple life lesson seems to be lost on this government.
In fact rather than the four year of surplus, this budget heralds not only the most extraordinary budget broken promise about the surplus that we are supposed to have where we are now greeted with figures pointing to a $19 billion deficit, it then forecasts deficits for years to come. Nineteen billion dollars, the fifth biggest deficit in our nation's history, which next financial year will be $18 billion, the sixth biggest in our nation's history, and the year after that $11 billion. Now that is not the seventh, it is actually the eighth. Labor delivered the seventh largest budget deficit back in 1995-96.
What we are expected to believe from this government is that if you elect Labor for a fourth time you will get a budget surplus. A fourth election win will enable the Australian public to get a budget surplus. We have not had one since their initial election in 2007, and none since 2010. There is not going to be any before 2013 election and Labor hopes that if they are re-elected after the 2016 election you might get a budget surplus. That is an awful lot to ask the Australian public: that after four elections Labor promises they may deliver a budget surplus—and a wafer-thin one at that.
I think I share the views of many in the community that I represent and many that I speak with as I travel around representing the small business community. This crowd, Labor, just cannot be believed. There is no economic strategy to guide the nation's economic future after they have squandered and overspent the rivers of gold coming from the mining boom. There is no clear strategy to get the budget back into surplus even though we were promised that the job would not only be done this year, it would be done for evermore. There is no coherent strategy around what those sensible and prudent budget cuts will be. There is no evidence in here that the government has learnt at all from the mistake it has made over and over again—taking Herculean optimistic revenue forecasts, claiming them as locked in, spending the money like a Christmas bonus that you spend back in June, July, August, September, October and November, and then it might arrive in December, and even if it does, it looks nothing like all the money you have spent—and somehow we are supposed to take these guys for real.
I am reminded of that great statement that John McEnroe made after a bad line call, 'You can't be serious!'
We cannot treat this government with seriousness and these numbers certainly are not serious. They are dodgy. They are rubbery. They are indefensible and that is why you just heard the member for Fowler not even use his time available to explain the virtue of the budget so lacking is it in virtue. He could not even spend the whole amount of time trash talking the coalition. That is what is wrong with this government: they just do not have a plan. They have nothing positive to say. They have no strategy to steer the country out of the hole that they have driven this nation into because of their spending problem. And it is a spending problem. This is a spending problem this government has, not a revenue problem.
The 2013-14 budget sees this government $80 billion in front of the revenue that was available when the Howard government was last in office. This government has $80 billion more but it still cannot balance the books. We are still seeing debt and deficit as far as the eye can see. Rather than have revenues savaged, what is being savaged is the nonsense Herculeanly optimistic, fantasy forecasts of revenue that the Treasurer relies upon time and time again to try and suggest he has got some capacity to balance the budget. What has been savaged is the Treasurer's credibility. That is what has been savaged, not the revenue. The revenue is growing substantially.
As I travel around Australia I know small business owners would love to have their revenue growing at over seven per cent. They would love that. They wish they could have that but they do not because the economy is tough out there. There are no sloppy profits anywhere. There are no easy margins. A lot of businesses are just running to stand still in this economy Labor has created. They would love that growth in revenue the government has got.
Not only has the government spent all of that but they have spent more and driven us into this extraordinary point where Labor has now spent $192 billion more than it has raised over the last five years. We have seen expenditure as a percentage of GDP higher every year under Labor than the last years under the Howard government. They all say 'but look at revenue'. Yeah, that is a cute tactic. When you are not paying your bills, your revenues are down from where they should be. Have a look at the expenditure. Have a look at what is in this budget about some kind of credible path back to surplus.
Here is a graph about the reality of the mining boom revenues. See how it is going down? But in alpine proportions the government expects that it will have this ski jump coming up the other end that will somehow salvage it from its arrangements on revenue. These are the carbon tax numbers. These are the realities of what is going on.
I ask the member for Dunkley to refrain from using props.
There must be some kind of frozen fingeritis as the Treasurer counts his money. He must have chilblains to try and have people believe that these alpine ski jumps are anything like reality.
The one I think is extraordinary is apparently the boats are going to stop. They are not going to change any policy setting. They are not going to reinstate the Howard government policies that actually worked. But the boats are going to stop. The member for McEwen—I will forgive him for being a bit of a rookie—do you know how many people were in detention who had arrived illegally by boats when the Howard government left office? Four people. Labor used to go around saying that every boat that arrived was a policy failure. They were getting stuck into the coalition because we kept Manus Island open and there was only one person in there. What a nice problem to have. Now there are tens of thousands of people. There is no change in policy but again this budget relies on the assumption that everything is going to be back under control. We will be able to strengthen and protect our borders yet there is no evidence of that.
Our VISA card limit as a nation is $300 million and is under pressure again. It has already been lifted five times by Labor as they fund their spending binge. The budget papers reveal that it will peak again at $370.3 billion in 2016-17 yet there is no provision in here for raising that VISA card limit because the government knows it cannot face its own failure again after assuring the parliament over and over again that it would never be need to be corrected again.
Then there is the Parliamentary Budget Office account of the structural deficits and surpluses. Again, another kind of ski jump—the ones that are above the line are the structural surpluses under the coalition and the ones below the line are the structural deficits under Labor. Even in here there is a very concerning warning drawn to the parliament's attention. It talks about what the government calls its signature programs. Its school improvement program actually saw $325 million pulled out of schools over the life of this government. Again, you are expected to vote for Labor four times before you see any upside. That is a lot to ask of people I would submit to you. It also talks about disability care. It says that it is nice that the structural deficits are made a little bit less worse by the government's approach to these two signature projects. Why is it saying that? It is saying that because, in here, the Parliamentary Budget Office knows that there is less money being spent on schools in the forward years of the estimates. That takes the pressure off the structural deficit Labor has created. They give the government an implied 'thank you' for taking some pressure off the budget structural deficit. But then they say, 'What happens after those years?' There is the ski jump again; the expenditure is supposed to go up. Vote for Labor four times and you might see some upside. Here is the warning saying that that will add to the structural deficit that Labor has created and inculcated into our financial system. It makes the same point about the disability program and the increase in the Medicare levy. It is making the point that more money is being raised to pay for the trials than is needed at the moment, but when the scheme is fully rolled out there is nowhere near enough money. So, even on these signature programs, the Parliamentary Budget Office is belling the cat again that Labor is incapable of managing finances, and that is causing great concern through the Australian community.
We have heard some people say, 'Well, what will the coalition do?' Did you see that fantastic budget address-in-reply by the Leader of the Opposition? What a remarkably good speech. It is probably the best I have seen. I am told by people who have been involved in public life for decades longer than me that it was the best they have seen as well. It was clear and coherent. It was a plan with more fiscal detail than Labor or any opposition leader in the last 30 years has provided. It showed how you could keep what was supposed to be the compensation for the harm of the carbon tax without the hurt of the carbon tax and how that would be funded. With the budget emergency that the government has created we will all have to, as a parliament, face up to some difficult financial decisions. Whatever side of politics is elected, all will need to face up to that economic reality. Even Labor, if they are re-elected, will have to face up to the economic reality. That is why when they are making promises about spending you just have to remember all the promises that have been made already. They have less of a shelf-life than a loaf of bread; it goes off after about a week. This is the problem that we have with this government.
Don Argus has warned people about the concerns and has pointed to the need for consolidation. But I am worried about what it is doing to young people who talk to me about their concerns. They do all we ask of them as a society to train, to prepare, to study to tool-up and to nurture their capacity to make a contribution, and they are wondering where that start will be. Where will that start be? There is nothing in this budget that builds confidence in the economy. There is nothing in this budget that gives some support or a game-changer to small business. There is nothing in this budget that takes the pressure off household budgets. There is nothing in this budget that gives encouragement to courageous men and women who take risks to create opportunities for themselves and their communities. There is nothing of that kind in this budget whatsoever.
What is in this budget is a whole lot of short-term fixes that do not stand the test of analysis. What is in this budget is the longest confession note that they are trying to make life difficult for whomever forms government after the next election. What is in this budget is a testimonial to all the mismanagement, the waste, the debt and deficit of years of Labor, which this nation cannot afford to keep, and the people in this nation cannot bear having it hung over them as a disadvantage for their future prospects and future opportunities. I will give you an example. The debt—$7.8 billion a year will be the interest charged on Labor's debt alone. Imagine what you could do with that. Imagine what you could do with all of the spending that has gone onto non-productive and useless activities that have not improved our capacity as a nation and our prospects for the future. It is quite the opposite.
For the small business men and women who are looking for a sign that Labor had the vaguest interest in their success, there have been five small-business ministers in 15 months. There is no interest in the quarter of a million jobs that have been lost in small business as a result of this government's mismanagement. Even the things they were promising such as the lost carryback, which was a proposition the coalition advocated in response to the GFC, has gone as well. The tax office is saying, 'Don't use it. Do the right thing by the nation.' (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014. The bills are to appropriate money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of the government and for related purposes. I do so in the context of Deputy Prime Minister Swan having delivered a budget that is committed to making our nation stronger, smarter and fairer. I do so in the context of being a proud member of the Australian Labor Party, someone who is passionate about looking after older people, especially those living on fixed incomes, Australians living with disability and the families and carers that support them, and students who take the time to put themselves through higher education or training. As you know, Deputy Speaker, education is the great equaliser in Australia. If funded appropriately, it provides great opportunities for the nation, not just in the short-term but in the next 50, 60 and 70 years as we compete with the rest of the part of the world that we are located in, which is Asia.
Unlike much of the world, Australia's economy has been resilient, but I know that for many small businesses and families it has not been easy. I know that people in retail are not being swamped by shoppers pulling their wallets out. I have over 19,000 small businesses in my electorate. I know that they have been doing it a bit tough. Some of that can be traced back to the global financial crisis, some can be traced to the vagaries of an internet shopping world, with internet shopping being on the increase, and some of it obviously can be traced back to a Queensland that has seen 14,000 jobs cut, with the people in the jobs that service these employees suffering accordingly. There has been one good thing about seeing Premier Newman's cuts in Queensland: it has given us a glimpse of what austerity can do to families, to homes, to small businesses and to a state's economy. It certainly has given us a taste of what would happen if the Liberal and National Party were successful on 14 September.
As I said, I know that not everyone in my community is having an easy time at the moment. Many modern families, working mums and dads, are finding it hard to juggle working and caring for children, managing cost-of-living pressures, and supporting ageing parents. These are tough challenges for people. It has just been announced that electricity bills under the Queensland state government are likely to go up by nearly 20 per cent in the next financial year—another cost for families in Moreton to bear.
As a member of the Labor Party I am always particularly focused on jobs, on employment. We know the benefits that come with having somebody in the household working. I was here during the global financial crisis when we voted to secure jobs because of the advice we had from Treasury about what would happen if we did not. What would the Australian community would look like if you cut 200,000 jobs? There would be 200,000 homes where the worker was on unemployment benefits. Not only would that be a big cost to the economy but there would be the social consequences flowing from that. Having grown up in a single-parent household, with my mum being a nurse, I know how horrified many Queenslanders must have been when they thought their front-line jobs were safe only to find their jobs cut by Campbell Newman. Imagine that multiplied. Imagine what we would have seen if 200,000 people extra had been on unemployment benefits.
Jobs are always the federal Labor government's No. 1 priority. We are working hard to support families in coping with these cost-of-living pressures. Obviously as a government under Prime Minister Gillard we have a strong plan to strengthen the economy, to grow those jobs beyond the mining industry. Whilst the mining industry is very significant and is expanding—and there is still a pipeline of infrastructure either about to hit production or about to be assembled—the reality is there are lots of other opportunities for us in this part of the world, particularly in terms of some of those strong Queensland opportunities like tourism and the service industry, and things like education.
Throughout the GFC, the Labor government focused on keeping people in jobs. We spent a lot of money creating new apprenticeships and making sure that economic growth was maintained. In the time that I have been a member of parliament, we have delivered over 900,000 jobs—at a time when nearly 30 million jobs have been lost throughout the world. We have unemployment at 5.6 per cent. Compare that to the 500 million people located in Europe, where unemployment is at 11.9 per cent. There are a few horror stories scattered throughout there. In places like Spain you have got nearly 25 per cent unemployment and some areas have 50 per cent youth unemployment. Imagine the social dislocation that comes with every second young person having no hope and having no job.
Australia has AAA status for the first time ever. We are one of only eight countries in the world to have the status. This status was confirmed again by the rating agencies after Deputy Prime Minister Swan delivered his budget night speech. I know there is fear and misinformation being peddled by those opposite—this relentless jeremiah about debt, doom and gloom. We have the ridiculous situation where the Leader of the Opposition is comparing Australia to Cyprus. We are a million miles from there and we have had the independent rating agencies confirm this.
We are now the 12th biggest economy in the world—up from the 15th biggest economy at the time the Labor Party took office in November 2007. Our economy has grown more than six times faster than those great powerhouse nations like Germany and the United States. This is what we need to be compared with.
I am proud of the Australian Labor Party's achievements and, more importantly, our focus on the future. Look at some of the projects and policies we are rolling out. We have signed the DisabilityCare agreement, which will surely go down in history in the next 30, 40 or 50 years as one of the greatest achievements of any modern government. I was proud to be at Autism Queensland in Sunnybank when the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland signed the DisabilityCare agreement that locks in funding for over 2,000 people living in Moreton with a disability. It is a great comfort for them. They will have control over their lives and have support for their families and carers. It will provide certainty for all Australians in the event—horrible as it is to contemplate—that they or their loved ones acquire a disability. They will receive the care and support they need. This policy will kick off in only 34 days time.
Let us look at education, which is something I am particularly passionate about, having been an English teacher for 11 years. In my time here in this parliament—just in the 42nd and 43rd parliaments—we have doubled the investment in school education at a time when the Premier of Queensland in one year in office cut funding to every single school in Queensland. Every state school received a cut and then obviously, as anyone who understands school funding knows, that flowed on to non-government schools. That is a policy to compare and consider on 14 September. This Labor government has invested in education and the LNP government has slashed.
We have upgraded facilities at every single school in Moreton. Sure, it was an economic policy, but Prime Minister Rudd at the time knew that every principal, P&C president and P&F president had a list of jobs that needed to be done and those jobs benefited the tradespeople around those schools. All 9,200 schools throughout Australia received that immediate boost and then the bigger projects were rolled out, such as the libraries, the school halls et cetera.
We have provided more information to parents through the MySchool website. Having been a teacher and having worked for a teachers union, I know how tough this has been for some teachers. They are very professional people. Now we accept it as part of the communication process. It is accepted by all in the community and is one of the most accessed websites going.
We are delivering the skills and training required for the jobs of the future through our $3 billion jobs and skills package. I am proud to say, as someone who only got a break in life because I could go to teachers college, we now have an additional 150,000 students attending university. Who are these people? They are people like me who grew up in rural and remote areas, people with English as a second language or Indigenous people. So we are creating opportunities rather than just catering for the privileged.
Let us look at some of the other great achievements. We have raised the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent, boosting the retirement savings of 8.4 million Australians. This is something that I am sad to say the Leader of the Opposition has committed to cutting. History will condemn him, whereas history has judged kindly those great leaders like Hawke and Keating who took the time to implement superannuation changes so that all Australians benefit from having managed funds. We are now seen as the Switzerland of the south in terms of having an ability to manage money. It will be a great job opportunity for children in 10, 20 and 30 years time as we move into Asia, India, China and Indonesia to show the great skills we have.
One of our proudest achievements—the one you know is good because those opposite condemn it the most—is our emissions trading scheme. It would have been nice to bring it in on 2 December 2009 but unfortunately the Greens voted with the Nationals at the time and put the kibosh on it. But we do now have a price on pollution at a time when the planet more than ever needs to do it. I notice under the Keeling Curve we went past the 400 parts per million, which should be putting out an alarm bell across the planet. At least we have taken a step, but those opposite have committed to rescinding our scheme and coming up with this hair-brain scheme that will put $1,300 per household extra cost onto it. And it will not work. Their policy seems to be geared towards the low-hanging fruit—and the reality is the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked by the Labor Party's policy.
We have an affordable paid parental scheme already in place, with over 2,000 local families in Moreton benefiting from Australia's paid parental scheme, proudly delivered by Jenny Macklin and the federal Labor government. It is an affordable, responsible scheme, not one that will give people struggling on $300-, $400- or $500,000 a year—paid by the taxes of cleaners and the like—excessive contribution. It does not make sense. We have already had it flagged by some of those opposite. They have planned to not only increase costs, such as the increase in the GST, but also roll out austerity. I am terrified of that. In my local electorate they have made a commitment to not fund public infrastructure, particularly that great policy initiative of the Cross River Rail.
I look forward to fighting, in the lead-up to 14 September, to achieve such initiatives as a new rail crossing at Coopers Plains at the Orange Grove Road intersection. It is a rail crossing that was articulated by Gary Hardgrave back in March 1996 in his first speech, yet he did nothing about it in his 12 years as a member of parliament. I will endeavour to have funding obtained for that. I am also looking at what I call a dragon crossing in my electorate at Sunnybank, between two supermarkets, to make it both an iconic piece of architecture and disability-friendly, and so will put some lifts in for people to cross the very busy main road. I am looking to bringing back koalas to Toohey Forest, working with Darryl Jones and the Griffith University, to look at the feasibility to ensure that the Toohey Forest area can support a koala population, even if it is a support population.
I am committed to getting some money for the local men's shed at Sunnybank, working with the Sunnybank RSL who do great work, looking to upgrade the Acacia Ridge sporting precinct and fund some of the renovations at the Yeronga community centre, install some CCTVs at one of the nightclub areas in Sunnybank Hills and fund some of the necessary renovations at the Oxley Senior Citizens hall, the Sunnybank Special School, the Acacia Ridge community centre and the Kyabra Community Association.
I am proud to be part of the Labor Party because I know that elections are important turning points for the nation. They expose some of the reasons we decide to join a political party in the first place. I know what Labor values are about. They are about supporting families, they are about giving people opportunities and they are about investing in education and providing a disability care program. I am proud of these initiatives. (Time expired)
I proudly rise today to support the appropriation bills 2013. I support a budget that has Labor principles at its very core. I support a government that has not been afraid to make once-in-a-generation investments critical to our nation's wellbeing and development—investments that go far beyond political cycles and parliamentary terms. We are a government that has had the courage to make big decisions about this country's future. This is a budget that puts Australia's interests first. Most importantly, it is about jobs and it is about growth. In my ministerial portfolios, I warmly welcome record investments, yet again, in early childhood education and care and continued funding for successful job placement measures, such as job expos and local employment coordinators. Locally, as the very proud member for Adelaide, I have joined with my community to celebrate the massive funding contribution towards the much needed South Road upgrade in the city's inner north-west—something that I know the Deputy Speaker is also very supportive of.
Before I discuss those specific measures in more detail, I want to go back to jobs and growth and to the need to make choices. Just as our government safeguarded our economy and in turn millions of households across the country from the very worst of the global financial crisis, we must maintain a responsible, steady course, because we have seen what savage austerity in Europe has created: record jobless numbers, growing poverty and business closures—all on a massive scale, all widespread. Labor made the choice when the GFC was knocking on our door not to go down that road. We framed budgets that faced those challenges head-on and insulated our economy with positive investments. As a result, since Labor came to office more than 950,000 jobs have been created. We are proud to be presiding over an unemployment rate right now that stands at 5.5 per cent—one of the lowest in the industrialised world. Our budget strategy has seen Australia achieve the gold-plated stable triple A credit rating from all three global ratings agencies for the very first time in our history—something that the Liberals could not achieve in 11½ years in office.
Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding. In the worst economic conditions in 80 years, our economy is 13 per cent larger, with solid growth and contained inflation. It is in spite of these tough global economic conditions and through maintaining a strong economy, as well as achieving responsible and sensible savings measures, that we are now in a position to enter a new phase of nation-building investment. The National Plan for School Improvement is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to turn the unfair funding structure for Australian schools on its head—a funding structure that kept too many students back simply because of where they were, the size of their school or a host of other specific circumstances. In this government, we believe that all children deserve a great school, and we are looking at the decisions required to ensure that that occurs. For the first time, we link funding to each student's needs. The budget provides an additional $9.8 billion over six years.
Just as Labor created Medicare, so too will we be the creators of DisabilityCare Australia—the first stable and secure funding stream for people with a disability and their carers. The significance of this move cannot be understated. For far too long, successive governments have shunned the opportunity to reform services for the profoundly disabled, leaving people with significant and permanent disabilities and their families and carers behind. Ours is a government that is changing all of that. The delivery of DisabilityCare will ensure the level of support someone receives does not depend on when or where they were born. I would like to congratulate South Australian Premier Joe Weatherill for being one of the first to enter into agreement with the Commonwealth to jointly fund and deliver disability care across South Australia.
To deliver a stronger economy, this budget also commits $24 billion to vital infrastructure, bringing the government's total investment to around $60 billion from 2008-09 to 2018-19. I also want to take this this opportunity to highlight the massive investments made in my two portfolio areas, both of which are integral to the growth of the economy. Our government will once again deliver a budget with a record investment to improve access to quality, affordable child care for Australian families. More Australian parents have been supported in this budget to access child care for the first time.
The strong growth in the number of children and families accessing child care reflected in this budget confirms that our policies are working. Almost 1.4 million children and over 960,000 families will access child care in 2016-17 supported by government childcare assistance. Never before have there been more children and families in Australian child care or more government assistance to subsidise their fees, something that we are incredibly proud of. That is potentially more than 960,000 people who are able to contribute and play a role in the workforce as a result of this sector which has been so strongly supported by our government. Over the next four years we will invest over $25 billion in early childhood education and care and, just to put that number in context, that is almost quadruple what was invested in the last four years of the Howard government. We are making that investment because we know how important child care is for workforce participation and the economy and because we also know that high-quality early childhood education and care gives children the best start in life and is one of the best investments any government can make.
A number of specific funding measures will help to build a childcare system more responsive and suited to the needs of modern families. Firstly, we are investing $475 million over four years in childcare assistance to help more parents receive the training and skills they need to enter or re-enter the workforce. This includes an additional $27 million in this budget and $225 million in the last budget to support more families with the cost of child care with the Jobs, Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance program so that they can get the skills that they need to get into the workforce.
This budget has also delivered access to flexible child care to meet the needs of modern families. Our government understands that there has been a significant shift in the workforce in the last decade with a 25 per cent increase in the number of women in employment—a 25 per cent increase in just 10 years. Obviously, that is changing the way families are structured and it is changing the way that we go about work. We understand that for many families a little bit of flexibility would go a very long way in helping as they juggle work and child care, which is why in this budget we are investing $5.5 million to deliver childcare flexibility trials at over 50 sites across Australia to provide more flexible child care to respond to the needs of modern families.
We have also delivered a $1.3 million childcare flexibility fund, a National Competitive Grants Program, to encourage those who have ideas on the way forward on new and innovative ways that they can better assist both families and children. We are interested in looking at funding those and then ensuring that those trials are backed up by an independent evaluation by the Australian Institute of Family Studies to see how they are meeting the needs of modern families and to see how they may be able to be rolled out more widely.
This budget has also delivered in difficult times a commitment to our professional early childhood workforce, a commitment to our children that they deserve the best quality early childhood education led by qualified educators helping them to learn and develop. Our government understands that the professionalism of the early childhood workforce needs to be recognised on a sustainable and permanent basis across the sector moving forward. That is why we have set up the long-term pathway for early childhood educators to pursue better wages and that is why we have committed in this budget to establish a Pay Equity Unit within the Fair Work Commission. This unit will be able to do the research and collate the data to further assist appropriate resolution across the whole childcare sector in the long term. And of course it builds on the outcomes we have achieved in other feminised industries with pay equity for social and community sector workers and for the aged-care sector.
Also in the interim, we have announced the Early Years Quality Fund to deliver an extra $300 million into the sector to support centres to lift the wages of early childhood educators who meet certain eligibility criteria over the next two years. This is a big step on the path to a professional early childhood workforce. It has now been recognised for the first time in this budget by our government, and I want particularly to acknowledge the work of my colleagues, both Bill Shorten, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, and Peter Garrett, the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, for making this happen.
The centrepiece of our childcare budget package is of course fee assistance, making child care affordable and manageable for families right across Australia. This is a tough budget environment but it is a testament to this government's core priorities that we have continued to make record investments in fee assistance, some $22.1 billion over the next four years.
Other governments may have decided under the circumstances to target the fee assistance structure to achieve significant savings. They might have decreased the actual childcare rebate which stands at 50 per cent of costs. They might have lowered the annual cap, the maximum amount per year, that families are allowed to claim through the rebate. Other governments may have also decided to means-test the rebate or even to put a cap on the number of childcare places we fund. We are not that government. This budget continues to deliver the Labor government's support for the childcare rebate which we increased from 30 to 50 per cent. We increased the annual cap from $4,354 per child per year as it sat under those opposite to $7,500. We have made a clear decision to keep that and to not means-test the childcare rebate in this budget because we know how important it is to families with the cost of care. We will continue to deliver these record amounts, although of course we know that those opposite have pledged that all of this would be up for review and placed in jeopardy if they were to win government.
Closer to home, my electorate of Adelaide can also see the significant investments in this budget for themselves. This year's budget brings $448 million to upgrade and widen South Road. I know that everyone in the inner west is aware of the dire need to undertake this work. In fact, just this year alone I have had over 16 street corner meetings in this part of Adelaide and this has been the No. 1 request and concern. This is finding that I strongly advocated for after receiving significant feedback from the local community. Improving South Road has been a strong message I have received from residents in the area and this is a real investment in a real project which I am incredibly pleased to be able to assist delivering for the people of Adelaide.
Specifically, this funding will upgrade and widen South Road between Torrens Road and the River Torrens. It will include sinking 1.4 kilometres of the road below surface. It will include erecting an overpass for the Outer Harbour rail line, building three grade separated intersections at Hawker Street, at Port Road and at Grange Road, upgrading and realigning of the existing South Road to become a surface arterial road from Torrens Road to Ashman Parade and upgrading of Torrens Road intersection and the construction of an off-road shared cycling path which I know many people have requested. It will include installing a new walking trail from Torrens Road to the Torrens River. This funding will significantly ease the congestion along this section of South Road. More importantly, this funding will improve the lives of local residents who are sick and tired of being stuck in traffic, who are sick and tired of spending time bumper-to-bumper that they would much rather be spending at home with their families or in their workplaces being productive.
But we also know that this is a project that you will only get from this side of the House because those opposite have made it very clear that this is a project that will be on the chopping block if they are elected to government, instead choosing to invest funding in the most marginal Liberal seat in the country in Boothby at Darlington in a project which we now is not as high a priority as this one for the local residents that I represent and that the Deputy Speaker Georganas represents to so very well.
There are a number of other budget measures for Adelaide which I am really proud of including the Creative Young Stars program which will help foster the creative young minds of people in our area. Walkerville in the electorate will be eligible for competitive grounds to deliver innovative online local government services using the NBN. There will be more funds for youth cancer networks around Australia with the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the Women's and Children's Hospital in Adelaide leading this project in South Australia. All of these are incredibly important projects. This is why this budget is a good strong Labor budget and I am so pleased to be representing these significant wins for the people of Adelaide. This is why I am so proud to be part of a government that in challenging times has found a way that we can deliver the school improvements that Australian children deserve, that we can deliver DisabilityCare Australia, our first National and Disability Insurance Scheme, because we have made the hard calls to enable us to be able to adequately fund our proposals. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014 second reading debate. Australians have great opportunities ahead of us, many of them bestowed upon us by a country abounding in natural resources. But we also have some steep challenges. Some of them, like the high Australian dollar and vestiges of the global financial crisis, are not of our own doing. Too many, though, are incumbent upon us by a government treading through a quagmire of its own incompetence.
Australians are being short-changed by a government more desperate to preserve its own power than to help this great south land to prosper. The Gippsland region puts in far more than it gets out of state and federal economies, whether it is 24 per cent of the nation's milk output, 25 per cent of Victoria's beef production, nearly 90 per cent of Victoria's power generation or more than 60 per cent of Melbourne's fresh water. In McMillan we grow and make and power things. McMillan is the main street of Australia: it is where generations of families settled after World War II to make their homes, start their businesses, grow their farms and build their own towns and communities. Whether I am talking to a group of kindergarten mums in Korumburra, tourism businesses in Warrigal or mechanical engineers at a power stations in the Latrobe Valley, my constituents tell me they want a government that believes in them and that will not stand in the way of their aspirations.
McMillan is now broaching another chapter. With our large expanse of agricultural land, churning coalfields and rolling hills, our region is welcoming a new generation of families: young families who want to start a new life for themselves in Pakenham or Drouin and older folk who want to find a place to enjoy their twilight years. To sustain this we need new hospitals, safe roads and investment in business from government. Yet in this federal budget, despite a largess becoming of a king's ransom being delivered to marginal Labor and Independent seats around the country, not a single dollar spilled over from this pork-barrelling feast into McMillan. Not in the West Gippsland Hospital, not on the Warrigal-Korumburra Road, not on the Korumburra kindergarten, not in Leongatha, not in Wonthaggi, not in Inverloch, not in Drouin, not in Thorpdale, not in Trafalgar and not in Moe. Not even the Long Jetty.
In fact, after this government had gone in for a smash and grab on the power stations in the Latrobe Valley, the very ones that provide nearly 90 per cent of the energy that keeps Victoria's lights burning, this Gillard-Swan government then gutted the Latrobe Valley transition fund. That is the fund established between Regional Development Victoria, Minister Peter Ryan and his former federal counterpart Simon Crean. Both men are passionate about regional Victoria, and both recognise the untold damage that would be unleashed on the Latrobe Valley by ripping the coal industry from under their feet. For the Latrobe Valley, the carbon tax really was arbitrary destruction of shareholder wealth in those power generation assets and the callous disinterest in the thousands of jobs that that industry sustains. The transition fund was the cushion designed to slow the fall, buying time and a buffer of support for the power stations and reliant businesses and jobs to adjust.
Buried on page 37 of the Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport budget papers is confirmation that the Latrobe Valley can now expect an average of less than $2 million per year over six years in the federal government's supposed support for the region's transition to a cleaner economy. As the Latrobe Valley Express reports:
Buried somewhere in the most recent federal budget papers was a figure of $15 million, to be spread over six years, for the Valley's structural adjustment as it moves to a low-carbon economy …
The Express also picked up that this government was trying to squeeze itself out of the $200 million specifically set aside for regions expected to see power generators close under the government's now abandoned Contract for Closure process. This government is now trying to squeeze itself out of that obligation, and my good friend and colleague the member for Gippsland has noted this, saying that the Contract for Closure conditions were a caveat they added later just to get out of it. Rightly so, given the government's Clean Energy Future website refers to:
… assistance supports workers, regions and communities that remain strongly affected by carbon pricing after other forms of assistance have been provided
It does not mention Contract for Closure. If the Latrobe Valley does not fit that definition, then no region in Australia ever would. That the federal government can try to justify reducing support for Latrobe Valley by inferring that regions have not suffered unduly as a result of the carbon tax is an absolute furphy. The carbon tax has had a massive impact on the Latrobe Valley region, on the region's confidence and on the confidence of local business to make investment decisions, which, by the way, they are not making but just holding off on. The government is being dishonest with itself, with its leadership, with the numbers in this budget and with the Australian people by trying to perpetuate this furphy.
There is another injustice that the government is prolonging for businesses and workers in this nation that I want to address, and that is the bludgeoning of small business away from growth, investment, ingenuity and job creation. Weekend penalty rates are being used as a blunt instrument against small businesses, particularly in the tourism industry in regional areas. My longstanding view on this issue was reinforced a couple of weeks ago when I met with about a dozen small business tourism operators from across West Gippsland. These are really iconic Gippsland businesses, which are renowned for their food, wine, hospitality and uniquely exquisite views. One of these businesses, which is just outside of Warrigal, hosted the former Minister for Tourism Martin Ferguson, when, last year, he had the good grace to go there and announce a successful T-QUAL grant. Like his other former portfolio areas of energy and resources, Martin Ferguson knew and understood business and industry, and those sectors trusted and respected him for that.
These small businesspeople are not mini moguls requiring a largesse of profits, as those on the other side would have you believe. They are not making huge profits. They are not seeking to pay a pittance to their workers, even though they often pay that to themselves. They are decent people who demonstrate real ingenuity towards their business operations. People visit this area for lunch or to get away for a weekend—whether to Foster, Fish Creek or Warrigal—and they come back again and again and again. These dozen or so small business and tourism operators and I met recently, and this is what they said to me: 'Russell, weekend penalty rates are killing our businesses. They stop us from putting on more staff. They create bad morale between full-time staff who work to one wage level and the staff who choose to work a couple of hours on the weekend because it is substantially more. This means we do not have enough left over to put back into the business, to make it bigger and better and more sustainable.'
In Gippsland, as in many regional areas, the majority of tourism business comes at the weekend. This is great for students or even for mums or dads who may not be able to work during the week. It suits them to be able to work a couple of hours on the weekend, when they have to be at university or doing a school run from Monday to Friday. But penalty rates set up a two classes of workers—those who work from Monday to Friday and who do a full week for an award wage and those who choose to work those couple of hours on the weekend for an all together better wage. This means that a teenager working for a few hours a week can be paid up to $29 an hour to wash dishes. You can imagine how that would go down in any workplace. It shows a complete disregard not only for the needs of the business but also for the modern realities of today's communities and workplace environs, where choice and flexibility are as important for the employer as they are for the employee.
There is another quintessential Gippsland industry that is being hindered, not helped, by this outdated approach to the modern workplace, and that is our dairy industry—the backbone of Gippsland's economy, where our fortunes ride more on a Jersey cow's back than on a sheep's back. These antiquated penalty rules mean that you cannot employ someone to do less than three hours of work a day, even though milking takes only an hour and a half. The Gillard government is ripping off our dairy farmers by effectively forcing them to pay twice the cost for half the output. There is a potential caveat in these penalty rules which means that, if the work being undertaken is an essential service, the three-hour rule can be overridden. For animal welfare, economic necessity and farmer wellbeing, dairy milking should be retitled as an essential service and be made exempt from these ridiculous penalty rules. These rules mean that a high school student who wants to squeeze in one or two hours of work between their time after school and their VCE study at the local hardware shop cannot, because Bill Shorten says that it is exploitation, not education. I have to note, though, that only last month Bill Shorten was on the ABC radio's Rafael Epstein program, and he did concede that regional tourism operators may warrant being a special case. I can only urge the minister to further develop his consideration of the tourism sector as a vital regional economy and to add to it that the dairy industry is an essential service.
McMillan, as I said, is in the main street of Australia. It is at the economic heart of Victoria, and it is being sorely deprived of the realisation of its full potential by this Prime Minister. As I said to my local branch meeting last week, if the Labor Party do not change the Prime Minister in June then we will change the government in September. Australia deserves so much better.
I am pleased to speak these 2013-14 appropriation bills today and am disappointed that I only have a short amount of time to do so. Exposing the failures of this government has sadly become far too easy and its incompetence continues to undermine people's faith in this parliament. Following the non-spill initiated by the member for Hotham, Simon Crean, in March, it is apparent that Australians will have to endure this shambolic Labor government until September, despite efforts on both sides of the parliament to bring about an early election because of its dysfunction.
Today I would like to discuss some of the implications of this budget on the people of Canning. Clearly, this budget has been compiled by spinmeisters rather than economists. It is a dishonest budget and I am sure the Treasury officials despair when they see this government make a mockery of our nation's most important fiscal document. Why do I say it is dishonest? It is because when the Treasurer delivered his speech he said, 'I now say this is a budget about jobs and growth'. The budget papers said growth would be less and jobs would increase, so it just cannot be true. On that note, it has become increasingly difficult to determine if elements of the Australian Public Service have become politicised or incompetent, as Graham Richardson pointed out on his show recently. He said someone has to be blamed for these wildly incorrect predictions.
The Treasury head, Martin Parkinson, has tried to defend himself but he should learn that advice to your political masters should be frank and fearless. As we know, his predecessor, Ken Henry, not only involved himself in partisan views but also took a job in Prime Minister Gillard's office when he left. So it shows where he lined up.
Looking at some of the assumptions in this budget makes me wonder if Treasurer Wayne Swan believes Australians are fools. Wild assumptions paint a rosy picture of times ahead, despite it being clear that we are headed for tough times as a result of the mishandling of our public finances by this government. Firstly, let us look at the carbon price assumptions, which renowned economist Henry Ergas has described as garbage.
The budget contained a major backflip by Minister Combet—and indeed this government—by writing down the projected carbon price for 2015-16 to $12.10. The coalition said for many years that Treasury's original prediction of a European carbon price of $29 a tonne was fanciful. After defending the indefensible for far too long the government has backed down and more than halved this predicted price. The problem is that $12.10 is still far higher than what the EU carbon price is expected to be, which is currently $5 a tonne.
Most worrying is how the government has arrived at this figure of $12.10. Did they investigate the likely movements in the market based on expert advice, current trends or other meaningful analysis? No. Amazingly, the economists were apparently sent to the back of the room while the spin doctors crudely drew a straight line between where the carbon price is and where they need it to be in order to meet our emission reduction commitments. Maintaining a goal is one thing but to roll the dice with Australia's economy and base revenue forecasts on an aspiration is simply careless.
Herein lies evidence of the fundamental failing of this Labor government. Rather than take a prudent approach to public finances, they spend what they do not have—in other words, they have a spending problem not a revenue problem, based on shaky predictions and wildly optimistic assumptions that never eventuate. This is a terribly irresponsible way to run a government and simply would not be tolerated in the private sector.
Such foolish behaviour is not limited to the carbon tax revenue predictions. The mining tax projections have also been subjected to this government's overly optimistic manipulations. Raising just $200 million this year, the tax has raised 95 per cent less than the projected $4 billion that was originally forecast. Over the forward estimates, rather than raising the $26.5 billion that was originally forecast, the mining tax will only raise something like $5.5 billion. After this embarrassing write-down, did the government learn from its mistakes? Not likely.
Despite this enormous write-down, Australians are expected to believe that the MRRT revenue will increase from $200 million this year to $2.2 billion in 2016-17—in other words, a 10-fold increase that is not validated or justified in the budget papers. It is just a prediction. Treasurer Swan blamed the lower terms of trade on the high Australian dollar for the write-down in revenue. The budget papers point to slightly lower terms of trade in the years ahead and the Australian dollar is to remain high and yet somehow we will receive a thousand per cent increase in the MRRT revenue. How does that work? Australians have now witnessed what happens to a budget when it is delivered by a treasurer with no past experience in economics or public finances. Collecting union dues clearly does not prepare a treasurer to be a competent person to run a $1½ trillion economy.
I would like to take a moment to dispel a myth that has been peddled by Labor members and their apparatchiks, claiming the budget is now in structural deficit because of the policies of the Howard-Costello government. As Judith Sloan articulated in last week's Australian, the Parliamentary Budget Office report which initiated this falsehood is littered with errors and omissions. Take, for example, the fact that the stimulus spending was omitted from the calculations used to determine the structural balance—$67 billion of Commonwealth expenditure removed from the calculations was simply omitted. The PBO's report which attempted to argue that the Howard government was responsible for a structural deficit is just nonsense. The effort to try and shift the blame from the spendthrift government that has been office for almost six years and has delivered record deficits to a responsible government that delivered record surpluses is a sad and desperate ploy.
Any amendments that this government deemed necessary to fix perceived structural problems could have been implemented long ago—in fact when it first got in. Only the ABC and its commentators would like to peddle the myths contained in the PBO report. Viewers watching the Insiders program yesterday would have seen Niki Savva as the voice of reason among Labor apparatchiks. Mike Seccombe tried desperately to place the blame for the parlous state of our nation's finances on the Howard government. I suggest that Mike calls one of his Labor cronies and asks them what they have done to address the problem that he attributes to existing prior to the 2007 election. Alternatively, I suggest that Mike puts his bias to one side and subjects his beloved Labor Party to adequate scrutiny, as he should as a commentator. One would expect that from a professional commentator on such a show. Better still, he can fly back to Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts and continue writing for the Vineyard Gazette and allow the ABC an opportunity to adhere to its charter on providing a balanced program. Unlike many of those at the ABC, Australians have measured this government. I am not down on the ABC; I think it is a great broadcaster and I would like to see it never being subjected to privatisation. People like Chris Uhlmann, Leigh Sales and Latika Bourke report the news and give excellent commentary, unlike predecessors such as Kerry O'Brien. People used to bail me up on the street about his adequate and balanced reporting on the ABC.
We have heard that this Treasurer promised to deliver balanced budgets and we were told hundreds of times after last year's budget that he was actually going to deliver a surplus—a wafer-thin $1½ billion surplus. What Australians actually received in this budget was a $19.4 billion blow-out, larger than economists had predicted, yet Australians were not overly surprised as they have become accustomed to bad news from the Gillard government. I am told time and time again in travels across my electorate that they are simply waiting for September to let this government know what they think of their economic management. They manage their household bills and, when they see a government that cannot manage an economy, they are frightened and worried about it continuing. The old saying that they were waiting for Keating on their verandas with baseball bats has now gone in my opinion. They are now sitting with bazookas on their front verandas waiting to deal with this government.
We have demonstrated that this year's budget does not help Australian families deal with the rising cost-of-living pressures. Because Labor has failed to be fiscally responsible Australian families are now paying for Labor's waste and mismanagement. In fact, data released last week by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling underlines the fact that Australian families are paying for Labor's waste. The data shows that the cost of raising a child has risen 50 per cent in the six years of this government, while billions have been wasted on everything from pink batts, school halls and cash for clunkers to cost blowouts on border protection, the NBN and the set-top box programs. I could go on. It is Australian households that are bearing the brunt of this waste and mismanagement. Childcare fees have risen 22 per cent in just two years and our indexation of the childcare rebate is not recommended to be until 2014. Indexation of income thresholds for claiming family payments and FTB supplements are also on hold until 2017, after the next federal election, so two elections away. Increases to Family Tax Benefit Part A payments have been scrapped. This affects more than 11,000 families in the electorate of Canning. Family Tax Benefit Part A arrangements were set to increase up to $300 per eligible families with one child and $600 per families with two children and more. Slated increases to the tax-free threshold have been axed, affecting people earning up to $80,000 a year. The average income of a person living in the Canning electorate is $30,000 a year, based on the ABS figures. The abolition of the baby bonus is also going to hit expectant mothers.
This budget reveals that Labor's total investment in school funding for primary and secondary schools decreases—$325 million over the next four years. In fact the budget clearly shows that over the forward estimates period new or additional money for education will only come from state and territory governments who agree to these Labor proposals and not from the Commonwealth itself. It is a cruel hoax and those advocating give a Gonski are being misled on this issue. In terms of Western Australia, analysis reveals a $229.2 million reduction over three years for school education. Labor's model essentially penalises Western Australia for investing in education over the years. I say to my constituents, 'You deserve better.'
I just wish to talk about the effect of this budget on Western Australia. Many times in this chamber and the House of Representatives I have broached this subject. Anyone who spends any time in Western Australia understands the level of frustration that is felt among locals who can feel the wrath of Canberra pilfering the Western Australian wealth. Perhaps this anger would be lessened if taxpayers knew what the money is being spent on. However, six years of economic mismanagement spiralling debt and wasteful spending have eroded the faith of Western Australians in this government. Premier Barnett is often dismissed by his opponents, particularly the federal Labor Party, when he defends the right of Western Australia to receive its fair share of Commonwealth funding. I often think about Labor Party room and the despair that they must feel and of the daylight robbery. I know how Mark McGowan must feel because he cannot wait to get out of Western Australia every time Julia Gillard comes to the state.
In an article in the West Australian by Gareth Piker on 23 May this year, he pointed out in a heading, 'WA taxes carry a nation', going on to say:
Almost $15 billion more in taxes leaves WA each year than flows back into the State in Commonwealth spending, a WA Treasury analysis shows.
The article points out that net contribution to the other states and territories is a staggering $6,447 for each resident from Western Australia, way beyond that of the other two donor states, New South Wales and Victoria. So WA gives $6,447 per capita, New South Wales gives $301 and Victoria $235. The takers are Northern Territory, $17,058; Tasmania, $6,706; South Australia, $3,087 and Queensland, $1,325. This is in face of the fact that WA's share of the GST is 45c in the dollar. Treasury estimates that Canberra took $42 billion in taxation from WA but only spent $27 billion in the state in 2010-11. That is the most recent data. Treasury sources say the prediction was unlikely to improve as the state budget is handed down.
This compares with the excessive spending on the electorates of the Independents in this House. The member for Lyne and the member for New England have been bathed in money since this government has been in place and we all know why. This government survives on their two votes. It is not fair that states like Western Australia are being milked of their resources when you have this government cravenly wasting money and then pork-barrelling their own electorates. For example, my electorate has received nothing to date from this government under the RDA. And this compares shabbily to the amount of contributions: I have the second-highest number of fly-in fly-out workers anywhere in Australia. They deserve some of their funds to be returned to them. (Time expired)
I rise to add my remarks to the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014 and related bills. This year's budget keeps our economy strong, makes the smart investments for our future and ensures that every Australian gets a fair go. Importantly, the 2013-14 budget sets the National Disability Insurance Scheme in stone—one of the biggest social reforms our country has seen. For too long, successive governments have shunned the opportunity to reform services for the profoundly disabled, leaving behind people with significant and permanent disability, their families and their carers. The government is proud to be changing that. Delivering disability care will ensure the level of support someone receives does not depend on where they live or on the manner in which they acquired the disability. Around 1,850 people in my electorate of Bass will be eligible for support under disability care, which is fantastic.
Australians have a choice in September this year: a choice between Labor protecting jobs, caring about the vulnerable and making the smart investments we need for the future, or the coalition's savage cuts to the bone, and its slash and burn. The member for Warringah's choice would be to cut to the bone so hard that he would put tens of thousands of jobs at risk and grind the economy to a standstill, stopping growth—like President Hoover. The savage cuts of Premier Campbell Newman in Queensland and the Liberals in Victoria are an entree to what will happen if the Liberals win in September. Before the election, the Leader of the Opposition wants you to believe you can have lower taxes, less savings and smaller deficits all at once. Yet we all know that after the election he will slash and burn like his mates in Queensland and Victoria. This is a mindless recipe for higher unemployment and lower growth.
We on this side are governing for the future, investing in infrastructure and working to deliver the NBN. We are looking after regional Australia and thinking about what is important to local communities. For example, in the recent budget it was announced that every Broadband for Seniors kiosk would receive extra funding for a new computer and touchscreen monitor, ensuring seniors can benefit from a wider range of interactive computer applications and programs. There are many kiosks in Bass, at Invermay Bowls and Community Club, Glenara Lakes, Ainslie House in Launceston, Elphinwood Gardens, UAC, Aldersgate Village, Masonic Homes of Northern Tasmania, Fusion Home Support, PCYC Incorporated, Uniting Care Tasmania, Pilgrim Uniting Church, Ainslie House in Low Head, George Town Neighbourhood House, George Town District Hospital and Community Health Centre and Bridport Ex-Service and Community Club—all of which will benefit.
I am also pleased to be able to tell seniors in my electorate of Bass that the federal government is supporting a three-year trial program to support pensioners over pension age to downsize their homes without an immediate effect on their pensions. There are over 9,600 pensioners in Bass who will take part. This is a great opportunity for them. There are also more than 12,600 local pensioners now benefiting from Labor's historic pension reforms including the biggest increase in pensions for 100 years. Since 2007, single pensioners on the maximum rate are receiving $207 a fortnight and couples on the maximum rate are receiving $236 a fortnight combined. We are also looking after families. For many modern families, with mums and dads juggling it all—working, caring for children, managing costs of living pressures and often supporting aged parents. While jobs have always been the federal Labor government's No. 1 priority, we have also had to work hard to help these families deal with the very real pressures that they face. In Bass, 990 local families are benefiting from Australia's first paid parental leave scheme, delivered by federal Labor. Around 80 local dads and their partners are already benefiting from Labor's new dad and partner pay since 1 January 2013, which provides two weeks paid leave to spend time with their new child and their family. More than 6,900 local families with 12,100 schoolkids get help with back-to-school costs each year thanks to the Labor government's Schoolkids Bonus. Eligible families will get $410 for each child in primary school and $820 for each child in high school, paid in two instalments each year.
We are also looking after workers. Approximately 37,000 taxpayers in Bass received a cut on 1 July 2012 and around 31,000 taxpayers received a cut of at least $300, and 3,000 local residents will pay no tax at all, due to the tripling of the tax-free threshold. This will make a big difference to family budgets. The average wage-earner in Bass now pays approximately $2,103 less in income tax than in 2007-08 as a result of Labor's cuts for lower- and middle-income families, which is significant. It is also worth noting that recently I had a jobs expo in my electorate of Bass, where 2,400 people attended and well over 200 full time and part-time jobs were filled. Labor understands the dignity of work and the dignity that work provides.
There are 311 local workers already benefiting from Labor's new Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. This scheme delivers on the government's 2010 election commitment to provide greater certainty for Australian workers. If their employer enters into liquidation or bankruptcy and they cannot pay their full entitlements, like annual leave and redundancy pay—the Leader of the Opposition voted against this—we will protect workers' entitlements. Labor has looked after Bass and I am very pleased with the support Labor has given to my electorate.
Thousands in Bass would be left behind with a coalition government—6,900 eligible families and around 12,100 children if the schoolkids bonus is ripped out. They will cut to the bone, ignore the needs of the future and always ignore those in our community who have no voice. The Gillard government will always act responsibly to prioritise jobs so that the economy works for more people. We know that the biggest threat to the Tasmanian economy is the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is coming under increasing pressure to change the way the GST is distributed and we have just heard from a member from Western Australia. They are into GST, don't worry about that.
Let me inform the House that the Liberal candidates in Tasmania have been espousing that the only way the GST formula can be changed is by agreement with all state premiers. This is not the case. The distribution of GST is determined by the Treasurer. It is the Treasurer who signs the determination of state revenue-sharing relativities that are used to distribute the GST, under section 8 of the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009. It is not something that is agreed with by the states or requires change; only the Treasurer. There is a requirement that the states are consulted, but the Treasurer has full discretion. It is for this reason that Tasmanians and South Australians are worried. Tasmanians are worried that the GST could take away from our state, resulting in massive cuts to essential services, like hospitals and education.
Treasurer Wayne Swan has assured Tasmanians that the Australian government will support the principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation. The Liberals are hopelessly divided on this issue. The Liberal premiers of Queensland and Western Australia believe they deserve a bigger piece of the pie and the Leader of the Opposition has said he is sympathetic to their concerns. In fact, he says one thing to those states and then comes to Tasmania and says something completely different. What we have to do some time or other is get it in writing—because that is what he says you can believe.
It is clear that if the member for North Sydney, Joe Hockey, becomes Treasurer he could decimate Tasmania's revenue with the stroke of a pen. Do we trust Joe? No. They have free rein to make their own decisions, and that is a $600-million risk to Tasmania's finances. Labor has worked hard to protect jobs and support families and that is what it will keep doing. The Prime Minister has a plan to strengthen our economy, to grow jobs beyond mining and support families so that no one gets left behind.
Throughout the GFC, Labor focused on keeping people in jobs, creating new apprenticeships and maintaining economic growth. Australia has triple-A status for the first time, one of only eight countries in the world with a 12-biggest economy, up from 15. With Labor, our economy has grown more than six times faster than Germany and the United States. We are helping families, working hard to protect jobs and investing in the future.
Those opposite have had a negative, disruptive five years in opposition and they have been too lazy to come up with a plan. Their document that was released in Tasmania this week is supposed to be a plan. It is no plan. It is all smoke and mirrors—and mostly mirrors because all they are going to do is look into it.
I rise to speak on the appropriation bills for 2013-14. Where does one start? Perhaps we should go back to 2007. We had the economy growing strongly. We had record low unemployment. The previous coalition government had fixed the problem that we had on our borders. Our borders were secure. The budget was under control. The previous coalition government had paid back $96 billion of the previous government's debt. What often gets forgotten is that not only did they pay back that $96 billion but along the way they also paid $57 billion worth of interest. So they paid back the $96 billion in debt and $57 billion in interest repayments. On top of that, they put $45 billion in reserve in the Future Fund. It often amazes me when I come into this place and hear members from the other side saying that the Howard government never did this and never did that. They had to pay back $150 billion of Labor's past debt and deal with that first before they could put aside $45 billion in the Future Fund.
That was back in 2007. Then of course we had the then opposition leader, Mr Rudd, acting as a John Howard light and convincing the Australian population that he should be given a go: 'It'll be all right. We'll continue. I'm a fiscal conservative'—I remember the words. That was back in 2007. Here we are with the Labor government delivering five deficits in a row, the five largest deficits in our nation's history—$192 billion combined budget deficits.
This year, after promising us a surplus, we end up with a $19.4 billion deficit, and we are still counting. The financial year is not over. I know there is talk about banning live odds. I would like to bet a few dollars that that $19.4 billion will blow out and be a lot more by the time the final figure is weighed in—coincidentally, after the election. Next year we are promised a deficit of $18 billion and the following year still another deficit.
I remember sitting down in the House 12 months ago when the Treasurer delivered his budget speech. I have a copy of it here. The budget speech delivered on 8 May 2012. He said:
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Treasurer started:
The four years of surpluses I announce tonight are a powerful …
What a complete load of crock. He went on:
This budget delivers a surplus this coming year, on time, as promised, and surpluses each year after that, strengthening over time.
It goes on. The Treasurer also said:
The deficit years of the global recession are behind us. The surplus years are here.
He continued:
Surpluses that provide a buffer against global uncertainty, and continue to give the Reserve Bank room to cut interest rates for families—
And again:
… we're balancing the books.
What an absolute farce!
But it was not just in the budget speech. Take some of the other comments that we heard from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. Here we have the Prime Minister on the Today show in November 2010. The Prime Minister said:
The Budget will be back in the black, back in surplus, in 2012-13.
Laurie Oakes said, 'Guaranteed?' The Prime Minister said, 'Yes.'
Then of course we had the Treasurer on the Sunrise program on 18 August 2010. The Treasurer said:
Well, we're getting back into surplus in three years, Kochie.
David Koch responded:
Okay, come hell or high water?
The Treasurer said:
Come hell or high water.
And of course it goes on.
Then we had the Prime Minister in a speech on 13 April 2011 when she said:
My commitment to a budget surplus in 2012-13 was a promise made and it will be honoured.
We saw that promise broken. It was not honoured on budget night just a few weeks ago.
This language is detrimental to every elected official in our country. As politicians, we try to think that we do the right thing and have a proud reputation, but when we have a Prime Minister and a Treasurer that make statements like that time after time after time and when that is on top of the promise that there 'will be no carbon tax under the government I lead', is there any wonder that the public out there simply do not believe a word the government says? When they come in now and make all these grandiose promises, the public is simply taking them with a grain of salt.
When we talk about the debt and the failure to deliver a surplus and delivering none out of five and not being able to produce a surplus and running up the deficit, what does this actually mean to the public? If you look at this year's Budget Paper No. 1, page 10/9, 'Australian Government general government sector net debt and net interest payments', it shows the cost to the community.
If we go back to the last year of the Howard government, 2007-08, we actually had $45 billion in the bank. On that the country was earning $1,196 million in interest—$1,196 million was coming into the government revenue before we collected a cent of tax. If we look at that across the 150 electorates, that was $8 million for each of our 150 electorates coming into the country, that we could have done things with. Mr Deputy Speaker Symon, I am sure that in your electorate there are a lot of things that you could do with $8 million. I know I certainly could have. That money of course has all gone—spent—and of course the debt has been racked up year after year after year.
In this year and the next three years there is the interest that we must repay. Forget paying off any of the principal, just the interest alone. I will go through the numbers. This year we have to pay $8,238 million in interest. Next year it is an estimated $7.8 billion. In 2014 it is estimated at $8.4 billion and in 2015-16 it is estimated at $9.7 billion. This year and for the next three we as a nation must pay back in interest only, mainly to overseas foreign interests, $34.23 billion. That is $34,230 million that has to come from the pockets of the taxpayers of this nation and we send it mainly overseas just to pay the debt that this government has racked up. That is the cost. That works out at close to $1,500 for every man, woman and child in this country. Or $6,000 for every household of four. That is what is going to have to be taken out of their pockets to pay for the waste, the mismanagement and the dysfunction of this government. That is why we go on about the debt; that is why it is important to deliver surpluses; that is why this reckless spending must come to an end.
I could go on for hours and hours and hours about many objectionable things in this budget. In the remaining time, I would like to raise just a few. Firstly, the cuts to the self-education expenditures. The government has capped that amount at $2,000. How can we do this? How can we stand here and claim we want to be the clever country and talk about investing in skills, and yet we cut that rebate, the tax-free threshold, the tax break, down to $2,000? There are many industries where $2,000 worth of educational expenses can be spent in a day, especially in our professions. This policy is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.
Secondly, we come to Labor's carbon tax: a farce and a deception from day 1. The world does not owe us a living. The only way we can maintain our standard of living and to grow our prosperity is to make sure our nation maintains and protects its competitive advantage. The carbon tax trashes our competitive advantage. Of course we know the carbon tax is ready to go up. It will go up at the end of June and it is also set to go up the following year. And then it goes back to the European ETS.
When we look at the pricing assumptions, we see in 2015-16 that somehow the government forecasts that will be $12.10 and yet the current European forward price is less than $6. This is just incredible. The Treasury is basically saying—they have picked a commodity that the Treasury believe they have greater forecasting than all of the other modellers in the world, all of the other forecasters in the world, and they are telling us that the forecasting and the forward prices are actually half. If that is the case, if Treasury is so confident, we should go out and spend billions of dollars buying up these European carbon credits at $6 because our Treasury tells us it is going to go to $12.
And guess what: it gets better. They say that in 2019-20, this will be more than $35. These forecasts are a farce. They make a complete farce of Treasury forecasts and they question the autonomy of our Treasury and the accuracy of their forecasts. But it is not only that way with carbon tax, it is also the same with the mining tax. All of a sudden the mining tax—that tax has hardly raised any revenue and yet we are expecting these massive increases in the mining tax—going up and up and up—contrary to every other forecast.
Then we have the asylum seekers, a $400 million industry created by the Labor government. No doubt there are people smugglers throughout the world who will be cheering for a Labor victory on 14 September. We know we have had 40,000 arrivals on more than 680 boats since this Labor government reversed the Howard government policies. To put that in context: over four years we had three fleets that settled this country—the First Fleet, the Second Fleet and the Third Fleet. Those three fleets consisted of 26 ships and 4,000 people. We have had more than 10 times that arrive under this Labor government.
As I said, I could go on and on and on, but one thing that does concern me is what this government has promised on the NDIS. There is no-one in this chamber who wants to see a National Disability Insurance Scheme delivered more than I do. But, when we have a look at the numbers, the spending does not actually roll in until 2016-17. In fact, for the next three years, there is even less spending than the Productivity Commission recommended.
This budget is a farce. It is built on dodgy figures. The Australian people deserve better. On 14 September, there is a tsunami coming. We are going to see Labor members of this parliament wiped out from coast to coast. (Time expired)
I really do try to be positive, but that was an absolute nonsense comment. First and foremost, I do not doubt the member's sincerity in wanting an NDIS, but without Labor you would not have one, full stop. As for Tony Abbott, he has agreed to our NDIS program and our project. I have to say in terms of the budget—on which I heard a waffle emanating from the other side—that our budget was so bad that they are going to accept it! So hello, hallelujah! Talk about a load of waffle—and do not be too sure about your tsunami, cobber. You know, the old weather forecasts are not that good at times. In your arrogance, that is fine, but be it on your head when the results come in.
Anyway, I am very pleased to support this budget through the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014 and related bills. It is a historic budget because it is in the Labor tradition of having a fair go—
An opposition member: The Labor tradition of debt!
and this year's budget highlight—which you are going to accept, by the way. You are going to accept it, so settle down.
Order! I remind everyone that use of the word 'you' is inappropriate. Members should direct their remarks through the chair.
That is novel. That is very good. Thank you. You are absolutely correct. We are locking in a long-term funding model for the historic needs based investments in DisabilityCare Australia—locked in, over time, based on need—and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, along with the reformative National Plan for School Improvement, based on the Gonski review. The principles behind it? Fairness, equity and based on need. These are two needs based reform programs of historic proportions introduced by Labor and here to make it better for our disabled citizens, their families and those who care for them and also for our students in every one of our schools.
I strongly believe in DisabilityCare Australia and the National Plan for School Improvement. This will go down in history as part and parcel of the great Labor reforms like the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the envy of the world; the Medicare system that we have, the envy of the world; and floating the Australian dollar—well, that is not the envy of the world, but it was very important for the economic development of Australia. These are proud achievements. These are Labor government achievements. No amount of waffle emanating from the other side is ever going to be able to deny that.
We have provided in our budget $14.3 billion over seven years to 2018-19 to roll out DisabilityCare Australia nationally, on top of—that is on top of—existing Commonwealth disability funding. DisabilityCare Australia requires a strong and stable funding stream to provide Australians with a disability, their families and their carers with the funding certainty they deserve, so they can have confidence that this vital reform will be locked in place. Come on board, states and territories of Australia. Do not worry about this government; worry about those governments, particularly coalition governments, Liberal governments in particular, and this so-called coalition opposition.
DisabilityCare would be especially important for families with children with disability, the scheme having a very strong focus on early intervention support. We know how early intervention services like physio, speech therapy and support for learning difficulties are critical in giving children the best possible start in life. DisabilityCare will mean that children with a disability get the right support early in their lives so they can reach their full potential as adults.
When the scheme is rolled out nationally in 2019-20, around 460,000 Australians with significant and permanent disability will get the support they deserve. In Tasmania, this means that around 11,000 people with disability will be supported by 2019-20. This enduring reform will greatly benefit the country and my region in particular where more than 2,100 people with a disability will be supported on an individual needs basis. This is great for the country, it is great for my state and it is great for my region but, most importantly, this will make a huge difference to individuals and families.
Two local constituents of mine relayed to me their perspectives of DisabilityCare as mothers of profoundly disabled adults. I would like to share those perspectives. They see a better future for the parents and carers of children with a disability. It is fantastic to hear 'a better future'. Before DisabilityCare, people would have to endure waiting lists to get equipment, indeed, sometimes for three or four or more years. There will be no more patching and making do to make something like a wheelchair last until your name finally comes up on the list for replacement. Parents and carers will not be reduced to essentially begging service clubs to assist in funding equipment and services. Indeed, how often have we seen families and friends fundraising for the disabled, trying to get funds from here and there to put towards an important piece of new or up-to-date equipment or to maintain worn out equipment?
DisabilityCare will take the stress out of crisis situations. Carers, parents and disabled persons will be supported in a crisis. Parents will be given piece of mind for the future. It is common for parents and carers to have a dread that in their death or their inability to continue to care, the disabled person will not be taken care of in a suitable manner. I can only begin to imagine what it would be like as a parent or close relative caring for a disabled family member to worry about what would happen to them once the parent became too old to properly care for them or became sick or even died. Having certitude of care and funding will be an enormous relief.
There will also be freedom of choice and not just that but more choices. No longer will the disabled have to accept mediocrity often because that is all there is available. Disability will also be more 'in the face' of the public. There will be more awareness, more acceptance and less social stigma. The disabled will be able to be matched to their abilities, not their disabilities, in the workplace and in social settings.
I thank these two mums for their thoughts and also for the great service they do for their respective children and the community. They, like so many other parents, families, friends and supporters of the disabled have campaigned long and hard for reform. I know how hard it has been to be heard and how abandoned at times they have felt. As government members and as a parliament, all of us in this chamber have legislated and now budgeted to make their lives and their children's lives better. It is a reform that every Australian should be proud of.
When it comes to the important area of school funding, the Gonski review highlighted what everyone already knew—that our school funding model needs to change. The emphasis should be and must be on needs. Too many schools and students are being left behind. Our school results have not been improving as much as they could, certainly in comparative terms. That is what the National Plan for School Improvement will change. This historic reform to school funding will create better Australian schools for generations to come, ensuring our classrooms, our teachers and our students are properly resourced. We can reach our goal of being in the top five education systems in the world by 2025. We need to keep pace with the rest of the world because investing in creating a smarter country will lead to economic opportunity and prosperity. It is not enough to be a clever country. We need to be smarter as well. Investment will increase year by year throughout the six-year period of the agreement.
This is the most comprehensive reform of school funding for 40 years. The plan will establish a national schooling resource standard, which includes a benchmark for student amount and extra money through loadings for students we know need it most. Loadings will be available to students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, Indigenous students, students with limited English and students with disability and will reflect school location and size. By making every school a better school, we will help young Australians get the best possible education to seek to secure a high-wage, high-skilled job for the future.
Unfortunately, in my electorate of Braddon, we have some of the highest levels of disadvantage in terms of educational indices. These programs are going to advantage my region and hopefully bring us in line with the rest of the country. This goes for all my schools in my region. The NSP will also be complemented with funding to improve and enhance teacher quality and training, expand local school decision making, and further develop high quality programs to improve literacy and numeracy as well as resource our classrooms so that all students can learn in the best of teaching and learning spaces, using the most contemporary of IT communications and research platforms. One of these, of course, is the National Broadband Network with all its unlimited potentialities and capacities. Unfortunately, those opposite not only oppose the NSP and the needs based funding and resourcing model it is premised on but they also oppose the future by opposing the NBN.
The National Plan for School Improvement and DisabilityCare are not just social and educational reforms, as important as they are, but they are also significant fundamental economic reforms. Needs based funding in the Labor tradition leads to a country where no-one is left behind due to where they live or their physical limitations. This leads to a country where everyone can reach their potential and be contributors to the nation's society both economically and socially. This is a better Australia, an Australia with and supportive of opportunity.
The budget strengthens the foundation of Australian agriculture, contrary to the views of some of those opposite. It prepares our farmers for future challenges and lays the groundwork for the opportunities of the Asian century which was absolutely reinforced on Saturday in Brisbane by the Minister for Agriculture Joe Ludwig and our significant resourcing of something like $40 million into the National Food Plan with a whole host of national initiatives associated with it, particularly the $28.5 million investing in an Asian food market research fund and to support the whole Asian century push and thrust both of the economy and in particular in relation to the food and fibre industry of this nation. It has been well received by the National Farmers Federation and other significant agricultural and agribusiness associations and organisations.
I congratulate the minister on this plan, along with the very important reforms that were announced most recently and budgeted for in the budget, particularly in terms of the National Drought Program Reform and the household allowance system that we have developed in its place and also importantly the investment in national farm assistance packages to assist those farmers and those viable organisations in our rural and regional Australia to cope with the difficulties that they are being challenged with at the moment—a whole complement of factors and influences—to allow them to try and get them through these challenges and at the same time to provide a pre-emptive tool for rural and regional Australia, particularly in relation to drought and its effects. I wish to reiterate the good work of Minister Ludwig, particularly on those programs and the National Food Plan recently announced.
The budget in terms of my electorate was very supportive with something like $119.6 million towards the Tasmanian freight revitalisation program. This will improve safety, reliability and competitiveness of Tasmania's rail network including upgrades to the West Coast Melba line and particularly in anticipation of the responsible economic development of mines in our region. I was very pleased to be at a mass pro-mining rally on the weekend at Tullah on the West Coast where the community sentiment was very clear that they want and support responsible economic development along with the proper protection of the environment where it is appropriate and necessary and that they want people, particularly from the hard Green side of politics, to accept balance.
Unfortunately we do not have much to look forward to on that side of things at the moment, because they are prepared to used every legal means to oppose any successful application agreed to by the Tasmanian government and the federal government. I thank Minister Burke for the fact that he did not list the entire Tarkine region on the national estate, but certainly significant Aboriginal sites and culture were recognised and for his acceptance of the application for Shree Minerals. I look forward to further applications from venture minerals on the west coast being successful. At the same time we can be assured that we will protect our very important very environment. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill No. 1. The people of the Hasluck community do not claim to be wealthy nor do they cry poor. People in the community are quiet achievers, getting on with the business of life without too much complaint and fuss. The community is not particularly vocal about government policy and usually just adjusts to the changes that affect their lives without too much drama. But as I have been out door-knocking in my community and meeting people at local events, I am hearing more and more stories about individuals and families who are struggling under this government. I am hearing stories about families who are struggling to pay the ever increasing costs of private health insurance, struggling to pay for their weekly grocery bill which seems to be forever rising and struggling to pay for the electricity bills which have gone up directly due to the carbon tax. Essentially they are struggling because the decisions of this government are making it difficult for them to get on with their lives. They are facing additional pressure because this government is putting in place more plans which are costing their families.
This budget has provided more of the same that this government has been serving up since its election in 2007. This budget has yet again shown this government's true colours—taking a direct hit to the people of my electorate and around Australia, making it more difficult for families to make ends meet. Not only does this budget do nothing to help families deal with the rising cost-of-living pressures, it adds further uncertainty to their future outlook, making it even more difficult to plan ahead. What we knew before and was evidenced again in this year's budget was that this Labor government's financial and budget management is in complete chaos. This year's budget offering delivers more debt, more deficits, more taxes, more broken promises and more uncertainty. If we did not think that this could get much worse after the previous six years of chaos, debt and spin, it could. What this government seems to have failed to realise is that Australians are desperately seeking stable and competent economic management. They are seeking an end to the perpetual chaos they are experiencing at the hands of this government and they are instead looking for a government they trust to manage the economy. Above all, they are seeking for hope, reward and opportunity.
For the last five years this Labor government has been unable to deliver a budget surplus. It has been unable to deliver any kind of credible economic plan. This government wants us to believe that they will deliver a plan for the next decade. Deputy Speaker, forgive me if I seem somewhat cynical about this prospect. With the announcement of the fifth record budget deficit in five years and an increasing record level of net debt—now at $192 billion—it is laughable to suggest that this government is able to provide sound economic judgement about the decade ahead. The positive news for the people of the community of Hasluck and all around Australia is that the coalition does have a strong, positive plan for the future and one that we will deliver economic stability and one that will provide hope, reward and opportunity.
The coalition has a plan that will offer immediate relief to the many families in my electorate who have gradually been experiencing the squeeze of the rising cost of living that is a direct result of the actions of this government. To my colleague on the other side, to begin with our mindset is completely different to this Labor government. We do not believe that governments have money of their own. We believe that government money is the people's money. Today's spending is tomorrow's borrowing and next year's repayment. Governments have a responsibility to spend money wisely. Just as families and businesses need to live within their means, governments also have to live within their means. This is a vital lesson that it would seem this government has missed. The coalition does not take money for granted and we do not believe any government should. I am concerned that with this budget and those before it it is clear that this government has taken the budget and the economy for granted. Year after year it would seem that this government is adding to the mortgage simply to pay the grocery bill. This reckless and wasteful approach to the budget needs to stop and responsible government needs—
Ho nourable member interjecting—
Don't worry; we will teach you. This government was so determined to introduce a mining tax and a carbon tax, yet it was unable to get the figures right. So bad was this government's prediction about the budget that we saw this year's supposed revenue shortfall go from $6 billion to $12 billion, to $17 billion, and this all happened within the space of a mere few weeks—record Labor debt. The budget papers reveal that Australia's gross debt will breach Labor's $300 billion debt ceiling within the forward estimates. The budget papers foreshadow a further increase in the debt ceiling stating that:
The government will legislate to increase the limit as it becomes necessary.
At the last election, Prime Minister Julia Gillard promised that Australia's net debt would peak at less than 90 billion. This budget reveals that the net debt will now peak at over $191 billion, more than double what was promised by the Prime Minister. The Treasurer has delivered his fifth record deficit in five years, with at least two more years of deficits to follow. This will be Labor's 12th deficit from its last 12 budgets. The last Labor surplus was in 1989. Last year the Treasurer promised a surplus of 1.5 million, but instead he has delivered a deficit of more than 12 times as big at 19.4 billion. This Labor government is addicted to spending, contrary to what Labor is claiming.
Mr Champion interjecting—
It has a spending problem; not a revenue problem, Member for Wakefield. Revenue in 2013-14 is projected to be $80 billion higher than at the end of the Howard government, yet the Treasurer plans to deliver his sixth deficit in a row because spending in 2013-14 will be at $120 billion higher than at the end of the Howard government. In his budget speech, the Treasurer blames the high Australian dollar for having savaged revenues, yet this was one assumption in last year's budget which was actually right. With Australia's terms of trade still extraordinarily high, 15 per cent higher than at any other time during the Howard government, the budget should be back in surplus, but over the last five years the government has spent $192 billion more than it has raised. Expenditure as a percentage of GDP has been higher every year under Labor compared to the last years of the Howard government.
Labor's planned return to surplus is not credible and presents a potential black hole for future budgets. The claim of surpluses in the two out years relies on virtually no further deterioration in the terms of trade in the next two years. This is a heroic assumption and puts at risk the projected small surpluses in the two out years. It assumes that the terms of trade will remain far higher than in any year of the previous coalition government. The great big disappointing mining tax has become problematic. The forecast revenues for the mining tax personally and secretly negotiated by the Prime Minister in June 2010 have collapsed from $22.5 billion to $3.3 billion over its first four years. Mining tax revenue in 2012-13 is a staggering 95 per cent below the Treasurer's original MRRT revenue forecast and the spreading benefits of the boom package, which was the centrepiece of the Treasurer's last three budgets, seem to have been deleted altogether from the budget papers. Despite the comprehensive failure of the mining tax to raise any meaningful revenue so far, the Treasurer's 2016-17 surplus promises rely on mining tax revenue increasing by more than 10 times from its level this year. This government is clearly out of its depth when it comes to the budget. Australia needs to get back on track and it cannot afford another term under a Labor government.
This year there is a clear choice for Australians to make. On one hand, under Labor there is more chaos, more confusion, more instability and greater spending. On the other hand, under a coalition government there will be stability, security and confidence in Australia. There will be hope, reward and opportunity. The coalition has a plan with practical, real solutions to get Australia back on track. We will take pressure off families and deal with Labor's budget emergency, building a stronger, more prosperous economy. The coalition has practical solutions to help families of my electorate and across Australia cope with the ever-increasing cost-of-living pressures they are facing. The coalition will continue with the current income tax thresholds as well as the current pension and fortnightly benefit rates. We will do this by getting rid of the carbon tax to provide an instant relief to household budgets. We will also require the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to make sure that prices do not remain artificially raised when we abolish the carbon tax, ensuring that households are the ones to benefit from the removal of the carbon tax.
Since this Labor government came to power in 2007, electricity prices have risen by 94 per cent and gas has gone up by 62 per cent. This is an incredible burden, contributing to the cost-of-living pressures on families, made much worse by the carbon tax. Unlike this Labor government, we in the coalition want to ensure that families and individuals are able to get ahead in life. I want to see my community, a community full of hardworking families and individuals, have every opportunity available to them. I want to see a stronger, more connected, more sustainable local community. That is why I am pleased to be able to support the many coalition initiatives, which stand in stark contrast to what this Labor government has shown us in this year's budget.
One example of this is internet connectivity. In my community, there are many families, students and businesses who are disadvantaged by their inability to access broadband internet. There are black spots in areas that the government has not serviced through the NBN. Despite the promises of the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, to provide fast broadband for all Australians by this year at a cost of $4.7 billion, there are many residents who are missing out while the government's NBN languishes behind schedule and is dramatically over cost, with predictions it will cost up to $90 billion all told. The residents of the black spot areas in my community include those in the suburbs of Thornlie, Southern River, Huntingdale and Gooseberry Hill. They should not be missing out on the internet because it is simply not politically convenient for this government. Only the coalition will deliver an NBN to these black-spot areas as a matter of priority, because we understand the importance of families and local businesses being able to access broadband internet. We will deliver broadband to all households by 2016, doubling the speed by the end of 2019. This will make a practical, positive difference to the lives of members of my community.
Another way that the coalition will make a real and practical difference is through investing in key infrastructure for Australia's future. For too long, there has been no plan for future growth and no plan to encourage investment in Australian infrastructure. Even now, this government has failed to address the problem. The Property Council of Australia has identified:
Yet again, the government is making it harder to attract capital to Australia on the basis of Treasury's inadequate, cherry-picked analysis of global regimes.
In my community, which is experiencing significant growth due to the mining sector, infrastructure investment is not only desirable; it is necessary to ensure a future of sustainability.
I wish to bring to the attention of the parliament today a very important matter concerning the Yaralla Estate, in the heart of my electorate of Reid, at Concord. The estate was vested in the Crown under the Walker Trusts Act 1938 in a magnificent act of philanthropy by the late Dame Eadith Walker. The New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage acknowledges that the Yaralla Estate at Concord is the largest community bequest of its era, being of circa 37 hectares, to survive in an intact form in New South Wales.
The New South Wales Ministry of Health Sydney South West Area Health Service, the SSWAHS, is the present Crown authority responsible for the control, management and administration of the property. In an attempt to move the New South Wales Mounted Police Unit from their Redfern base, the New South Wales O'Farrell government, through the Ministry of Health, had entered into a sweetheart deal to relocate the New South Wales Mounted Police here and evict the current horse owners and assessment lessee from the site. No tender process was entered into. Only now, after the howls of understandable protest from local residents, has the New South Wales Liberal government backed down, but only to quash the previous decision in favour of a tender process which the local community has no confidence in. This does not go far enough, and the O'Farrell government should cancel the notice of eviction and allow the people and the horses to stay on this beautiful environmental oasis. This site was intended to remain for the use and benefit of the people and, quite frankly, this plan goes against the philanthropic acts of Dame Eadith Walker.
Yesterday, I attended a very emotionally charged rally of hundreds of local residents, who are campaigning to save Yaralla and, in particular, allow the horses and their owners to have access to this beautiful land. The rally was held on the site, complete with horses and owners. I wish to read out the very heartfelt address delivered to the people attending the rally by one of my constituents, Ms Alex Gavel. Alex is a local schoolteacher who, here in Canberra, captured the mood of the local people that I represent about the future of the Yaralla Estate. These are Alex's magnificent words:
On behalf of the Yaralla Horses, their owners, and the greater community let us express how thankful we are for the many faces that are here today. It is your passion and encouragement for this plight that inspires us to keep pushing forward in our cause, on your behalf. And it truly is OUR cause. We believe that this issue affects everyone.
Some of you live next door, some agist horses, some walk their dogs, bike ride through the grounds or bring their children to visit the horses.
Yaralla belongs to all of us.
There are many who have felt the need to question our integrity or motivations, claiming that we are just a small 'self-interest group'. Today we would like to set the record straight and tell you some of our story.
My name is Alexandra Gavel. I agist a horse at Yaralla, and consider myself, first and foremost, a member of this amazing community. I was born in the inner-west, I have grown up in the inner west, and I still live and work in the inner west.
Anyone that has had the opportunity to keep their horse at Yaralla, both in the past and present, have always considered it a privilege. But we are by no means a 'privileged' group. We are fellow members of your community, ordinary people!. I am a school teacher at a local high school. There are teenagers that ride their bikes after school to care for their horses, Uni students, parents, a child care worker, health care workers, air craft pilots, government workers, life long residents of Concord West and even the local dog groomer.
I was a 10 year old girl, absolutely obsessed with horses. Every Christmas, every birthday, in fact every day, I pleaded with my parents to buy me a horse. Yet the closest I would ever get was an occasional excursion to a trail riding establishment. Horses were all I ever thought about. As an adult, I actually feel bad for the guilt trips that I put on my parents who were raising three kids, struggling with the expenses of daily living and completely unable to afford the upkeep and care of a horse.
In 1996 a compromise was made and I will never forget the day that I discovered Yaralla Estate. My Dad had heard through a friend about the paddocks at Concord and so he told me we could have a look. Most people here today know the feeling that the 10 year old me was struck by when we drove through the top gates. The disbelief that a place so beautiful existed so close to home, the joy in seeing horses grazing and people riding, and the immediate respect for a very special person who left her property to the people to continue to enjoy as she had.... Thank You Dame Edith Walker for your gift thus far.
We barely made it through the gates when, under direct instruction, we pulled over. The very first horse that I met was Seamus, who still resides at Yaralla, though long retired now. I am sure I petted every horse there that day; Annie, Amber, Buddy, another Buddy, Romeo and Mikail just to name a few.
But the most special pony that I met that day was Willie, otherwise known as 'Yaralla's Captain Willie'. Willie had been one of the first horses on the property and had begun his time at Concord sharing a paddock with cattle. Willie had taught numerous children how to ride and care for horses including me.
My dreams were starting to come true. The opportunity presented itself to lease Willie on weekends. I am sure my parents only consented to this as it was the perfect way for me to learn just how time consuming and difficult it is to care for a horse... Unfortunately for them, this arrangement made me even more committed to my life goal of owning a horse.
Willie passed away 2 years ago in his paddock at Yaralla at the impressive age of 37.... it was a sad day for the Yaralla horse community.
When I finished school the first thing I did was get a job, then a horse. At 17 years old I got my first horse Wiskey, who is here today. Not only has Wiskey taught me so many lessons in the 11 years that we have been together, he has had the privilege of teaching many local kids and adults how to ride.
I cannot explain to you how perceptive Wiskey is. Whenever I am dealing with a lot and feeling completely lost and overwhelmed, it still amazes me how he is able to clear my mind- often best done with a game of hide and seek. These horses are our best friends, our children in some respects. This community has always respected and valued their place in the Inner West. Many residents know the horses by their names, some have even made up their own names for them. But it seems that SLHD think that a 'horse is a horse' and that they can be replaced... according to our critics we need to 'accept change and move on'.
Many of you will agree that Yaralla isn't just about the horses, and that is true for the horse owners as well. Many of us have other ties to the estate that make it so precious. One of the horse owners, a life long resident of concord has shared this unique place with her family. She spent much of her youth around the estate, has raised her 3 kids there, supported her mother through her dialysis treatment at the main house and shared her father's last moments when he suddenly passed away on the estate. Yaralla has always held a special place in my heart too as a place that I have shared over the years with my dad, and as of December my connection to the estate has become even stronger as my fiancé proposed to me at the stairs to the main house. I have no doubt that every person here today has some special memory of Yaralla that they hold dear.
We have finally been given the 'report' that was the basis of our eviction. As a school teacher, let me just state that to call it a 'professional report' is a stretch of the imagination. SLHD have expressed to us that it was written by supposed 'experts' in the field. However, the truth is that it was produced by a project management consultancy with political links to the State Govrenment and SLHD and nowhere in the report are any references made to expert opinions, best practice guidelines or research evidence. The report also discusses the Mounted Police Unit as a preferred tenant, proving that the very purpose of the report was to install the Mounted Police at Yaralla. The decision was already made to evict the current horse owners and the report was commissioned and carried out by SLHD to serve that very purpose. BlueVisions was provided with their briefing … Out with the community and their horses!
Let us make it clear, the purpose of our campaign is not, and never will be, a vendetta against the Mounted Police, nor are we insensitive to the important role this unit fulfills. We respect and commend the Mounted Police for their service to the wider community. However, we fail to see how this nullifies the wishes of Dame Edith Walker to leave the grounds to the people of NSW for the purpose of housing local horses, for Health services and for public space. This is exactly how the grounds have been used for more than 3 decades.
In addition, the Mounted Police, whilst proposing to house horses on the grounds, are a government department none the less. A number of attempts have already been made in years gone by to develop the site. Should another attempt be made, we fear that a fellow government department is far less likely to put up as much of a fight to preserve the site as we have and that this invaluable community resource would be lost forever.
The fact is that Sydney Local Health District—
that is, SLHD—
is a trustee of the land, without ownership of it. Their reasons for eviction are unfounded, biased and in some cases unsubstantiated and completely unfair. Whether lawful or not, their actions are not in the interests of the community and at very least contravene the philanthropist intentions of the Walker Estate when the property was bequeath to the people of NSW.
Do we have a vested interest in the property continuing to function as it has? Yes we do. Indeed, it is our argument that the entire community shares this interest …Yaralla should stay as it is and be used as it is for many generations to come.
So where do we stand now?
SLHD have cancelled their dodgy deal with the Mounted Police Unit and will be putting the Yaralla paddocks out to 'open tender', with the Mounted Police still being identified in a recent Risk assessent report commissioned by the SLHD as the unanimous preferred candidates. Not quite a step forward, merely an attempt to undo their most obvious wrong doing that this community held them accountable for.
However, there is still no certainty that the communities concerns will be considered. How can we be sure that the criteria set by SLHD does not favour a certain applicant such as the MPU? How can we know that the Mounted Police Unit won't just happen to be the 'most ideal' and preferred applicant identified by an O'Farrel government/ SLHD panel.
Regardless of the change in process, the agenda remains unchanged. The Mounted Police were the favored tenant all along and no one in the community should trust that this will be a fair and open process.
Speaking of fair, open and honest …Everyone would have passed the barrier fencing along the Yaralla Driveway today … I ask … how many of you have walked across that land in the last 5 years?? How many of you witnessed in shock as I did the men in masks and suits digging up the dirt??
It has been noted by SLHD that "hazardous" and contaminated waste was identified and subsequently removed from this site within the last 3 days. Workcover has visited the site and informed some residents of the Estate concerned with the acitivities, that it was indeed asbestos that the SLHD had commissioned to move, and it states as such on the workcover applications submitted by contractors.
Why were was there no community announcement, why were the people who access Yaralla not told of the immenent danger or risk and at least provided with a request to avoid the area during the de-contamination phase? … Shame on you SLHD … You continue to cling to your excuses, and your blazae fair regard for the degraded state of the Yaralla paddocks … You state it is due to your expert focus on the provision of Health Care services that you have overlooked our beloved Yaralla … You state you are not experts in management of horse paddocks … Well, I am pretty sure that failure to notify the community and neighbours of Yaralla of asbestos removal on this crown land accessible to the public is a direct and intolerable breach of your duty of care as elite public health care providers!!!
Despite all the opposition that we face, we still believe a solution does exist that will benefit the entire community.
SLHD have continually reminded us throughout our campaign that they 'don't do horses', their priority is local health.
Well guess what—NSW mounted police have a priority too—policing. There is absolutely no guarantee that they have the resources to ensure the upkeep of Yaralla. In fact, if the state of their other spelling facilities around the state is evidence of anything, it is that they are NOT ideal tenants for Yaralla.
Solution—our very own Canada Bay Council IS in the business of managing community spaces. The most obvious way to ensure that the Yaralla paddocks remain a public space is for the Canada Bay Council to manage an interim licence and to apply for the public tender. They can oversee its maintenance and use where the SLHD fell well short of their responsibilities.
Of course, this is easier said than done. The Mayor Angelo Tsirekas has strongly committed to exploring this option, but we, as the community, need to communicate how important this is to us that council support this community campaign for Yaralla.
There is still a bigger issue at hand. As a community we cannot just overlook the gross negligence that SLHD have demonstrated over the past 17 years. As trustees of the Estate there is simply no excuse for the poor dilapidated condition that they allowed the main estate building fall into, regardless of their very recent attempts to prepare it for its new purpose.
There is absolutely no excuse for the lack of care, lack of inspections and lack of support for the condition of the paddocks. Someone needs to be held accountable for this Dr. Anderson CE of the SLHD and Chairman of the Board Ron Phillips.
There is absolutely no excuse for putting the health of the community at risk by dumping hazardous waste on the property. As mentioned previously it has come to our attention late this week that 'hazardous waste' that was dumped as landfill on the estate approximately 4 years ago, known to volunteer members of the Local Heritage society, contains Asbestos. Community members it is time for us all to be outraged with the SLHD. What they have done is completely illegal, completely dishonest and absolutely disgusting!
We must hold the trustees accountable for their gross negligence by pushing that the Yaralla Estate be taken away from SLHD and be put in the hands of a body, such as council, that are better equipped with the resources to maintain a higher standard of upkeep and care.
We need everyone here today to be writing letters to Barry O'Farrell to identify your disillusionment and distrust of the current state government and to the Mayor identifying your support, make phone calls, make your voice be heard. We will continue to fight for this beloved resource, but we need your help. To truly exercise people power we need you, the people. There is still more work to do and we are still a long way from the result we are all working towards.
We thank you for your attendance today and for your continued support … We must make a call for action … We must enforce a change … the horses have 6 days until eviction … This is the thin edge of the wedge … Make your voice be heard!
I too join with Alex Gavel and all the friends of Yaralla Estate and call on the O'Farrell government to cancel the eviction of Alex and all the wonderful— (Time expired)
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 18:18 to 18:31
It being past 6.30 pm, the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 192, and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for the next meeting .
In the lead-up to the budget there were a lot of people around the country who were taking quite some heart from the rhetoric about Australia becoming a smarter country and spreading the benefits of the mining boom, and there were people who were looking forward to an investment in our higher education sector and perhaps some relief for the tens of hundreds of thousands of students around the country who were suffering under significant debt burdens and who do not have an income that is enough to make ends meet.
Instead, on 13 April, the newly appointed Minister for Tertiary Education, Dr Craig Emerson, announced $2.3 billion in cuts to universities and their students. The cuts mean a $900 million efficiency dividend of two per cent in 2014 and 1.25 per cent in 2015, which will mean less funding per student—an amount of about five per cent less public funding per student, according to the National Tertiary Education Union. There will be a $1.2 billion saving from scrapping Student Start-Up scholarships and replacing them with loans, putting even more debt onto students, and further savings from removing the HECs discount for up-front payments.
These cuts come to a sector that was already under significant pressure. They come on the back of last year's cuts to the university sector that totalled around $1 billion, including the abolition of university facilitation funding of $270 million, reductions to the Sustainable Research Excellence, the SRE program, of just on half-a-billion dollars as well as savings in relation to student income support and scholarships of $250 million.
The University of Melbourne, in my electorate, faces cuts of $52 million, with Victorian universities generally facing cuts of almost $200 million over two years. These cuts contradict the advice that has been given to the government. As the NTEU points out, in 2008 the then education minister, Julia Gillard, asked Professor Denise Bradley to undertake a comprehensive review of Australian higher education. It was for universities what the Gonski review was for schools. One of the key recommendations of the Bradley review was the need for an immediate 10 per cent increase in funding per government supported student to ensure universities had the necessary resources to provide high quality and internationally competitive education. These findings were reaffirmed by the Base Funding Review, chaired by Dr Jane Lomax-Smith, and released in October 2011, which found that universities were significantly under-resourced to provide the teaching and basic research capability expected of them.
Bill Scales, who is not only Chancellor of Swinburne University of Technology but also served on both the Bradley review of higher education and the Gonski review of school education, has described Labor's funding cuts as 'not only incoherent but schizophrenic'.
In 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said:
We know that Australia's universities have a critical part to play in making this country smarter, fairer and more prosperous. In order to meet our economic and social ambitions we need to make sure that our universities are properly resourced and able to tackle the problems, and teach the workforce, of the future.
But now the Prime Minister is presiding over cuts which will harm our universities. Labor's cuts to universities, research and student support will harm students, our education system and the economy. We are going to need an economy when the rest of the world tells us to stop digging. That point may come sooner rather than later and that economy is going to be based on our minds, not our mines. We cannot have a smarter country if we cut funds to universities, we cannot have a fairer society if we do not support students from low-income families to go to university and we cannot have a strong economy if we cut back universities and research. Taking money from universities to fund schools is robbing Peter to pay Paul—and it just does not add up.
Instead of a cash grab to fund an election commitment on schools, Labor should have the guts to stand up to the big miners and put in place a proper mining tax and then we could fund the education we need from child care, to kindergarten, to schools through to universities. What this shows is that the old parties cannot be trusted to look after education. If we were serious about preparing Australia for the challenges of the 21st century, if we were serious about having a government that cares for its people and its students, we would be investing in higher education. We would not be threatening 1,500 jobs in my electorate of Melbourne, which will go because of the cumulative effects of these cuts. We would be putting more money into universities.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this private member's motion condemning the government's cuts to the university sector. I do so not only because of the importance of the education sector as a whole to my electorate of McPherson on the Gold Coast but also because of the significance of education as an export industry and to the future of our nation.
The university sector produces so much economic and social good for Australia, and ripping funding away from such a significant sector has the potential to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. I say this in a very sincere way because education is a growth industry for the future and provides us with an enormous and much needed opportunity to grow our exports and to expand our trading base. This is essential for us as a nation and critical for the Gold Coast, where our major industries of tourism and construction have suffered year after year from economic downturn. I will come back to speak more about specific Gold Coast and education issues shortly.
This Labor government has been unable to demonstrate its support for such a crucial sector and has embarked on one cut after another. The 2012-13 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook included the following cuts: a freeze to the Sustainable Research Excellence program—$498.8 million; the ending of the facilitation performance funding from 2014—$270.1 million; the deferral of student support for masters by research degrees—$167 million; and a freeze on student start-up scholarships—$82.3 million. Those cuts alone will have a significant negative impact on the sector, but those cuts have been followed with more cuts. The 2013-14 budget handed down only a fortnight ago confirmed previously announced cuts to higher education of the efficiency dividend on universities of two per cent for 2014 and 1.25 per cent for 2015—$902.7 million; the conversion of student start-up scholarships to HELP loans—$1.186 billion; the removal of the 10 per cent discount for the upfront payment of university fees and the five per cent bonus for the voluntary repayment of HECS-HELP debts—$267.7 million; and an annual cap to tax deductions for self-education to $2,000 per person—$514.3 million.
It is just beyond belief that, at a time of economic pressure, this government cuts one of the sectors that is well placed to provide economic growth. And we should not forget that university places were uncapped in 2012 to increase participation rates, but with the government's cuts it will be more expensive and more difficult for students to study. It is such a contradiction that funding cuts are being imposed at a time when universities are being encouraged to take on more students. This is also happening at a time when universities are under pressure to provide an approximate four per cent annual wage increase to staff. Australia ranks 25th out of 29 advanced economies that invest in universities. These cuts will only serve to lower our ranking and reputation overseas even more.
On the Gold Coast, only about 18 per cent of the population aged 25 to 34 are degree qualified. We are working hard on the Gold Coast to ensure more students take on university education. Each of our universities—Southern Cross, Bond and Griffith—are working with our local schools to promote tertiary education and opportunities on the Gold Coast. The funding cuts of this government are making it so much more difficult for universities and students. The Gold Coast, in particular, is likely to be hit hard by these cuts, as higher education is a significant contributor to the local economy and employs thousands of people. It injects more than $1 billion into our economy and employs more than 7,000 people. Higher education is one of our city's major industries, with the three universities and over 400 education and training providers located there—and with more expressing interest in investigating, relocating or expanding their operations to the Gold Coast.
Southern Cross University has invested $100 million in its Bilinga campus and Bond University has recently announced a collaboration with the engineering faculty of the US Ivy League university Dartmouth to introduce a master of energy management qualification, which will be the first of its kind in Australia in the field of energy sustainability. These measures will not only help create jobs in the area but will add to our growing international higher education reputation. This government must stop damaging such a crucial sector.
I rise to speak on the motion proposed by Mr Bandt, the member for Melbourne. This government is investing in education. Labor believes that every Australian, no matter where they live or what their background, should be able to go to university if they have the ability. University funding has grown by 50 per cent since Labor came to office and will continue to grow over the next three years. Let us be clear: the decision we made was not to cut funding but to introduce an efficiency dividend of two per cent in 2014 and of 1.2 per cent in 2015. Real funding per student will continue to rise even with the efficiency dividend. In 2007, real funding per student was $16,147. In 2012, it was $17,659. After the efficiency dividend is taken into account, real funding per student is projected to exceed $18,000 in 2017. The government is retaining the Higher Education Grants Index on an ongoing basis, so there will be no return to the Howard government's practice of growing funding for universities at a far lower rate than costs were increasing.
The government would have preferred not to have had to make these savings. However, we have an obligation to ensure the sustainability of the budget and to fund our schools properly, as well as the national disability insurance scheme. The government remains committed to a strong university system in Australia as well as to a world-class school system. The Labor government has significantly increased investment in education since coming to office. The savings in this budget will allow the government to better target its spending on education, including funding for the National Plan for School Improvement.
The government will provide $29.7 billion in total education funding from 2013-14, compared with $18.4 billion in 2007-08—a real increase of 35 per cent. In total, over five years from 2007-08 to 2012-13, the government has provided $165.5 billion for education spending. This included $6.5 billion for the Education Investment Fund, $16 billion for the Building the Education Revolution and $2 billion for the Digital Education Revolution. The BER created employment opportunities, kept the economy strong and was a boost to business confidence, yet those opposite continue to espouse the view that it was not needed.
Despite the savings in this budget, the government is still providing record investment in education, significantly increasing funding in real terms since coming to office. The government is making historic investments in Australian schools, with up to $9.8 billion in extra Commonwealth funding over the next six years from 2014-15 available if the states agree to provide 35 per cent of the required investment and to sign up to the National Plan for School Improvement. To do this, we have $2.37 billion in savings from spending on higher education. The savings measures in this budget do not impact on the key reform of uncapping funding for undergraduate places, which means that more people continue to have the opportunity to participate in higher education. We know that education provides opportunities and, unlike those opposite, we believe that people from all backgrounds with the ability to study at university should get the opportunity, not just those who can afford it.
Furthermore the government is expanding investment in student places by providing an additional $97 million from 2014 to 2017 for additional Commonwealth supported places for bachelor and postgraduate courses. To be clear, what you get under Labor is increased funding for universities and increased funding for better schools. This government has a really strong record on higher education, skills and education more generally. Australians have a choice between Labor protecting jobs, investing in skills and making smart investments we need for the future, or the coalition whose savage slashes will cut to the bone.
The coalition passionately argue for cuts. It is in their DNA to always cut too hard and always cut in the wrong places like education. When will they commit to writing that, if they are elected in September, they will resign if they do not increase funding to universities and do not stop the boats. The savage cuts that Premier Campbell Newman has made in Queensland and the Liberals in Victoria are an entree to would happen if the federal Liberals win government at the next election. Before the election they want us to believe that you can have lower taxes, less savings and smaller deficits all at once. After the election we all know that they will slash and burn like their mates in Queensland and Victoria. That is a mindless recipe for higher unemployment and lower growth. The Gillard government will always act responsibly to prioritise jobs so that the economy works for more people.
I rise to speak on this motion from the member for Melbourne which condemns the Labor government's $2.3 billion in funding cuts to Australian universities and student support services. On 14 May this year the Treasurer confirmed that this Labor government continues to lay ruin to the nation's finances. As a result of their incompetence, despite government revenue increasing more than six per cent, the Labor government has delivered yet another deficit of $19 billion this year. Over the forward estimates gross debt will breach the $300 billion debt ceiling. Labor's incompetence means more debt, more deficits and more uncertainty and, worse, more bad news for the research and university sector in Australia.
The 2013-14 budget confirmed previously announced cuts to higher education including $900 million in cuts in the form of efficiency dividends and more than $1 billion in cuts by converting student start-up scholarships to HELP lines. The Labor government also removed the 10 per cent discount for the upfront payment of university fees and the five per cent bonus for the voluntary repayment of HECS-HELP debts, and it announced an annual cap to tax deductions for self-education to $2,000 per person. It was supposed to save the government $514.3 million. These cuts are in addition to the cuts announced to the 2012-13 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook when they froze almost $500 million for the Sustainable Research Excellence program among other cuts and deferrals.
Ultimately world-class research at Australian universities has practical outcomes for Australians. Research is one of the key drivers of future economic activity in this country. It leads to innovations and a more productive economy as well as significant advancements in health solutions for all Australians. I have previously spoken in the House on the ground-breaking research being undertaken at the University of Queensland in my electorate. It is a university which demonstrates amazing depth and diversity across many faculties from architecture to engineering, quantum physics to biomedical, and molecular research.
I have highlighted the outstanding work by Professor Maree Smith, who is internationally renowned for her excellence in pain research and who pioneered Australia's first integrated preclinical drug development facility, TetraQ. Professor Smith has now successfully seen two of her drugs commercialised by UniQuest, which will address significant unmet clinical need in markets that will grow to be worth approximately $35 billion by 2017. This will be one of the most significant advancements by any Australian researcher in the field of drug development and, following the success of the Gardasil vaccine, has positioned UQ as an international leader in commercialisation and transfer of research outcomes. Furthermore, UniQuest has also facilitated the commercialisation of several other University of Queensland biomedical inventions, such as the Nanopatch and Dendright technologies, with subsequent multimillion dollar investments from international venture funds and companies.
These are just some examples of significant developments occurring at the University of Queensland, and some of this work has been made possible only because UQ has been able to attract the best international researchers to Australia while at the same time ensuring that our own home-grown talent stays here. In order for universities such as UQ to attract this talent and to keep these people in the country, the sector requires stability and certainty from the government of the day. The Australian Research Committee has identified long-term funding as a key to retaining specialist expertise in Australia. I hear similar feedback from the University of Queensland. Furthermore, because research projects require funding commitments over many years, if not decades in some instances, universities simply cannot plan for the long term when they are faced with the short-term political whims of this Labor government. Yet that is exactly the situation in which they now find themselves—with a Labor government that has failed to provide the long-term research funding that our researchers desperately need.
In April this year Nobel laureate Peter Doherty, who went to Indooroopilly State High School in Ryan, labelled the Labor government's changes as 'politically inept' because 'universities are the last thing you should raid if you want to send a consistent message on education.' These comments reflect the real ongoing concerns about this Labor government's approach to universities. The coalition remains committed to the university and research sector by delivering its Real Solutions plan to build a stronger, more productive economy through lower taxes, more efficient government and more productive businesses. The coalition will restore the bonds of trust that once existed between government and Australian universities. We will restore hope, reward and opportunity for all Australians.
I find myself in a rather peculiar situation as I consider the comments of the member for McPherson and the member for Ryan. My understanding of the budget reply speech, and the press I have seen since then, indicates that those on the other side reserve the right to adopt all of these changes that are mooted and yet they decry them. It is a very different position perhaps for the member for Melbourne, who has proposed this debate on university funding—I am sure he is very sincere, but let us get a few of the facts on the table.
I will draw to a degree on my own personal experience at one of the local universities at which I taught before I entered parliament. I did work during the Howard era, which according to those opposite was an era of great enlightenment and incredible spending in the sector. Can I say how incorrect that is. The manifestation of the Howard years of investment in the Ourimbah Central Coast campus of the University of Newcastle is represented in the shape of one large demountable building that cooks in the summer and is freezing in the winter. That was the investment in capital that went into my local university.
In contrast, since a Labor government has been in power over $12 million has been invested in new infrastructure in that university. There is a new library with 24-hour access to deal with the needs of people trying to return to study while working, and balance that with their family responsibilities. They need to access the university safely at any time. There is a new teaching and nursing building, there is a new psychology building, there is a new sports science building—there is a new feel of passion for what higher education genuinely offers that has been inspired and has had life breathed into it by the dollars invested by this Labor government in tertiary education. So let us not for a second believe the mythology that has been perpetrated by those opposite.
The facts are that this government has absolutely committed to a strong university system. We have announced, in the budget just a couple of weeks ago, a two per cent efficiency dividend in 2014 and a 1.25 per cent efficiency dividend in 2015 on university funding. Would it not be wonderful if in this world there was always every resource that you needed, but the reality is that we have made a call—and I deeply understand this from my years as a teacher—that to ask for this from a sector that has received a 75 per cent increase in funding since 2007, from $3.5 billion to over $6.1 billion under this government, is to ask for a small thing, from a sector that has seen its assets and opportunities grow, in order that money might go to schools which we can no longer deny are sites of terrible inequity in this country.
Ten years ago, children in this country started school in kindergarten. Now those children who are from low-SES backgrounds, are Aboriginal or are in remote areas or who had language from another country in their background as they were approaching school are far too often hitting grade 9 but performing at year 6 or 7 level, behind their friends, behind kids who have had advantages that they were just unfortunate enough not to be born into. The reality is that we need to address that need right at the very early part of school education. The fact is that there are children in classrooms where teachers can absolutely diagnose, where parents can diagnose, where kids can diagnose, that they need assistance but who are currently unable to get it.
In the last seven years, we have looked over a new golden age, a Labor government inspired golden age, for the tertiary sector. We have invested money and grown the sector, grown the opportunities, massively increased participation, with 190,000 more places open, 190,000 young Australians who are studying. The reality is, though, that behind them is a group of students whose literacy, numeracy and capacity to end up getting into university is so compromised by underfunding that is only going to get worse and worse as the old Howard broken model continues. We have made a decision for two years to ask for the big brother, the big sister, the university sector, to forgo a two per cent and then a 1.25 per cent dividend while its fees are still increasing to allow us to make sure that young Australians starting school will be guaranteed a decent education no matter what school they go to. It is the Labor way. It is fairness. It is stronger. And it is smarter.
And what a Labor way it is! What a golden age we have, where we are ripping money out of universities, the future of this nation! The only way this is a golden age is if it is once again the government playing the role of King Midas in reverse, because everything they touch seems to go the opposite way to gold. What absolute hypocrisy from the government in these efficiency dividends, as they call them, in the typical parlance of bureaucratic speak, at the same time criticising state governments for making cuts—cuts that at least they are up-front to the public about. With this one, they are still trying to claim that there is going to be no problem here.
But I have to tell you that there is a problem, particularly for rural and regional universities. I can go to universities in my electorate such as the CQUniversity—my alma mater, in fact. This was the headline in the Daily Mercury this week: '200 CQU jobs in the firing line'. The university's vice-chancellor and president, Professor Scott Bowman, is quoted in the article as saying:
… the university would suffer a significant financial hit over the next two years, with the Federal Government's "efficiency dividend" reducing funding—
as has been said—
by 2% in 2014 and 1.25% in 2015.
Far from it being an insignificant amount, the university estimates that that is $5 million out of its coffers—a university, like many in rural and regional Australia, which runs on a very, very tight bottom line. As a result of these cuts, along with other added pressures, it has had to sack 200 teaching staff from the university. That is the impact of this decision from this government somehow cutting funds out of tertiary education to give it to this grand plan for schools. As has been said before, that is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. I have as well a letter from Scott Bowman, the Vice-Chancellor of CQUniversity, sent to me on 22 May, where he again says that this financial repositioning that the university is going to have to do—basically, major cutbacks—has been done because of a number of impacts that he lists, but one of them is the upcoming efficiency dividends that the federal government is claiming.
It is not the only university in my area to be impacted by this. James Cook University also provides services into the Mackay region and into the northern part of my electorate. The vice-chancellor there, Sandra Harding, has been very critical. She has said that the university is going to have to take a long hard look at its budget for the next financial year because of this. I will quote her at length here. She says:
Most of the money that comes to us from the Federal Government goes in to teaching programs and research so we will have to look at those.
We will, of course, look at minimising the impacts on students but we will have to look at the whole budget and yes, courses may be affected.
You can't take two per cent out of any business model and not expect it to hurt. It will be felt right across the university.
It is just a great shame that that is going to impact on courses. One of those courses is probably going to be education, the thing that the government wants to improve. Because of an efficiency dividend, or a savage cut that this government is making, this university is going to have to cut back on its courses and the quality of those courses. That caused James Cook University Student Association President, Jesse Cook—a student union which is not normally critical of Labor governments I suppose—to say:
How can the Prime Minister claim we are providing young Australians with 'a flying start in life' when we are sending them into under-funded Universities? A flying start to where?
I agree with his sentiments.
This is just a savage cut at a time when it really is not needed. I notice the National Tertiary Education Union has come out as well against this saying that this will mean a write-down of $154 million in research support funding. It will be $7 million a year less in Indigenous support, disability support and participation and partnership funding. It is cutting funding to the most needy people in the community who we want to actually get into university education to better their lives. This is an insidious cut from this government and it really does need to be repealed. I am very glad to speak on this motion condemning the government. I hope that they see sense, restore the funding and stop being such hypocrites about this.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to bring the attention of the House to a very rare form of disability known as the Phelan McDermid Syndrome. I only became aware of this disability late last November when I met up with a long-time friend of mine, Julie O'Keefe, and her daughter—and her daughter and her husband, Andrew, are sitting in the gallery here. They have a daughter with Phelan McDermid Syndrome. It is a family I have known for a long while. Megan went to school with my youngest son, Jonathan, at St Thomas More's in Ruse, so there is a strong family connection.
As members of parliament we get to hear about many things and many conditions but here is one I had never heard of and one that affects someone close to my family and close to our community. I thought it was incumbent on me to at least bring this to the attention of this parliament.
I will fast-forward a couple of years. Megan and her husband, Andrew, found themselves as parents of a child with a disability. Their beautiful daughter Olivia was diagnosed back in 2011 with this extremely rare genetic disorder called Phelan McDermid Syndrome. The disability arises because of a genetic disorder at chromosome 22 in the human genome. This gene is understood to play an important role in the brain development of infants, so an individual with this condition often displays the same sorts of behaviours you would ordinarily expect to see of children on the autistic spectrum. Diagnosis of this disorder was only possible back in 1999. Genetic screening was insufficient to detect this micro deletion of chromosome 22 prior to that.
As parents of children with such a rare disability, Megan and Andrew have taken a very proactive role in raising awareness and advocating on behalf of other sufferers and families with children with Phelan McDermid Syndrome. Megan Toole is the regional representative for a body that is addressing the issue of Phelan McDermid Syndrome throughout Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia. In that role and in a very voluntary capacity, Megan puts in a lot of time educating, communicating with and, importantly, supporting those families and those parents with such a rare disability as Phelan McDermid Syndrome. Her deeds in this cannot be underestimated or overappreciated. They are very great endeavours to inform and help other parents, and they have to be regarded by us here in this place as absolutely admirable. This kind of effort and dedication can only come from someone who not only cares but also has actually been through the same challenges. So she is able to offer not simply sympathy to other parents, but genuine empathy, genuine compassion and genuine support.
Olivia is now almost three years of age. Unfortunately she has not acquired any speech, and she suffers from severe seizures and pneumonic episodes. She has been admitted to hospital well over 30 times in her young life. When Megan brought Olivia to my office the other day, the child was just so frightened—probably because I was dressed like this, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I probably seemed to be another doctor in another surgery. It is regrettable that, in my case, this is something that I had just not heard of, and I therefore did not have an appreciation of the effect it has on parents. It is important to understand that the symptoms of Phelan McDermid Syndrome are very similar, as I said earlier, to those of children on the autism spectrum. In fact, all but one of the sufferers of Phelan McDermid Syndrome are also diagnosed on the autism spectrum—with that one exception being little Olivia Toole. There are only 30 known sufferers of this disability in Australia.
I think that puts in perspective that people are falling through the cracks and that, because we have been specific about who gets support, those children on the autism spectrum qualify for that support but a child such Olivia—one in 30—who is the only one who has not been diagnosed— (Time expired)
May I from the outset commend the member for Fowler, who I know is a passionate person and a staunch advocate for this cause. He spoke of having not just sympathy but genuine empathy, and I know that he is certainly one person in this place who has genuine empathy not only for people with this syndrome but also for people afflicted with other diseases. I commend him for bringing this motion to parliament. It is a very important medical condition but not one that is well known about.
Phelan McDermid Syndrome is an extremely rare condition which affects about 600 people worldwide. Of these, only about 30 are in Australia. The condition is named after Dr Katy Phelan and Dr Heather McDermid who first identified the condition, which is a genetic disorder caused by deletions or rearrangements on chromosome 22. Dr Phelan is credited with identifying the 22q13 chromosome deletion in 1988 while studying DNA analysis on a newborn who suffered from poor muscle tone. Due to the deletion of this chromosome the condition is also known as 22q13 deletion syndrome. All of those diagnosed with Phelan McDermid Syndrome have global development delays and almost all have absent or severely delayed speech. The condition also causes physical issues such as immature muscles, hypotonia and visual perception as well as neurological issues which affect nerve control and mental processing times. Treatment of the condition varies from child to child and from family to family. Currently the condition cannot be cured. Instead, symptoms are addressed with different medications and other therapies including physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and vision therapy.
The Phelan McDermid Syndrome Foundation, which is based in the United States of America, plays an important role in providing support to families across the globe. The foundation holds a biannual conference which allows families from around the world the opportunity to meet each other and build support networks. Furthermore, a number of professionals also attend and this allows families to meet with specialists in this rare disorder.
Newsletters and the website help families keep in touch with each other and with medical professionals who specialise in this condition or who are researching how to understand the condition better. The foundation also has regional representatives around the world who are the go-to people for families in their particular area. Megan Toole is one of the Regional 8 representatives, a region which includes Australia, New Caledonia, New Zealand and India. Megan plays an important role in raising awareness of this rare disease and in supporting families who have a family member with this rare condition. I commend Megan for her wonderful efforts.
In addition to providing support for families, the foundation focuses research on initiatives which are expected to get the greatest benefit. The foundation has built a web patient registry, which is the largest collection of phenotypic and genetic data from patients with Phelan McDermid Syndrome, which can be used to by those researching the condition. Furthermore, the foundation offers scholarships which will hasten the development of effective therapeutics to assist those affected.
My hometown of Wagga Wagga in the Riverina is home to the Harmer family. They are good people. Chris and Carol Harmer are the parents of three children. Their eldest daughter, Lauren, is 21. Their other two children, Emily, 20, and Tom, 16 have Phelan McDermid Syndrome. Carol is the full-time carer of Emily, who has never spoken a word, and of Tom who is affected but not as severely as his sister.
I have met and spoken to Carol and Chris on a number of occasions and understand the physical, emotional and financial strain having children with this condition has placed on them. Only recently Carol contacted me to explain the medicine Emily requires to assist with her anxiety and behaviour issues, which are a result of having Phelan McDermid Syndrome, is not covered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and was leaving them with an expensive medicine bill each month. Unfortunately, without the drug company applying to have this particular medicine on the PBS scheme, the Harmers must continue to find the money to be able to afford this necessary treatment for their daughter.
Chris recently had to give up his long-haul transport duties with Burkinshaws Transport. He used to drive the Sydney to Melbourne route taking wool to both capital cities and general freight on the way home so he could spend more time with his family. That has also caused a strain on his family, but Ian Burkinshaw, his boss, has been very kind and given him full-time work at the transport company depot, which has obviously helped. It is important that Chris has been able to spend more time with his family.
The Kooringal Rotary Club were very good to offer to part-sponsor the Harmers to go to the US to go to a Phelan McDermid Syndrome conference, but the kids are not well enough to do so. I do thank Kooringal Rotary for their generosity. I again commend the member for Fowler for moving this motion in parliament.
I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Fowler. The member for Riverina has also spoken passionately about it. Both members understand the issues that surround parents that have a child that has a rare disease such as Phelan McDermid Syndrome. I think one of the key factors is that there are only 600 people worldwide, all children I understand, and 30 here in Australia that have PMS as it is often referred to.
It is one of those diseases that is a genetic disorder. It is characterised by global developmental delay as has already been mentioned. Most sufferers have no speech or are severely speech delayed. We have talked a little bit in this debate about how it is caused by the deletion or rearrangement of chromosome 22. SHANK3 is often deleted in people with PMS. It has also been associated with autism spectrum. But it has also been shown that there is a connection with schizophrenia through SHANK3.
I would like to acknowledge the role of the PMS foundation in providing both financial and emotional support for families to deal with the impact that this disorder has. The member for Fowler and the member for Riverina both referred to the role that Megan Toole has played.
The real issue is that PMS is a very rare disease. Very few people suffer from this disease and because of that it is really hard to attract money for research. It is really hard to have drugs that will actually assist those people who have PMS. Consequently with such a small number of people suffering from this disorder, it makes life really hard and it makes it very hard to bring about change. PMS is one of many rare diseases that fit into this void where you cannot get the money for research, where you cannot get the drugs, all because just not enough people have it. But if you put together the number of people that have rare diseases globally there are actually 70 million people and that is quite significant.
There are two million people in Australia living with rare diseases and 10 per cent of the Australian population is directly affected by one or more of the 8,000 diseases. When you put it into that sort of parameter you can see that there may not be a lot of people affected but when you join together all those people in Australia that are suffering from rare diseases it shows that we need to adopt a different approach to dealing with people whose lives are impacted incredibly by having a child with, or themselves, having a rare disease. Julie and Andrew, I know how hard it must be for you with your little daughter. I think that going to see Chris was one of those really courageous things that can happen that can bring about changes.
I have been doing some work with Rare Voices Australia. They are trying to be an umbrella group for all of these rare diseases. People with rare diseases face enormous challenges each and every day just struggle to keep their lives together. It is through the organisations such as Rare Voices Australia that they can actually move things forward. Then you get people coming together and with numbers you can make your voice heard a bit better. My thoughts are with you. Thank you, Chris. I thank you member for Fowler and member for Riverina. Your contributions were very moving.
I seek leave to make an additional contribution.
Leave granted.
As I was saying, it is very rare for children to have Phelan McDermid Syndrome. It has a significance in terms of delayed developmental stages in a child and the absence of language skills but also feeding and growing difficulties, sleep disturbances and intellectual disabilities. Therefore, parents with a child with Phelan McDermid Syndrome need to pay regular visits to paediatricians such as Rick Dunstan—a good friend who is Olivia's treating physician—but also to access various medications. This is where I talk about falling through the cracks. The applications of these therapies and medicines certainly are not cheap on families. Unfortunately, because Olivia is the only sufferer of Phelan McDermid Syndrome in Australia who is not diagnosed on the autism spectrum, her parents are the only parents of a Phelan McDermid sufferer who do not get the benefit of the early intervention facilities and finances available through the Commonwealth. It does not mean that their costs are any cheaper, it does not mean that their visits to the paediatrician are any fewer. It does mean that the difficulties are very much shouldered by them as the parents.
As I say, this is a very rare disease. There are only 30 known sufferers in Australia at the moment and of those children, imagine Megan's surprise to find that there was another child only recently diagnosed at age 3 living in the same postcode also suffering from Phelan McDermid Syndrome. But in his case he is diagnosed on the autism spectrum as well.
Megan has taken upon herself to meet with every family affected by Phelan McDermid Syndrome and understands that these families, like her and Andrew, are also going through some very tough times in coming to terms with the syndrome and with the impact on their child, but also with the significant medical expenses involved. DisabilityCare Australia and the National Disability Insurance Scheme will hopefully provide much-needed assistance and support to these families to enhance the quality of life and to increase the economic and social participation for all people with disabilities including young people as they grow up, like Olivia. However, there remains a significant level of unmet demand for disability services and, unfortunately, Phelan McDermid Syndrome falls through the cracks and currently there is no recognisable government assistance available for these families or their carers.
As you know, my electorate is the second most disadvantaged electorate in the country. Probably because of that and the lower land values there, my electorate is overrepresented by people and family living with disabilities. I have had a long association with various groups that offer relief and support for families dealing with disabilities and, like them, I have expressed my concern on this matter before the House as we all believe in the need for greater support and care for these families.
I have nothing but admiration for the courage and determination of Megan and Andrew. What they are doing not only to support their beautiful daughter, Olivia, but also what they are doing as the advocates of Phelan McDermid Syndrome throughout Australia is absolutely commendable. I commend this to the House.
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next meeting.
The House calls on the government to negotiate with relevant bodies regarding the cost of dispensing chemotherapy drugs and to ensure that dispensing can continue to occur without disrupting patients. This has been another disastrously handled policy by this government. We are now six months on from when I gave notice of this motion. We have had a Senate inquiry which clearly identified there were problems, and stakeholders have provided compelling evidence, and I thank them very much for that. Indeed, the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia said:
If there is no longer an income stream to maintain the clinical pharmacy services associated with the supply of chemotherapy, this is likely to affect the cost of care and patient access. Centres will close or pass on the additional costs to patients in order to remain viable.
The Pharmacy Guild of Australia stated:
Ongoing care for all Australian cancer patients, regardless of their type of cancer, is being put at risk by the current arrangements.
Other evidence to the committee found:
The service of preparing chemotherapy medication is highly complex, expensive and labour-intensive, and demands an environment and investment does not compromise on quality.
The government gave an undertaking last November to examine the 'cost of delivering vital chemotherapy services'. Incredibly, there is still no long-term solution. Earlier this month, on the eve of the Senate inquiry's report, the government rushed out an announcement. The supposed funding 'boost' is to start in July, but will cease in December 2013, providing no long-term certainty for patients, clinicians or providers, and smacks more of politics than it does of pragmatic solution. The government knew a potential issue existed with the cost of dispensing well before I gave notice of this motion, but failed to act. The inability to resolve or make a decision on funding for chemotherapy services is typical of the chaos and dysfunction of the Gillard government.
As stated in the inquiry's report:
1.12 The latest review follows a previous commitment given six months prior to this latest announcement to examine the 'cost of delivering vital chemotherapy services'. 1.13 The latest announcement prolongs uncertainty and undermines the effective and efficient delivery of treatments for cancer patients and their families. It points to a lack of appreciation for the critical implications being felt by chemotherapy services …
1.14 Despite the announcement, the Government is still unable to detail for providers of chemotherapy services and their patients any definitive long-term funding solution.
Vulnerable patients requiring these services do not need the stress of being caught in a disagreement over funding that continues to drag on. This should have been a priority for the government and it should have been resolved last year. Minister Plibersek needs to explain what the government has been doing in its negotiations and why patients and clinicians now have to wait for another review. I gave notice of this motion, as I say, last November. The government was not able to negotiate an outcome over the Christmas and New Year period, so the minister needs to explain how negotiations will be undertaken when the interim funding ceases at the end of this December.
I would like to make clear that the coalition does support price disclosure. The coalition's reforms were negotiated cooperatively with the sector in 2007 and are estimated to provide up to $5.8 billion in savings over a 10-year period. This has helped to support the sustainability of the PBS. But where broader anomalies arise from time to time with dispensing pharmaceuticals, particularly where there is a risk to patient services, it should be properly and transparently reviewed by the government and responded to. The issue here is a government that has deliberately dragged its feet on a very, very important issue. Only due to parliamentary pressure, including the Senate inquiry and this motion, did the government belatedly announce a review.
However, this is a government with a chequered history, to say the least, and it is certainly chequered when it comes to pharmaceutical policy. Labor signed a memorandum of understanding with Medicines Australia in May 2010 to provide 'policy certainty', in its own words, to the sector in return for additional savings of $1.9 billion over five years. Yet, within months, Labor effectively broke its promise and changed the convention on how governments list medicines on the PBS. Indeed, in February 2011, the Gillard government refused to list a number of medicines on the PBS that had been recommended by the independent Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, blaming its 'fiscal circumstances'. It was a case in point on the consequences of this Labor government's economic mismanagement and fiscal recklessness. The move denied patients timely access to new medicines that had been independently assessed by the PBAC.
Again, after substantial political pressure and a Senate inquiry initiated by the coalition, the government agreed to list the deferred medicines in September 2011. However, this matter still has not been resolved and there remains a great deal of policy uncertainty around the listing process. Similarly, the chemotherapy issue remains another unresolved issue for this government. Six months from the giving of notice of the motion we are considering today, the government has failed to provide a genuine, long-term solution.
In closing, it is obvious from all of the government's actions that they pushed this out to December 2013, trying again, in their expectation of not having the competence to win the next election, to create some difficulty for an incoming government. It is a cruel political hoax being perpetrated on those chemotherapy patients as well as the providers around the country. To play politics in this area is completely unacceptable. I call on the government to provide a more long-term resolution to this very important issue. That necessitated us taking the action we did in the Senate inquiry and also in this motion. Yet again, the government stand condemned.
It is not us on this side of the House who are playing politics and it is not our motion before the chamber. It is their motion before the chamber, so they are the ones playing politics on this issue. That is the reality. Do not blame us for something that you are trying to play politics on.
The models in relation to funding for chemotherapy is actually quite a complex area of policy. There are arrangements, including the efficient funding of chemotherapy, which was put in place to ensure patients can continue to get access to vital cancer drugs at a price that is affordable for themselves and for the government. These arrangements were developed in parallel with the expanded and accelerated price disclosure measure and the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement.
In fact, in relation to the expanded and accelerated price disclosure measure, the coalition have had more positions than you could poke a stick at. At times, they have said that they support it; at other times, they have voted against it. Now the shadow minister comes to this chamber and says he now supports it. I would like to see some consistency from those opposite in relation to that measure.
There are no suggestions, by the way, from any stakeholders that the efficiencies generated for taxpayers by the EFC and the EAPD are inappropriate. The situation is that in late 2012, as a consequence of the expected impact of upcoming price reductions in a certain drug, known as Docetaxel, and another range of drugs in relation to chemotherapy, the industry raised some concerns in relation to the sustainability of chemotherapy infusion preparation services. There are about 100 dispensers, through pharmacists, of this particular drug and other chemotherapy drugs around the country. There are about 5,000 pharmacists in total and about 100 who do this particularly complex form of administration of a chemotherapy drug in terms of preparation. Without the cross-subsidy available from the high price that the government was paying for these drugs, stakeholders associated with this, including some of the pharmacists, actually said that services would shift from private to public hospitals and that there was a threat of services closing.
In fact what the Minister for Health did was act appropriately, and expeditiously requested that DoHA visit organisations, investigate the issue and listen to stakeholders. Senior members of staff from DoHA visited a number of chemotherapy suppliers and third-party chemotherapy compounders in private hospitals to discuss this issue. The matter came before the Senate Community Affairs Committee for inquiry and report. The shadow minister was selective in his quoting, so I will quote what the single recommendation of that committee said on 10 May 2013 at paragraph 3.41. It said:
The committee recommends that the government and industry parties, through the review, continue the examination of issues in chemotherapy drug pricing to ensure that existing funds under the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement as already agreed are appropriately directed to reflect the costs and benefits of the supply of chemotherapy drugs, and to ensure the ongoing supply of these drugs across all services, particularly in rural and regional areas.
In fact, on 5 May, the minister appropriately announced a review of funding arrangements for chemotherapy services. We are going to support this motion with amendments that reflect what the government are doing in announcing a review, which will operate until later this year. It will be undertaken independently with transparency and stakeholders will be consulted. We provided $29.7 million in the 2013-14 budget to pay providers an additional $60 for each chemotherapy infusion on an interim basis for a period of six months. That funding will cover the review period from 1 July 2013 until end December 2013 and will be provided in addition to the current $76.37.
I want to make it clear because if you listen to the shadow minister you would think that, somehow, there was absolute chaos in relation to this issue. Throughout this whole process the price paid by patients for chemotherapy drugs has not changed, and it will not change. The most paid for the drugs for a whole course of treatment is currently $5.90 for a concession patient or $36.10 for a general patient.
The review will be consumer focused and will provide opportunities for patients, stakeholders and providers who are involved in this industry to engage and provide suggestions on the future long-term approach. As I said, the review will be transparent and independent of government. The government want to identify and find a long-term solution in relation to this issue. It wants to make sure that cross-subsidisation is not required to support the viability of chemotherapy services across the country. We have undertaken this action because we want a long-term solution and long-term arrangements put in place. This government can be very proud of what we have done in relation to cancer treatment. We have provided 30 new drugs in relation to the PBS. We have provided and approved those drugs for 15 different cancers at an additional cost of $1.3 billion to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme since 2007.
We have also welcomed the policy of the accelerated and expanded price disclosure of items on the PBS. We have had a consistent position in relation to that, unlike those opposite. We are very proud of what we have done to improve cancer services across the country. In addition to the new PBS cancer treatments I have outlined, we have committed $3.5 billion since 2007 to improve the prevention, detection and treatment of cancer. This includes in the recent budget $226 million over four years to deliver the Gillard government's world-leading cancer care package. That involves cancer prevention, detection, support and research. Critically ill patients waiting for bone marrow transplants will have a better chance to get life-saving help through this initiative, with around 280 critically ill patients expected to be approved for the bone marrow transplant program in 2013-14.
This initiative also provides new funding for CanTeen, the Australian organisation for young people living with cancer, to support a national network of specialist services for 12- to 24-year-olds who are living with cancer, a group often felt to be left out in terms of cancer treatment, identification and publicity. We have also provided funding for the successful McGrath Foundation to continue to expand the foundation's Breast Care Nurses initiative, expanding the number of government funded nurses from the current 44 to 57. In addition, we have provided in this budget $55.7 million to expand the BreastScreen Australia Program, increasing participation by women aged 70 to 74, ensuring more women are tested for breast cancer as they get older, because we know the risk is higher as women age. We have also provided an additional $18.5 million for the Australian Prostate Cancer Research centre's program, including in my home state of Queensland an amount of $6.2 million at the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane, about 40 or 50 kilometres down the road from where I live. This will mean improved testing, diagnosis and treatment for people with prostate cancer.
I outline some of these initiatives, including the initiatives that we have undertaken in the budget, the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program and additional help in relation to lung cancer, because I think it is necessary to put on the public record that we are really determined to make sure we deal with this issue. When we say we are involved in world-leading cancer care, we are making those investments, including in relation to breast, cervical, prostate and bowel cancer, to make sure we achieve an international benchmark. If you listened to the shadow minister in relation to this issue, you would think it is chaos, tragedy and despair. It is not. In fact, we are investing a massive amount of money to make sure this scourge, which affects every Australian family, is dealt with as best we can. Unlike those opposite, who want to close down Medicare Locals and strip funding to health services, as their state colleagues in Queensland and Victoria have done, we are determined to make sure that our health services, including breast cancer treatment and prostate cancer treatment, are rolled out in such a way that Australian people, whether they live in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria or any other state or territory, can get the help they want. We are investing for the future in terms of health services, while those opposite will cut, cut and cut.
I am pleased to speak on this motion concerning the price reduction of chemotherapy drug docetaxel. The has put forward a blizzard of irrelevant considerations, because the motion before the House this evening deals with the specific circumstances in which the price reduction for chemotherapy drug docetaxel was imposed on the healthcare sector. This price reduction occurred at very short notice and generated very substantial concern amongst the providers of chemotherapy care.
Concerns were raised with me by a major private hospital in my electorate, the Sydney Adventist Hospital. In a letter written to me late last year, the chief executive of the hospital informed me of his concerns that this cut in the funding available under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for docetaxel would put at risk the current system for the preparation and supply of chemotherapy drugs through private hospitals and private clinics. He made the point that the cut in funding was of the order of 72 per cent—by any measure an extremely substantial reduction. He made the point that at his hospital there is an expectation of providing approximately 5,181 treatment sessions for chemotherapy patients in that year. He also pointed out that private hospitals and oncology clinics provide 60 per cent of all life-saving chemotherapy services in Australia. Accordingly, what we have here is an episode by which the current government has imposed, at short notice, a very dramatic reduction in the funding available under the PBS for docetaxel, which will have substantial flow-through effects on the capacity of the private hospital sector and private oncology clinics to provide life-saving chemotherapy services.
The concerns raised with me by the Sydney Adventist Hospital were also raised by a number of constituents. Families blighted by cancer, who are working through a treatment program, are now very anxious about the impacts on their treatment program of this very sharp reduction in the funding made available under the PBS for docetaxel. Let me quote from a letter I received from Debbie Quirk of St Ives who had this to say:
My family is touched by cancer with my husband having bowel cancer and undergoing a number of operations and chemotherapy treatments, which he is still receiving. We are concerned at the long-term implications of the federal government's 1 December ongoing changes to the PBS and the future funding of chemotherapy drugs. This concern is adding to the already significant impact that cancer has had on our lives.
There could be no more articulate statement of the reasoning behind the motion moved by the shadow minister and which we are debating this evening because that motion is underpinned by the opposition's concern for the impact on so many patients of this very dramatic reduction at very short notice in the funding available under the PBS. If patients are to be served in the most efficient way, if their treatment is to be carried out in a way which is most responsive to their clinical needs, it is very important that the funding arrangements which lie behind that treatment are managed in a consistent and long-term fashion. Unfortunately, we have seen precisely the opposite from this government. Indeed, it is surprising to learn that significant changes to the funding model were proposed as long ago as 2009 by pharmacists, oncologists and private hospitals. Unfortunately the government's response at that time was to introduce a short-term solution and what we have now seen is that that short-term solution has played out in ways that are causing great anxiety and stress to patients. I call upon the government, in the terms of this motion, to immediately resolve this very serious issue.
I rise to speak on this motion concerning the funding of chemotherapy drugs. I note the opening remarks of my colleague who spoke first for the government in this debate that it is indeed a motion brought to the House by the opposition, one that might well have been much better handle more quietly and with less alarm for those who are, with their families, facing the very significant challenge of managing a diagnosis of cancer and then the treatment of cancer. The fearmongering which has become part of the methodology of those opposite, the generation of headlines over more judicious and more careful and more responsible management of key policy issues for this country, is seen on display here today. Nonetheless, I would like to put on the record a few of the important facts with regard to the issue before the chair.
The reality is that, since the initial concerns were raised in 2012 about the price reduction of Docetaxel and the potential impact on patient services, the Department of Health and Ageing has been undertaking some pretty detailed investigations into chemotherapy and the funding arrangements to make sure that these can be continued in a safe and stable way. Some chemotherapy providers were using the inflated price the government paid them to cross-subsidise the cost of delivery. I do not think we can underestimate the complexity of some of these chemotherapy drugs being produced, distributed and administered to patients.
But, with the price drop of several of the chemotherapy drugs—because the generic drug became available and entered the market—some providers complained that they could not continue to use that model. They could not continue to use that model because, instead of the government paying an excessive price for a drug which was now generic and available at a reasonable price, the government decided to get good value for money for Australian taxpayers—while continuing to provide for the highest standard of medical care for Australian people. So this broken model needed review.
I note that, in the period between this private member's matter being brought before us and now, we had, very importantly, the outcome of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into chemotherapy funding. The report was tabled as recently as 10 May. It recommended that the government and industry parties, through the review—they had proposed a review—continue the examination of issues in chemotherapy drug pricing to ensure that existing funds under the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement are appropriately directed to reflect the costs and benefits of the supply of chemotherapy drugs and to ensure the ongoing supply of these drugs across all services, particularly in rural and regional areas. That is exactly what is going on and I am pleased to note that the member for Dickson put on the record that there is agreement between the government and the opposition with regard to the Expanded and Accelerated Price Disclosure policy.
This policy continues to work the way it was intended—bringing the price the government pays for the drugs into line with the market price of those drugs. That is transparency and that is fairness. It also saves taxpayers' money and that money has allowed and will allow the government to make investments in critical treatments for consumers and for sufferers of cancers other than the one the Docetaxel drug—which seems to have been the real stimulus for this conversation—is intended for.
Since 2007, this government has committed $1.5 billion for cancer medicines. I know, from my own family and personal experience, that the provision of these drugs is vital. I hope that, as things move forward, some of the unnecessary vitriol in this debate dissipates and that a quieter, more thoughtful and careful conversation proceeds to achieve the best outcomes for the Australian population. (Time expired)
I rise tonight to give a very considered and thoughtful speech on this issue of chemotherapy drugs. I will start by going back to 28 November 2012, when this issue was first raised. It was raised by the shadow minister for health in the House, but it is worth noting, when it comes to thoughtful consideration, that it was first raised by Independent Senator Nick Xenophon in the Senate.
So this went across party lines because there was real concern about the government's incompetent handling of this issue. It was not an issue that anyone wants to be raising but it was an issue that we felt compelled to raise. The motion was not hysterical. It was a very calm, considered motion that had been put through, calling on the government to negotiate with stakeholders—hardly alarming—to ensure the continued delivery of chemotherapy drugs without disruption to patients by resolving dispensing cost issues and avoiding further unintended consequences.
That last bit is one of the keys to this motion, because this is the government of unintended consequences. Everything that it does, it fails to have a proper process for. It fails to think what might be the scenarios that their actions might lead to. What we see time and time again is unintended consequence after unintended consequence. That is why we are here tonight to try and get the government to solve these unintended consequences. What is the greatest of those unintended consequences at the moment? It is the fact that we still do not have a long-term solution to this problem. This is not something that we have just raised. As I referred to at the very start, this was something raised on 28 November. Yet still we have speakers from the government here tonight unable to say what the solution will be. As a matter of fact, they have outsourced it. They have said, 'We don't know what to do. We don't know how to handle this issue. We can't deal with it. It is too complicated for us.' They are putting their hands up and saying, 'We're going to defer it till after the election.'
Now that might be a very simple solution for the government but it is not a simple solution for those cancer patients who need this chemotherapy issue resolved and they need it resolved now. They do not want to see it postponed into the future. They want to see the government say, 'We have the wherewithal to be able to deal with this issue. It is not hard. It is not complicated. We have a bureaucracy behind us. We can solve this issue.' If the government fails to act quickly, many of the most vulnerable patients may be forced into the public hospital system. In and of itself, you would think, okay, that is not great because we are going to put more pressure on the public health system. But what has the government done in the MYEFO? Not only are they pushing these patients into the public health system but they then cut funding to the public health system. In Victoria they cut $104 million.
An honourable member: That is a misrepresentation.
It is not a misrepresentation. You come up with a short-term solution to put patients into the public health system and then you cut funding to it. What type of incompetence is this? Where does the logic flow that you would put more pressure on your public health system and then cut funding to it—illogical? It is hard to fathom that we could get this type of incompetence, yet here we are tonight. All of us here on both sides would like to see this issue resolved. We have offered on this side to work with the government to help you to resolve it but we do not get any admitting: 'We can't do our job. Please could you come over and give us a hand and allow us to do it.' There is nothing along those lines. None of us want to be here tonight, but we once again call on the government to do what they should be doing: govern the country and fix this problem.
Honourable members: Hear! Hear!
I rise to speak on this motion proposed by the member for Dickson regarding chemotherapy drugs. Since 2007, the government has invested $3.7 billion to improve cancer prevention, detection, treatment, research and infrastructure. Since this time, with an additional $1.3 billion, the Labor government has listed 30 new medicines to treat 15 different types of cancers on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, saving many more patients over $5,000 per treatment.
The government acknowledges that there has been community concern with regard to the impact of price disclosure on funding for chemotherapy infusion medicines. On 5 May this year Minister Plibersek announced a major review into the way chemotherapy is funded, and provided a way for ensuring cancer patients have continued access to quality, affordable treatment.
I note the support of shadow minister Dutton for the policy of price disclosure and the aim that Australian taxpayers should pay the market price for PBS medicines, including chemo infusions. In terms of point 3 of the member for Dickson's motion, the Gillard government wants to ensure that cancer patients do not experience any interruption in their treatment while we closely examine how much we should be paying to support the ongoing viability of chemotherapy providers.
The review followed talks between the federal government and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia over appropriate subsidies for dispensing chemotherapy after the reduction in price the government pays for a key chemotherapy drug, docetaxel. For many years the government has been paying 20 per cent to 75 per cent above the market price for this drug. These inflated prices have meant the government has paid, in some instances, $2,800 above the market price. I strongly believe that taxpayers should not be paying inflated prices for medicines that are no longer covered by the patient and are being sold to pharmacies at much lower prices. To bring the price the government pays into line with the market price, on 1 December 2012 the price the government paid for this cancer drug dropped by 76 per cent.
I note that in the 2013-14 budget the federal Labor government increased support for young people living with cancer. Young people who are diagnosed with cancer will better be able to get the care and support they need under this government's funding boost. The Gillard government is providing an additional $18.3 million over four years for youth cancer networks around Australia, building on the $15 million already provided for the networks. I am pleased to say that the Launceston General Hospital in Bass is a partner in this project. We have expanded the breast cancer screening for women, which is very important. And we know that detecting cancer early means better outcomes for patients. The 2013 federal budget included $55.7 million to expand the breast cancer target screening program for women aged between 70 and 74. This means that 70,000 more women will now receive a mammogram-reminder letter from BreastScreen Australia.
The Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing has investigated these issues, including with site visits to regional hospitals, and has an ongoing contact with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. The government continues to discuss the issues with the Pharmacy Guild, with a view to ensuring sustainability of the supply and dispensing of chemotherapy medicines. The government accepts that the dispensing of cancer treatments is more complex than other types of treatments. This is why oncology pharmacists are paid $77 in preparation fees plus mark-ups for chemotherapy infusions.
In closing, I am proud of the government's record in improving cancer services. In addition to listing 30 new cancer treatments since 2007 the government has also committed around $2.5 billion to improve the detection and treatment of cancer. Recently, the Minister for Health, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek came to my electorate of Bass to officially open the Northern Cancer Support Centre, which is proving to be an important place, where sufferers and their families, friends and carers can go for support.
We are supporting patients in regional areas through the construction of regional cancer centres and associated accommodation facilities. These achievements demonstrate that this government is committed to providing cancer patients with the best treatments and services, no matter where they live. Australian cancer patients now have the best overall survival rates in the world, and our new cancer packages will continue to improve the lives of all Australians touched by cancer.
I rise to support the motion of the federal member for Dickson, the shadow minister for health and ageing. In doing so I want to note that the government members opposite seem to be avoiding the central issue of the motion, and that is the concerns of key stakeholders in relation to the price reduction of the chemotherapy drug docetaxel and its potential broad impact on the treatment of cancer patients.
Members opposite have failed to understand that this is a concern of the sector, including the private sector, which provides up to 50 per cent of all cancer care in Australia. More than 13,000 lifesaving infusions are prepared and dispensed by community and private hospital pharmacies for cancer patients each week.
Central to this issue is cross-subsidisation. The member for Robertson mentioned the report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, and I want to refer to the additional comments from coalition senators—the member for Robertson should read them. Their comments noted that there is not a good understanding of cross-subsidisation, which is what is at the centre of this motion today. Nobody is saying that cross-subsidisation is the best system possible but continually this government interferes in an area, it ignores the advice of a sector, it blunders on through with a noble objective and it ends up doing a lot of damage to everybody. That is exactly what has happened here. We are hearing that from the sector itself. The sector says, quite clearly:
The largest provider of private day oncology services on the North Shore and northwest Sydney—
near my electorate—
the Sydney Adventist Hospital, said the funding approach could lead to “cessation of all chemotherapy infusions, provision of a limited range of treatments and pharmacy staff reductions”.
Nobody would want to see that. If the sector is telling us that if cross-subsidisation is removed and we do not have anything better to replace it with that could lead to the cessation of treatment, then obviously you have to do something about it. Of course we do not want to be here today discussing a motion in relation to cancer treatment and chemotherapy drugs—nobody wants to politicise these issues. These are not political footballs. But the sector is saying they cannot convince the government, and they cannot convince the member for Robertson, about this issue—that they have a problem. So we have put forward a reasonable and measured motion that calls on the government to consult with the sector, that says to negotiate on the price about this.
If the government do have a noble and objective intention of saving taxpayers' money—they will not get any argument from me about saving taxpayers' money—they must have something to replace it with that is better. You must have a better alternative. It is not right to leave people in serious health situations in the lurch. That is what we have seen here. Last year, in November, we saw Senator Nick Xenophon, an Independent—no friend of the opposition's—side with the shadow minister for health to say what an issue this is. Even the Greens offered their support. Maybe the government could have a look at that and say that if all these people are saying there is a concern, there might be a concern.
The government itself has basically acknowledged the problem. In its recent announcement on 5 May 2013 it said it would initiate a funding review into chemotherapy and provide $29.7 million in the 2013-14 budget to provide an additional $60 for each chemotherapy infusion for only six months. This was basically an admission of failure that what it attempted to do last year was never going to work, that the patients in the sector are saying this is not going to work, and it took the government six months to respond. That is the criticism we have of this government—it is not rigorous with the detail; it is not across the detail. When those opposite attempt to do something with the highest and most noble of intentions, they never have any understanding of what it is they are trying to do—of the follow-through that is necessary and how to ameliorate the impact it will have on people on the way through. In other words, they are not good change managers and they certainly cannot manage change effectively to deliver competent government policy across a range of sectors.
The opposition senators, who examined this issue rigorously, said that the failure to satisfactorily resolve this issue early was a demonstration of policy ineptitude and laziness in the government. It does not matter whether you are listening to the Pharmacy Guild or the Clinical Oncology Society or the San hospital in Sydney, or any of the constituents of mine, whether it is Kay from West Pennant Hills, Bronwyn from Castle Hill or Christina from Castle Hill—I have dozens of letters—they all express serious concerns about what the federal government was doing late last year with the future funding of chemotherapy drugs. How is that a good situation? Of course we acknowledge that cross-subsidisation may not be the best outcome but, if you are going to replace it with something, have something better to replace it with before you go and make the lives of people demonstrably worse.
This motion on chemotherapy drugs is one of the most disappointing motions I have debated in this parliament. I believe that members on both sides of this House want to ensure that patients who are living with cancer, are being treated for cancer, get the best possible medications available. I believe that members of this parliament want to see the list of available drugs expanded, and I believe that people who are undergoing cancer treatment do not want to see members of parliament politicising an issue as important as this.
Both sides of this House have done many things that they can be proud of in relation to cancer treatment and the ongoing research that provides cutting-edge treatments for people who are living with cancer or who have just been diagnosed with cancer. All members would be well aware of the proud history that we have here, in Australia. We have the best cancer survival rate in the world. That does not come about because the government is shirking its responsibility; rather, it comes about because the government is committed to ensuring that cancer patients receive the best possible treatment and that there is investment in cancer services.
Members on this side of the House have already stated that, since 2007, the government has committed $3.5 billion to improve the detection, prevention and treatment of cancer. It includes an extra $226 million in this year's budget over four years to deliver the government's World Leading Cancer Care package to improve cancer prevention, detection, support and research. Critically ill patients waiting for bone marrow transplants will have a better chance to get life saving help under this initiative. In addition, it will provide new funding for CanTeen, the Australian organisation for young people living with cancer. It will also provide extended funding for the McGrath Foundation, which I think every member of this House would acknowledge has been very successful. In my own electorate, many constituents have spoken to me about the need to expand cancer treatment and detection and then later they have come back to me saying, 'Thank you very much for what the government has done in this area.'
Today we are looking at chemotherapy drugs—and here I would like to turn to the motion moved by the member for Dickson and say that what he should be doing is working with the government. He has given some initial cooperation. He has indicated his cooperation but when you see this sort of motion before the House you know exactly where the member for Dickson is coming from. On 5 May this year, the minister announced a review into the funding of chemotherapy services, because we know how important it is that people receiving treatment continue to get that treatment. We know how important it is to ensure that new treatments come on line. We know how important it is to ensure that, as a government, we pay the correct amount of money for the drugs that people are using, and we need to know that the people who are receiving the treatment are paying the amount of money that they need to. The broad aim of this review is to gain a detailed understanding of all aspects of chemotherapy funding. It is not an ad hoc approach, as those on the other side are suggesting. The broad aim of the review is to ensure that there will be consultation with all stakeholders. It is a very inclusive review and, as members have previously mentioned, there was also a review undertaken by the Senate committee.
It is time that those on the other side of this House stopped playing politics. They should stop trying to prey on people who look to government for support. They should stop trying to create fear and uncertainty. They should stop trying to prey on people whom they should be supporting and looking after. I think there has been enough of this. It just says to me that, if this opposition were ever allowed to become the government of this country, there would be much more of this and the people of Australia could be well and truly let down. (Time expired)
I thank the member for Dickson, the shadow minister for health, for moving this important private member's motion. I note that the member submitted this motion in November last year and that his concerns have also been investigated by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, which released its report earlier this month. I support the member for Dickson's call for the government to negotiate with stakeholders and to ensure that, as a result, pharmacists can continue to dispense chemotherapy drugs without disrupting patients.
Earlier today I was honoured to host another Parliamentary Friends of Medicines event and to welcome senior members of the Pharmacy Guild as they launched a paper about reducing financial burden on society. We are all aware that our health budget comprises a large part of our nation's expenditure and all would agree that these costs need to be managed in the most efficient and prudent way. However, the key difference with this budget item is that we are talking about the health of our constituents, and thereby the health of our nation.
This government's failure to administer a reliable funding framework for the delivery of chemotherapy services to Australia's cancer sufferers is a perfect example of how not to manage health related budgetary matters. To add weight to this saga, the government's failure to resolve this issue in a timely fashion is, and I quote from the Senate report, 'a demonstration of its policy ineptitude and laziness. According to evidence of many witnesses, this lack of a timely resolution may put at risk affordable and quality care and access to treatment for cancer patients'.
The array of critics of this government's management of this issue was seemingly endless. The Clinical Oncology Society of Australia said: 'If there is no longer an income stream to maintain the clinical pharmacy services associated with the supply of chemotherapy, this is likely to affect the cost of care and patient access.' The Pharmacy Guild of Australia said: 'Ongoing care for all Australian cancer patients, regardless of their type of cancer, is being put at risk by the current arrangements.' Sydney Adventist Hospital, the largest provider of private day oncology services on the North Shore and the north-west of Sydney said the funding approach could lead to a 'cessation of all chemotherapy infusions, provision of a limited range of treatments and pharmacy staff reductions'.
The Medical Oncology Group of Australia and Private Cancer Physicians of Australia said 'The current remuneration model for chemotherapy does not reflect how contemporary cancer services are delivered.' The key result of the Senate committee report is that the current chemotherapy funding model is neither transparent nor sustainable. And so finally, just a few weeks ago, the government admitted to its own mess and announced it will provide an additional $60 for each chemotherapy infusion—but only for six months.
How this short-term announcement provides any stability to the industry or certainty to cancer patients and their families is beyond me. All it does is get them past the September election. How convenient. It is clear that this government is still unable to detail for providers of chemotherapy services and their patients any definitive long-term funding solution. This is not a debate about price disclosure. The patented medicine in question was developed by Bennelong based company Sanofi.
Companies like Sanofi are very willing to participate in a conversation on the important role that they can play as part of this process and the important savings that are derived after their patent period has expired. This is an issue about cancer sufferers and chemotherapy providers, both of whom are wholly dependent on a viable long-term funding solution for the sustainable provision of cancer treatment services.
The government's delay on this matter has forced many private chemotherapy providers to absorb huge costs. The Sydney Adventist Hospital Pharmacy that services my electorate has estimated a $1.6 million financial shortfall as a result of the government's changes to the PBS since April 2010. It is clear that the government must, at the earliest opportunity, commence a genuine negotiation with stakeholders to effect a sustainable solution to this crisis in our health-care system.
As the Member for Dickson said earlier, vulnerable cancer patients do not need the stress of the uncertainty created by this government to add even more pressure on top of the challenges they are already facing. I congratulate the member on this motion and commend it in the strongest possible terms to the House. (Time expired)
The government is willing to support the motion put forward by the shadow minister for health with amendments; however, I note with concern that, as usual, the opposition distorts the facts and attempts to frighten the sick, as it infers the government's drug-price disclosure policy will somehow disrupt the delivery of life-saving drugs to cancer patients.
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that pays for these drugs is a Commonwealth government scheme which gives Australians affordable access to necessary medicines and, interestingly, the PBS was started in 1948 as an initiative of the Chifley Labor government with free medicines for pensioners and a list of 139 'life-saving and disease preventing' medicines that were free of charge for others in the community.
Today Labor's PBS scheme is available to all Australian residents who hold a current Medicare card and the government subsidises the cost of medicine for most medical conditions, in particular for expensive drugs such as Docetaxel that are used to treat cancers. It is evident that the shadow minister for health is arguing not for the rights of cancer patients or the taxpayers but for the chemotherapy providers who were, it appeared, benefiting from the continuation of the previously high price that the government was paying for patented drugs like Docetaxel that have subsequently seen a drop in price following the expiry of their patent. Docetaxel is a derivative of Taxol, an anti-cancer drug that was first isolated in 1967 from the bark of the Pacific yew tree by scientists at the National Cancer Institute, an agency of the United States government that is funded by United States taxpayers.
Given that most of the important discoveries of medical science have been made in universities and public institutions, I would argue that, instead of simply paying endless sums to the companies that commercially exploit these findings, more funds should be made available to the university and research institute scientists and workers who actually find drugs like Taxol and similar substances. The most profound discovery in biology, that of the structure of DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid, was made 60 years by the Cambridge University scientists Francis Crick and James Watson yet, as far as I know, no member of the opposition has made any mention of the importance of this finding that is key to the development of treatment of cancers, diseases that are fundamentally disorders of the genes, themselves structures composed of molecules of DNA. I have no doubt that, if Crick and Watson had applied for research funding from an Abbott government, they would have been refused support on the grounds that such work had no commercial benefit and would not produce products useful for industry.
Is that fanciful? Perhaps not given that Dr Brendan Nelson, the then Howard government's minister, set up a Robb Pierre style committee of public safety to overlook research funding applications. That committee was composed of individuals who had neither training nor expertise in the proposals that they were vetting yet there was great concern that research grants may have been disallowed by ignorant individuals whose only qualifications were loyalty to the Liberal Party.
I have no doubt that an Abbott government would hasten to re-establish such a committee, given the evident hostility to science and rational policy-making shown by the opposition. Of course, the opposition will, if given the chance, slash funding for medical research given its profound hostility to scientists and their work as exemplified by the denial of the reality of climate change and the attacks on research funding under the failed Howard government.
In contrast, our government, determined to support medical research, has committed $3.7 billion since 2007 to improve the detection, prevention and treatment of cancer. The government's policy of an expanded and accelerated price disclosure for the cost of drugs is working to bring the price that the government pays for these substances into line with the prevailing market price.
In concluding, although some may seek the assistance of the shadow minister for health to complain that the monetary advantage that they previously enjoyed has been diminished, in the end the taxpayers and the patients will benefit from the reduction in outlays for particular drugs and, after all, it is for the patients that these policy changes have been introduced by our government.
Debate adjourned.
This is the fourth occasion on which I have risen in this place to speak on the topic of same-sex marriage so I do not intend to recite the arguments and the cases that I have spoken about in previous speeches nor my respect for those who have a different viewpoint on this. What I do want to do in the short time available to me is to broaden the philosophical basis for same-sex marriage. The case has, I believe, been made on the basis of equality—a value which many Australians hold dear and which is fundamental to our unique Antipodean notion of egalitarianism. People have spoken about same-sex marriage in the context of social justice and the recognition and protection of fundamental political and civil rights. But in my view the equality case is equally matched by a small 'l' liberal case for same-sex marriage and by a conservative case for same-sex marriage. Recently, conservative leaders in the United Kingdom and New Zealand have moved to allow conscience votes on the floors of their parliaments to take place on same-sex marriage—a marker as to how quickly attitudes are changing on this critical issue.
Prime Minister Cameron has said that he supports same-sex marriage not in spite of his conservatism but because of it. He says:
I think marriage is a great institution - I think it helps people to commit, it helps people to say that they're going to care and love for another person.
'It helps people to put aside their selfish interests and think of the union that they're forming.
'It's something I feel passionately about and I think if its good enough for straight people like me, its good enough for everybody and that’s why we should have gay marriage and we will.'
New Zealand conservative Prime Minister John Key said: 'My view has been that if two gay people want to get married then I can't see why it would undermine my marriage'. In New Zealand's parliamentary debate over the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill earlier this year, conservative MP Maurice Williamson delivered a rousing speech that went viral on the internet. He spoke from what I would regard as a small 'l' liberal perspective when he said:
… all we are doing with this bill is allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognised by way of marriage. That is all we are doing.
We are not declaring nuclear war on a foreign state. We are not bringing a virus in that could wipe out our agricultural sector for ever.
We are allowing two people who love each other to have that recognised, and I cannot see what is wrong with that for neither love nor money. I just cannot. I cannot understand why someone would be opposed.
I understand why people do not like what it is that others do. That is fine. We are all in that category.
But I give a promise to those people who are opposed to this bill right now. I give you a watertight guaranteed promise.
The sun will still rise tomorrow.
Your teenage daughter will still argue back to you as if she knows everything.
Your mortgage will not grow.
You will not have skin diseases or rashes, or toads in your bed.
The world will just carry on.
This bill is fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us, life will go on.
So do not make this into a big deal.
This bill is fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us, life will go on.
That is a beautiful exposition of the small 'l' liberal case for same-sex marriage.
I want to speak briefly about the personal experience of Reverend Janis R Huggett, a constituent of mine who wrote to me last year and said:
I am a retired Uniting Church ordained minister who would certainly have experienced both personal joy and legal benefit from being able to marry my partner before she died three years ago. Instead, I had to cope with her brother challenging her will and being forced to continue to declare my legal as 'never married' rather than 'widowed'. After all our years together, that is so unjust. The church has been much more supportive than the government, in case you are wondering about Christian views on this subject.
I would like to recognise many of those on the other side of the house who would like to vote for same-sex marriage if a conscience vote were allowed, including the member for Longman, the member for Higgins, the member for Wentworth, Senator Sue Boyce, Senator Simon Birmingham, and New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell.
I come to this from a perspective of equality. I acknowledge the hard work of Rainbow Labor, of activists such as Matthew Donovan, who worked as an intern in my office and helped prepare these remarks. But I hope that others will recognise that there are many good philosophical bases on which to ground same-sex marriage. It is not a battle between gay and straight, conservative and progressive, or left and right. It is an issue which ought to allow all of us to speak for our own electorates, and I hope the Leader of the Opposition will allow his party to do just that—a value that is in the spirit of his party.
This bill, the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013, is an attack on marriage. Marriage is not just a word but an institution, and institutions exist because there is a common need for them and they serve a common purpose. The bearing and rearing of children is the fundamental purpose of marriage. There are those that see marriage as a simple expression of love. It is that, but far more, and the far more is the reason that same-sex marriage does not make sense. There are many avenues that people can and do use to express love, devotion and commitment to each other. Marriage is one of those, but it is far more than that. Marriage is about family. To those that attempt Orwellian doublespeak in calling this 'marriage equality', I say: you already have marriage equality. Anyone—gay, bi, heterosexual—can marry a partner of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination here.
This bill is a piece of enabling legislation: it enables the dismantling of society as we know it. In essence, this bill is the apotheosis of a movement bent on legislating a social experiment. Gay marriage is a social experiment. Social experiments have poor results when viewed historically. One need only think of phrenology and eugenics, both of which, thankfully, have been consigned to the dustbins of history but not before having damaging social consequences. We have not yet seen the fallout from this social experiment where it has been undertaken in other jurisdictions. There simply has not been the time. Let us make haste slowly.
The poison of this bill is that it replaces absolutism with relativism. This leads to crises of confidence and moral drift. Moral drift has social and economic consequences. Certainty is the most precarious and most precious commodity in the world. The social experiment proposed here today is too risky. The biggest risk is the unknown effect of normalising and legalising these types of microsocial compacts. It all pivots on the unknown and unintended consequences.
How can a child be brought into such a union? Certainly not as a natural result of that union. Is it not difficult enough to educate our children on reproduction facts without the added complication of a child with two mothers or two fathers? Yes, there are marriages where the relationship between the parents does damage the children. Yes, there are loving same-sex and single parents, just as with heterosexuals. But, just because bad parenting by natural parents can be pointed to, is that any reason to accept suboptimal parenting more generally? Clearly, all things being equal, it is preferable for a child to be raised by its natural parents, followed by a heterosexual adoptive couple. I can state, having my own children, that children need role models of both sexes, and it is far better that those role models are parents.
I now put forward the voices of the vast majority of the people of Tangney on the record for posterity. The following are arguments I have heard from my electors back in Perth: same-sex couples are not the optimal environment in which to raise children; gay marriage violates the sacred institution of marriage; same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage; we shouldn't alter heterosexual marriage, which is a traditional institution that goes back to the dawn of time. What will we be debating next? It is incumbent on all members of this place to step back and seek the counsel of time and good sense. We must not cave in to popular trends or fancies. Are we leaders or followers?
Only two decades ago or less, the same groups of people pushing for gay marriage today were decrying the institution of marriage as obsolete. So what has changed? There is no discrimination in the area of superannuation or life insurance for gay couples. Where would the next cut-off point be if this bill were to get up? These are the questions that gay marriage advocates cannot answer. Until such answers can be given to married people as to why they should accept such a fundamental change to their current status, I cannot as a representative of the people of Tangney support the member for Melbourne's bill.
I rise to speak in favour of the member for Melbourne's bill, the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, having previously spoken in favour of the member for Throsby's bill in relation to same-sex marriage. I start by saying that this issue represents the first conscience vote in which I have participated as a member of parliament, and I want to place on record, as I did previously, the wonderful way in which I believe this debate has been carried out in this parliament but also within my electorate. I have tried to make myself as available as possible to everyone, of all views, in relation to this issue—views which are deeply held. Really the way in which those views have been expressed to me, with a deep respect for people who hold different positions, stands in my view as a model for how debate should be conducted in this place. I want to make that very clear. I particularly want to say to those people who hold a different view to me in relation to this that the way in which they have engaged with me has always been with the utmost respectfulness and politeness.
An argument has been put to me—one that I have empathy for—that a number of churches in my electorate feel a concern that pressure will be created by virtue of the passage of this legislation, were it to occur, that would require them to conduct services in relation to same-sex couples, which they do not want to do. So in supporting same-sex marriage, as I do tonight, I do so very much with a renewed expression of the importance of the freedom of religious expression and the need for us all to defend that right. For me, this has been something of an unexpected journey in the course of this debate. There are many who feel that their rights to express their religious beliefs need defending within our community. So I very much say that for me, in supporting same-sex marriage in the context of this bill, the other side of that coin is a renewed commitment to defend the right of freedom of expression of churches, including those churches that would see marriage as being only between a man and a woman and would conduct marriage ceremonies only on that basis.
There has also been an argument put to me that allowing same-sex marriages represents the beginning of a slippery slope which will see other forms of relationship given legal sanction under our civil law. I do not agree with that argument. I do not see that we are putting ourselves on a slippery slope. In any event, all we can do in assessing this piece of legislation is to look at the proposition which is before us, which is about allowing the union of same-sex couples. In that sense, for me the arguments are very clear.
There were 85 separate pieces of legislation in the last parliament which were amended to remove discrimination against same-sex couples in the areas of property, superannuation and life insurance. This was a non-controversial step to take, and it removed discrimination across the board and was rightly regarded as an unambiguous good. I understand that for some marriage is seen as being deeply connected to the issue of faith, but for many others it is not. Marriage is first and foremost a statement between a couple of their commitment to each other and then a statement by that couple to their community and their friends about their commitment to each other. The ability to convey that to their community is part of the commitment that they make to each other. In my view, to deny a couple the opportunity to make that statement of their love to their community is for them a denial of a human right, and to remove the denial of that right is, in my view, just another removal of an act of discrimination, which we did without controversy in the last parliament.
So it is for that reason that I think it is very important that we provide for same-sex marriage to be a part of our civil law so that people are able to make that commitment to themselves, to their friends, to their society and ultimately to their country and so that it can be recognised as such. In doing so, I very much defend the right of individual churches to conduct marriages as they see fit as an expression of their freedom of religion.
I am opposed to this private member's bill. As you would expect, I canvass the views of the Riverina electorate, which I serve, on a daily basis. I receive feedback on a variety of issues. I have received an enormous amount of correspondence on the issue of same-sex marriage, almost all of it from outside the electorate. The correspondence I have received, most of it in email form, has presented a range of different positions.
I recognise that there are passionately held views on both sides of this debate. I have met with members of the national Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays and a number of local advocates for same-sex marriages as well as with members of the community who staunchly oppose same-sex marriage. I should add that overwhelmingly in all of the Riverina correspondence I have received, as well as an electorate-wide survey mid-last year, the level of opinion has been in favour of the retention of the Marriage Act in its current form. Indeed, of the 1,700 respondents to the survey collated thus far, the results were: 78.3 per cent against same-sex marriage; 17.7 percentage favour; and 3.9 per cent uncertain. On September 19 last year the lower House of the Australian parliament voted down the member for Throsby's private member's bill regarding sex same-sex marriage, 98 to 42.
Whilst obviously I always consider the views of Riverina constituents expressed in letters, conversations and many other forms of communication, it is my personal view that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. As it stands today, I do not support any change to Commonwealth law which would diminish this institution. I believe that people are entitled to freedom of religion, respect, dignity, and the opportunity to participate in society and receive the protection of the law regardless of their sexuality. I remain committed to the Australian tradition of tolerance and respect. I therefore support the recognition of legal rights within same-sex relationships.
In the past, the coalition has supported the passage of the government's same sex reform legislation, which has provided equality to all relationships on the condition that nothing in its terms affected the status and centrality of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. I intend to continue to participate in the public debate in a moderate and respectful manner and I am hopeful that issue will not become unnecessarily divisive in the community. I am certainly not opposed to having a conscience vote. I do feel that it is a pity this issue is not being dealt with by way of a referendum.
I will conclude my remarks with comments by Bill Muehlenberg, who is a commentator of contemporary issues and who lectures on ethics and philosophy. He has reviewed a book by William B May called Getting the Marriage Conversation Right in the National Civic Council's News Weekly edition of 25 May. He writes:
He shows us what the real nature of marriage is, why it is so important for children, and how it fundamentally differs from non-heterosexual relationships.
The most important aspect to this entire debate is to get a proper understanding of just what exactly marriage is. A faulty understanding of marriage will simply provide fodder to those who seek to deconstruct it for their radical purposes.
Marriage is not the mere public recognition of adults who are in a relationship for the sake of personal fulfilment. Any number of combinations could be called marriage if that were the only definition.
He continues:
Marriage, properly understood, has always been about that which unites a man and a woman with each other and any children who may come from this union.
Last year I was proud to vote in support of the member for Throsby's private member's bill on marriage equality along with 37 of my Labor colleagues in the House of Representatives, three Independents and the member for Melbourne. I speak in support of his bill, the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 today.
Since last year's third we have seen the pace of change continue to quicken as laws reflect the aspiration for equality in our community. Maine, Maryland and Washington became the first US states to legalise marriage equality through a popular vote. The New Zealand parliament passed marriage equality in April this year, with observers and MPs breaking into a traditional Maori love song. France's National Assembly passed their 'marriage for all' bill despite death threats being sent to parliamentary supporters in a divisive national debate.
As fast as laws across the world change, in Australia our parliament lags behind the community we represent. Many Australians remember a time when homosexuality was illegal and formal discrimination provided shelter for so many other acts of violence and bigotry against gay men and lesbians. The path to greater equality has been difficult, and at times has been halting as successive governments have worked to reduce the shadow cast by this kind of discrimination: from decriminalisation to protections against workplace discrimination to de facto relationship rights.
I am proud of the role that the Labor Party has played in that journey, and the 85 laws which we changed in 2008 to remove discrimination against same-sex de facto couples. As complex as the task of removing discrimination can be, at its heart is one simple idea: that we should all be equal under the law. The conviction which drove us to amend those 85 laws discriminating against same-sex de facto couples should energise us now to complete the task ahead. Once we accept that heterosexual and same-sex couples should be equal before the law, how can we reserve marriage for one group and deny it to the other?
Marriage is both a religious and a civil institution. Other speakers have said that they would not expect churches to be forced to undertake marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, and I agree that. Churches should not be forced to do that. But we are all members of a civil society as well. Many people enter the institution of marriage with no particular religious beliefs, but they still enjoy the rights and responsibilities that go with marriage. People often speak about the role of children in marriage, and as a married mother of three I know that marriage is a wonderful institution. But I have to say that I have gay and lesbian friends who have children too, and they would like to offer their children the security that marriage might bring to their relationship.
There are also many couples who marry without ever intending to have children or, indeed, without being able to have children. They may marry later in life for the second or a third time, with no ability or intention to have children. Do we say that their marriages are worth less because they enter with no intention or ability to have children?
All Australians should have the right to legal recognition of their relationships and the advantages and responsibilities that such legal recognition brings with it. All Australians deserve the full social acceptance that removing discrimination symbolises. Often our attention is drawn by the battles in courts and parliaments around the world, but the measure of what is at stake is found in those places where marriage equality has been introduced. On those days when marriage equality becomes real you see men and women who have loved each other for decades surrounded by their friends and family making a declaration of their commitment to one another. You see the truth that same-sex couples are no less loving and their commitment to one another is no less moving or affirming. All they have been waiting for is for the law to acknowledge that.
I look forward to seeing those same scenes of love celebrated here in Australia.
Debate adjourned.
I rise tonight in the hope of adequately conveying the messages from Bonner residents about the failure of the Labor budget.
Email after email, phone call after phone call; at every community event people are telling me just how tired they are of hearing this government blaming 2008 for the ills of our economy. This Labor government wants to blame anything and anyone else for the budget mess. Bonner residents are simply tired of the rhetoric from this government. All they want is answers and certainty.
The residents and small businesses of Bonner continually tell me how they are suffering from the pressures of the high cost of living. I know that despite being very disappointed with this government in the past, they were hoping, against all odds, that something was going to change. Yet after six years they were again bitterly disappointed that this budget does very little to help Australian families deal with the financial strain that they are under.
My constituents, especially pensioners, are very worried about the ever-increasing $300 billion debt. They have worked very hard for many years to support their families and to secure their families' future. They constantly tell me about how they worry that this massive debt will blight their grandchildren's future. They feel betrayed by the Labor government, and they have every right to feel that way. After six years, we have seen nothing but total disappointment from the Labor government. Their poor and reckless financial mismanagement of this country, in the middle of the biggest boom in 150 years, is truly shameful.
Yet Labor are once again turning blue, by holding their breath and hoping against hope that the people of Australia will not catch on to the fact that they are, once again, peddling their hollow rhetoric, empty promises and economic deceptions. But, from what I am hearing out and about in the community, the residents of my electorate are not deceived. They are fully aware that this budget promises them, their families and their businesses very little hope for a better and brighter future. The only thing they can be sure of is debt, debt and more debt.
The most inexcusable fact is that Labor has not detailed any credible path back to a surplus. This government has never run a surplus and it now seems sure, as our side of the chamber has been saying for four years, that it never will. Many Bonner residents have lost all trust in the government and its continued empty promises, especially considering that all of Labor's promised surpluses have turned into deficits. It is a disgraceful fact that this Labor government will go on record as having delivered nine consecutive deficits and a record deficit of $18 billion. What a truly shameful feat. Labor's continued poor and reckless financial mismanagement of this budget is yet further evidence of a government in deep crisis—of a government that cannot and must not be trusted to manage our great nation. My constituents tell me they are trying to live within their means, but how difficult it has become just paying for the basics. Yet what kind of example is this Labor government showing the people of Australia? If the government does not live within its means, how can we ask the Australian people to live within their means? This Labor government has to actually deliver on its words. We must consider that the revenue this year is $80 billion greater than that of the last year of the Howard government, yet spending this year is $120 billion greater than that of the last year of the Howard government. That really sums it up. This government does not have a revenue problem—revenue is going up seven per cent—it has a monstrous spending problem. The bottom line is that Labor has been shockingly cavalier with public money. The government seem to fail to comprehend and appreciate that the 'government's' money is in fact taxpayers' money. Labor's focus is always on how to spend other people's money, never on how to save it and certainly not on how to build a better future for Australians.
I would like to see any household that would not be happy with a seven per cent year-on-year increase in revenue. I would like to see any business that would not be happy with a seven per cent increase in revenue. The reality is that this is a budget disaster of the government's own making. They have no-one to blame but themselves. Business sector representatives from my constituency regularly tell me that they are doing it tough—heartbreakingly so for many businesses have been forced to close their doors. They feel betrayed by the government and further let down by Labor's pathetic budget. Businesses see this budget as a budget which embodies no coherent strategy to create jobs and growth or to provide certainty. They see nothing in it to restore an appetite for risk and investment and nothing to restore consumer and investor confidence.
I have been contacted regularly by local builders and tradesmen in my electorate, who have shared with me their serious concerns for the shrinking building and construction industry. Their jobs and livelihoods are in jeopardy and now they are given even worse news, with a budget that takes a cleaver to infrastructure investment. While the small business community in Bonner was hoping for a 'game changer' to kick-start recovery in the small-business economy, the Labor government has chosen to make things harder for the engine room of our economy. How much more can they take? Single-income families in Bonner are nervous, too, as they see under Labor 243,000 jobs that have been lost already in the small-business industry.
This budget delivers anything but jobs and growth. All it delivers is high unemployment and low growth. After six years, my constituents are desperately seeking stable and competent economic management. Mr Tanner from Carindale, a father of two, is a constituent of mine in Bonner and has contacted me regarding health care and the changes to Medicare. He is appalled that Labor has cut over $1.8 billion from Medicare rebates, the extended Medicare safety net and the net medical expenses tax offset. These cuts, which follow years of waste and mismanagement across all areas of government, will hit the sickest and most vulnerable the hardest. They will force up out-of-pocket costs for families already struggling with cost-of-living pressures. This just adds insult to injury for my constituents of Bonner, already under pressure after Labor's previous attacks have forced up the cost of private health insurance and cut Medicare funding for dental services.
There will be no increase to Medicare rebates between November 2012 and July 2014, despite continued growth in the cost of delivering health care. This means the costs are likely to be passed on to patients directly, particularly in general practice, where there is a high volume of pensioners and concession card holders. To make matters worse, out of the pockets of honest, hardworking Bonner residents is the government's health advertising campaign in the lead-up to the election, costing $10 million.
This is a government that has failed to deliver on key promises in health, has forced up the cost of health care for millions of Australians and has diverted much needed resources into growing a bigger bureaucracy. Only the coalition has the plan, experience and discipline to return the budget to sustainable surpluses, reduce debt and provide real support to Australian families to help them get ahead again. Only the coalition can build a strong, prosperous economy and a safe, secure Australia and restore the hope, reward and opportunity that all Australians deserve.
I have on various occasions spoken about human rights abuses in Vietnam and other areas around the globe. It is a matter that I am particularly passionate about, as I believe in a society where people's fundamental human rights are respected. Unfortunately, I am painfully aware of violations of human rights in other parts of the world, where millions of people live under constant fear and oppression. This includes Cambodia, one of the poorest countries in our region, with a population of 15 million people who live under the tight control of the governing political administration. When I think about Cambodia, the word 'tragedy' springs to mind as I think of the astronomical price its people have had to pay in the war for leadership over the years.
We saw the impact of the Khmer Rouge regime led by the murderous Pol Pot throughout the 1970s. It resulted in the genocide of eight million people, through starvation, overwork and executions. This was the darkest time in Cambodia's history and probably one of the darkest times in the history of mankind. Unfortunately, Cambodia's tragedy does not seem to have ended there. The country is now facing growing criticism, both internally and from international sources, about its ongoing poor record of human rights abuses. Reports from Human Rights Watch note a marked deterioration in the situation, where protesters are being attacked, harassed and prosecuted by the country's security forces. Freedom of speech is virtually non-existent, with the government suppressing all forms of media and communication. This applies not only to the general public but also the international community.
I met with Mr Sam Rainsy, the opposition leader and Leader of the Cambodia National Rescue Party, during his visit to Australia last week. Mr Rainsy has been in self-imposed exile since 2009, living in France after charges were laid against him following his criticism of corruption and human rights abuses by Cambodia's ruling party. The opposition leader has been unable to return to Cambodia to contest the election in July because of fears that he would be jailed on arrival. When I met with Mr Rainsy in Sydney he explained the effect of flawed governance under the current regime and outlined his concerns for the future of Cambodia.
Various international human rights reports and, indeed, the UN itself speak of the political influence being exerted by state security forces as well as land grabs by influential and powerful people and corruption in business practices generally. It would appear that within Cambodia judicial officers seem to have been compromised through their political patronage and indeed it would also appear that the essence of leadership in Cambodia is one of exploitation rather than service. As the national election approaches in July this year, the international community anticipates, regrettably, a surge in violent incidents, a crackdown on protesters and an escalation of human rights abuses.
As the member for Fowler I have the privilege of representing the most multicultural electorate in the whole of Australia. Australia is known to be a country that is generous. Indeed, we welcomed over 20,000 Cambodian refugees following the regime of Pol Pot. More than 5,000 of those refugees actually live in my electorate. I have seen the wonderful contribution they have brought to our community through their culture, their religion and their capacity for hard work. They still care about the welfare and well-being of Cambodia and its people, and so should we. Cambodia's citizens continue to fight for their fundamental human rights, the freedom to speak their mind and the freedom to practise their religion—rights we take for granted here in Australia.
Laos is a country that is very close geographically to Cambodia and Vietnam. It also has very strong ties in my electorate of Fowler. Its citizens too suffered the denial of basic human rights. I recently met with Reverend Sam Kounthapanya, one of the leaders of the local Laos community in my electorate. Reverend Kounthapanya approached me to raise his concerns regarding the political situation in his homeland. He expressed to me that, since the communist Lao People's Revolution Party took control of the country from the monarchy in 1975, freedom of speech and freedom of religion have been heavily curtailed.
In order to minimise the chance of a challenge to the ruling party the government has maintained tight control over its population and even with multi-party elections I understand that the ruling party vets and pre-approves candidates. This is certainly contrary to the values of freedom and democracy. The Lao community in my electorate and across Australia have initiated a campaign to assist their homeland citizens to promote freedom of speech and democracy. They have initiated a petition to raise these issues and demonstrate that Australians of Lao descent stand strongly against human right abuses.
There are currently 12,000 people with Lao ancestry in Australia. Happily, 2,500 of those people live in my electorate of Fowler. They are all very active members of the community. They make a great contribution. They are very strong and passionate in advocating on behalf of the citizens of Laos who are suffering human rights abuses at the hands of their government.
On many occasions in this place I have spoken about the gross human rights violations against Christians and other minorities, including the Assyrians and followers of the Mandaean faith in the Middle East. Many who fled the atrocities in Iraq in 2003 have found themselves seeking refuge in Syria, Jordan, Egypt and surrounding countries. I recently attended a memorial service of a young 15-year-old boy—Adam Ghalib Al-Zuhairi. He was killed by a bomb during the shelling of Jerrmana in Syria. His 22-year-old brother was also injured. I met with their father, a refugee and resident of Liverpool in my electorate. Over a thousand local people attended the memorial service.
Adam's father managed to relocate to Australia 18 months ago and was granted refugee status. The mother, two daughters and three sons, including Adam, applied for settlement in Australia and were awaiting the processing of their applications. The family fled Iraq in 2005. They fled the tyranny that existed there, only to find themselves in an equally dire situation in Syria. The reason they fled Iraq in the first place was their faith. This is the fate of a large number of Mandaeans, Syrians and various Christian minorities who were forced to move from their home in Iraq since the war started in 2003. This is certainly an issue that concerns all of us because we were part of the coalition of the willing. These people are the collateral damage of what occurred in an effort to get rid of Sadam Hussein but they should not be expected to pay the price.
I rise tonight to provide the House with an update on the situation in Burma. I know that there is a feeling here in the parliament and particularly in the government that great progress has been made. The recognition of the Thein Sein regime's preferred nation name of Myanmar and the lifting of sanctions against that country demonstrate that the government has normalised relations. It is my view that everything is not okay and that the same problems that existed before the release from house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi still exist today. I stress that if we delude ourselves and ignore the situation of the ethnic nationalities which make up as much as 70 per cent of the population in many of their own conflict-ridden states, we risk facing a situation similar to what happened in the Balkans or recently in the Middle East. The ethnic nationalities of Burma must not be sidelined in the engagement process.
This evening, together with Dean Smith, I hosted a gathering of community leaders from some of the ethnic nationalities of Burma. We also had Colonel Nerdah of the Korean National Union and he is also a representative of the UNFC, coming from the border region of Thailand. Also present was Scott Johnson, a lawyer from Western Australia who frequently visits Burma and supports those ethnic nationalities that still struggle for freedom. The impression of those who attended this briefing was not anywhere near as positive or hopeful as is often made out. Tonight I will outline the reality of what does take place in Burma.
On the positive side, as we know, Aung San Suu Kyi has been released, along with around 400 political prisoners. Media censorship has been relaxed a little and the NLB party was allowed to resume 43 parliamentary seats in 2012—a positive step forward. However, these changes have taken place under the larger shadow of military abuses. There is a conflict in the northern Kachin state, there are severe problems in Arakan state and against that backdrop there has also been an interference in the delivery of aid to thousands of refugees. In Karen state there are over 300 Burmese military bases or outposts which have been reinforced with troops and armed at an alarming rate. To emphasise the reality, I quote the Human Rights Watch Deputy Director Asia who condemned Burma's human rights situation in the World Report 2013. Phil Robertson said:
Burma’s reforms over the past year are hindered, not helped, by international oversell and hasty praise in the face of continued serious human rights abuses.
At the time when the Australian government recognises the country as Myanmar and abandoned sanctions the ethnic Arakanese Buddhists have been facing almost daily attacks from an Islamist terrorism base from across the border in Bangladesh, while still be persecuted by the Burmese government. Clearly this is not a record that anyone can be proud of and instead casts doubt on any acclamation from the international community.
In Washington two weeks ago Thein Sein met with President Obama and both spoke of the changes that have taken place. Last Monday however the reality was made abundantly clear when the US State Department published its annual review of religious freedom around the world. The Buddhist majority country of Myanmar appeared on the State Department's list with eight other countries where discrimination against ethnic groups was amongst the worst. In Chin state, the poorest state of Burma, the people have long been subjected to religious persecution and denied the right to build churches on their own land.
Unfortunately it gets no better when we hear of the escalating fighting by the army to, literally, a war in Kachin state against the Kachin Independence Organisation and its military arm, the KIA. This year has seen the regime employ helicopter gunships, jets and heavy artillery with bombardment in Kachin. Civilian deaths have occurred. The fighting has resulted in the displacement of more than 90,000 civilians, and within the KIA territory humanitarian aid has effectively been blockaded.
We must also remember that the National Human Rights Commission reported, in mid 2012, claims of abuses against civilians in Kachin. The report documented the systematic use of rape by the army. Unfortunately the commission has generally failed to challenge the government on such sensitive issues, its lack of transparency in reporting and the lack of real action it has taken. The commission is also strongly criticised for its recent report on human rights violations by the military which stated:
The commission does not wish to make any comment on the interrogation of the suspects by security forces for security reasons and on their prosecution in accordance with the law.
That is a weak response by them. Special Rapporteur for the UN, Tomas Quintana, has also weighed in on what is actually going on. Just two months ago he noted the seriousness of the situation in ethnic areas. He highlighted what are ongoing abuses such as attacks against civilians, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrest, torture and sexual and gender based violence. The report also noted the large gap between the form at the top and the implementation on the ground.
For the Karen people, with 140,000 living in nine refugee camps on the Thailand side of the border, a war continues. The war began in 1949 and continues to this day. What started out as something like an autonomous movement now continues because of human rights abuses and atrocities. As I found out when I visited the Karen National Union leadership in Mae Sot in Thailand a few years ago, they want democracy in Burma but in a federalist framework.
In April, in Shan state, Burma's military stands accused of massive human rights abuses as President Thein Sein was awarded a peace prize. While peace talks take place with the Shan state army, Burma's military has launched a new wave of attacks on Tang Yan leading to civilian casualties. The latest attacks apparently began on 15 April during the New Year Water Festival when Burmese troops launched new offensives in civilian areas. Mortar shells aimed at two villages injured two children and damaged a school and several houses. Army patrols are accused of detaining and beating civilians in at least nine villages and causing serious injury. This included children who were allegedly beaten with rifle butts. It is understood by media sources that a group of about 50 young men and women travelled to celebrate their water festival. They were taken by the Burmese army and forced to walk in front of them as human shields.
The Shan leadership says that the Burma army attacks are in direct contravention of the ceasefire and calls into question the viability of the ongoing peace process between the government and the ethnic armed groups. If accurate, the report clearly undermines the decision by the EU to lift a raft of economic sanctions on the country. Many believe that the lifting of sanctions has the potential to line the pockets of cronies aligned to the military.
I mentioned before that some 400 political prisoners have been released from prison yet, at the same time, laws still exist and are being used that allow the imprisonment of peaceful activists, lawyers and journalists. Ominous sounding names such as the unlawful associations act, the electronics act, the state protection act and the emergency provisions continue to allow the abuse of human rights by the regime that is being lauded by too many governments, including this one. We should also not forget the extensive use of landmines by the regime inside Burma.
I have spoken of the reality and the clear differences between what is happening and the views of many Western governments. No-one should forget that Burma is made up of ethnic Burmese and a number of people of other ethnicities that amount to almost 70 per cent of the total population. This cannot be ignored and should not be ignored. Australia should not side with President Thein Sein when he says that his government does not need to support non-Burmese who are 'not of our ethnicity'. The 2008 change to the Constitution of Burma saw a quarter of all seats in the People's Assembly and the National Assembly reserved for the military. This meant that 110 military men sit in the 410-member People's Assembly while 56 military men sit in the 224-member National Assembly. Providing such a voting bloc to an unelected group shows that democracy remains nothing but a sham in Burma.
I had also cast doubt on the bizarre reason why the International Crisis Group last month granted Burmese President Thein Sein its annual chairman's award and its mention of 'transformational leadership to bring democracy and peace to the people of Myanmar'. I would say there is no peace and there is no democracy. While it may seem appropriate and somewhat pragmatic to try to counter China's influence in the country by embracing the Thein Sein regime, democracy and peace remain illusions.
In conclusion, what I have spoken about tonight is a reality. We must be on guard against romantic delusional or politically opportunistic notions that are not good for Burma. The problems are deep, they are long-held and they remain. Oppression and persecution of ethnic groups continue in Burma. The news reports demonstrate that the problems remain and that Aung San Suu Kyi's election in 2012 has not achieved any great improvements for the situation of the ethnic nationalities in the country. Given the undemocratic sham that is the 2008 Constitution, the abuses and persecutions against the Arakanese, Chin, Shan, Karen, Mon, Lahu, Palaung and Kachin ethnic nationalities continues. It is my view that the sanctions against Burma should be reinstated and that aid should be linked to human rights benchmarks.
I rise tonight to speak about the important work done by the public servants in the Department of Health and Ageing. The Leader of the Opposition would have Australians believe that we do not need a Department of Health and Ageing. That Leader of the Opposition has questioned repeatedly whether the Department of Health and Ageing needs all of its staff considering—in his words—they do not run a single hospital or nursing home, dispense a single prescription or provide a single medical service.
I believe that the work of the Department of Health and Ageing is vital to the health and wellbeing of our nation. Tonight I would like to talk about the range of services that the department provides. I will start by talking about the National Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Program. As we know, our own Ian Fraser from the University of Queensland, Companion of the Order of Australia and 2006 Australian of the Year was a pioneer in the development of this globally significant vaccine.
Since 2007 this vaccine has been rolled out via a school based vaccination program administered by the Immunise Australia Program—an initiative of the Department of Health and Ageing. The vaccine protects young women against HPV infections that can lead to cancer and disease later in life. Widespread vaccination has the potential to reduce cervical cancer deaths around the world by as much as two-thirds if all women were to be vaccinated and if the protection turns out to be long-term.
The vaccine can also reduce the need for medical care, biopsies and invasive procedures associated with the follow-up from abnormal Pap tests thus helping to reduce healthcare costs and anxieties related to abnormal Pap smears, Pap tests and follow-up procedures. Studies have shown a substantial drop in HPV related infection among the vaccinated group in Australia since 2007.
Earlier this year the Minister for Health announced that from 2013 the current school based program for females aged between 12 and 13 years will be extended to offer HPV vaccination free to males aged 12 to 13 years with the catch up program in 2013 and 2014 for males aged 14 to 15 years. In addition from to protecting males from HPV related cancers and disease, vaccinating males will also help protect females from cervical cancer and from HPV related disease by reducing the spread of the virus. The HPV vaccine is just one of 16 vaccination programs administered by the Immunise Australia Program, and the Immunise Australia Program is just one example of how the important work of the Department of Health and Ageing improves our lives every day.
Today is the start of Kidney Health Week and, along with many of my parliamentary colleagues, I attended the launch of Kidney Health Week in Parliament House this morning. Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether you have, but I have been to dialysis units; I know many people on dialysis and so I know the importance of kidney health. I particularly know the importance of kidney health through all of the volunteer work I have done in raising awareness on organ and tissue donation. At the launch today, the Minister for Health and the Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing announced that a kidney function test will be added to the minimum requirements of the annual cycle of care under the Medicare Practice Incentives Program, a program to encourage GPs to identify chronic kidney disease in patients with diabetes. People with type II diabetes are at a particularly high risk of chronic kidney disease. Through the PIP diabetes incentive, payments are given to general practitioners who complete an annual cycle of care to support patients with diabetes. This includes eye examinations, body mass and blood glucose monitoring, self-care, education, and reviews of diet, smoking and physical activity. The PIP is another initiative of the Department of Health and Ageing.
According to Diabetes Australia, an estimated 280 Australians develop diabetes every day. The 2005 Australian AusDiab Follow-up Study showed that 1.7 million Australians have diabetes, but that up to half of those cases of type II diabetes remain undiagnosed. It is estimated that by 2031, 3.3 million Australians will have type II diabetes. Diabetes Australia estimates that the total financial cost of type II diabetes is about $10 billion. Of this, carer costs are estimated at $4.4 billion, productivity losses at $4.1 billion, health system costs at $1.1 billion, and an estimated cost of $1.1 billion was due to obesity. A reduction in the prevalence of type II diabetes will not only result in cost savings in the health budget but also result in increased participation and productivity in the workforce, which is so important and, most importantly, in better health outcomes and quality of life for Australians. There is no doubt diabetes is a serious health issue facing our nation but it is not all bad news. Up to 60 per cent of cases of type II diabetes can be prevented by healthy living and informed lifestyle choices. We also know that good blood glucose control and maintaining healthy lifestyle can significant improve the complications associated with diabetes.
The Department of Health and Ageing—the department that the Leader of the Opposition wants to dismantle—runs important awareness campaigns relating to the lifestyle factors that can cause type II diabetes and other chronic diseases. Campaigns such as Measure Up, Swap it, Don't Stop it, and Quit, the National Tobacco Campaign are addressing the rising prevalence of lifestyle-related chronic disease. These campaigns lay the foundations for healthy behaviours in the daily lives of Australians.
I have spoken tonight about just a couple of the areas in which Department of Health and Ageing does incredibly important work. The department also manages mental health policy and primary mental health care, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health programs and policies, and health promotion and disease prevention, to name but a few. Should the coalition be elected in September, the Leader of the Opposition wants to cut 20,000 public service jobs, 5,000 of them from the Department of Health and Ageing.. The coalition's proposed cuts will undo so much of the important work that is currently being done by the department. It will undo the considerable good that is being done in terms of changing attitudes to lifestyle risk factors for chronic disease, and it will without a doubt be detrimental to the future health of our nation. These cuts will also hurt my electorate of Canberra. In 1996, following the election of the Howard government, 30,000 public service jobs were cut across the nation, and 15,000 of those were here in the ACT—and one of those jobs was mine. So I know firsthand the implications of mass public service sackings. Not only did I lose my job but I witnessed the economic downturn in Canberra that followed. I witnessed the shops that closed down. I witnessed the businesses that went bankrupt. I witnessed the fact that people left town and our population slumped. I witnessed the fact that house prices plummeted. I witnessed a great deal of tragedy that flowed to not only the people who lost their jobs but also their families—I experienced it firsthand as a result of being sacked myself.
Just as I believe we must protect the economy of Canberra, I also believe we must protect the future health of our nation. While the coalition may not value the work of the Department of Health and Ageing, I do. While the coalition may not value the jobs of its public servants, these servants of democracy, I do. The coalition is promising nothing but pain and suffering for Canberra and, through it, for our nation. Remember 1996, Canberra.
In the time that I have available this evening, I would like to make some remarks in relation to three important local issues in my electorate. The first of those relates to manufacturing. As everyone across Australia knows, Ford will stop producing cars in 2016 and this once mighty car company, which has been in operation in Australia since 1925, will come to a halt. Our immediate thoughts are of course with the 1,200 people who will be losing their jobs as a result of Ford's decision. However, the impacts are broader than just the Ford workers. First, there are suppliers across Melbourne who will suffer, including businesses in my electorate who rely upon the car industry as their primary customer. Second, it delivers a very significant blow to manufacturing confidence.
There is no single thing which has led to Ford closing, but the government has made things harder than they need be. First of all, the government introduced the carbon tax, which put up the price of electricity for Ford and for other motor vehicle manufacturers and other manufacturers. That is estimated to equate to an amount of $400 per Australian made car. Second, the Labor has added 20,000 new regulations over the last six years and has only taken out about 200 in that time. Thirdly, it has re-empowered the unions, particularly in the automotive industry but also across all manufacturing. Fourthly, it has driven down business confidence through its reckless spending, massive budget deficits and constant change to policies without proper consultation.
Manufacturing today is in crisis and we need to rebuild confidence. If Germany and Japan and New Zealand can have strong manufacturing sectors, there is no reason why we here in Australia cannot also. I have a particular interest in this because my electorate has such a large manufacturing presence. There are about 1,000 manufacturers located in my electorate, employing about 10,000 people. Many are struggling. We recently had GlaxoSmithKline announce the closing down of its tablet-packaging business, which meant that 120 jobs from Boronia in my electorate would be lost. A factory from the Hastie Group has had to close down in my electorate, another prominent example, and many others have closed down in recent times. Many others that I speak to on a regular basis say that are struggling and that this is one of the worst years that they have ever had.
We have to give hope to these manufacturers that times can be better. We have to give hope to the people who work in these manufacturing businesses that their jobs can be secure and that there are future growth prospects on the horizon. There are a number of things that we as policy makers can do—and that we will do should the coalition win government in September. Firstly, we can make energy cheaper for the manufacturers by getting rid of the carbon tax. Energy is one of the major input costs into manufacturing. The carbon tax itself adds between 10 and 20 per cent on top of everyday electricity prices. That makes things so much harder for those manufacturers. It operates like a reverse tariff because their competitor businesses from overseas do not have to pay those taxes.
Secondly, we must get rid of some of the red and green tape. We have announced already that we will get rid of a billion dollars worth of red tape, and we will have a one-stop shop in relation to environmental approvals. Thirdly, we can provide some more flexibility in the industrial relations space—and we have already announced our policy in this area—as well as, equally importantly, stamping down on union militancy.
Fourthly, we must build some of the economic infrastructure which our manufacturers rely upon. Our manufacturers are often exporting, or they are selling their wares across the nation. Therefore the roads need to be in place and the rails need to be in place. Importantly for manufacturers in my electorate, the East West Link must be built so that they can quickly get from the eastern side of Melbourne across to the western side of Melbourne without being stuck in traffic. That would make it cheaper as well.
All of these things would make a difference in reducing costs for local manufacturers and manufacturers across Australia. In addition to this, if the budget allowed, I would like to see accelerated depreciation of capital assets to take advantage of the high Aussie dollar so that they can purchase capital assets, capital equipment, today, frequently from overseas, quickly accelerate that and therefore set their businesses up for the future. Most of all, we have to give businesses confidence that they can invest, knowing that a government supports them.
The second issue I would like to raise concerns Australian postal services. Australia Post is one of those services which are respected and valued across Australia. But in parts of my electorate people have difficulties accessing Australian postal services because of the tremendous growth in the Rowville and Lysterfield areas. They have traditionally relied upon the post office in Stud Park in Rowville. It is still there and it still does a fantastic job, but because of the growth in the area, particularly the eastern part of Rowville and into Lysterfield, they are now finding that that post office is always busy. They cannot access it. The shopping centre itself is busy, and there are always queues, particularly in the busy lunchtime period.
Residents are telling me that they would like to see a post office at Wellington Village in Rowville. That is one of the new shopping precincts. It is a fantastic shopping precinct. I have been working with the owner of Wellington Village and some of the traders there to see what might be possible. One of the complications is that there is a licensing agreement with the Stud Park post office in relation to post offices not being set up within a certain radius, so we need to work through that. I can report that we have had some very constructive meetings with senior Australia Post officials, and we continue to have constructive meetings. I am hopeful that at some stage we will get some additional postal services at Wellington Village, and that would make a real difference to residents in that area.
Finally, in the last couple of minutes I have remaining, I would like to talk about community safety. I recently did a survey of my electorate and had almost 2½ thousand responses to the survey. One of the issues which people consistently raised was community safety. In fact, of those 2½ thousand people, one in 10 respondents said that they did not feel safe in the Knox area, which I think is an extraordinarily high number, and many said particularly that they did not feel safe around the train stations or around the major shopping precincts, particularly at night.
There are many things that we can do to assist in that, and I have been working with some of the community groups, particularly Mountain Gate, to develop community safety plans for their particular shopping precincts. Some security cameras have been installed in Boronia, and they are already making a difference, particularly when they are working in concert with the protective services officers who are now operating at the railway stations. But we can do more. I would like to see security cameras extended in Boronia. I would like to see security cameras in Mountain Gate and also, if they are required, in the Bayswater area—and possibly also in Wantirna Mall. If we had cameras there, we would see the same results that we are seeing in Boronia, where crime is reducing, police are reporting a much safer environment and people are feeling generally that they live in a safer community.
That is one of my priorities—to have an impact on community safety; to work with my state colleagues who run the police services and support them whenever we can. Collectively I think we can make a real difference in that area.
The member for Aston spoke about Ford in Geelong, and my heart certainly goes out to the 1,200 workers in Broadmeadows and Geelong who will lose their jobs. Facing redundancy is a terrible thing—I saw it many times as a union official. It is a very hard process to go through and there is a great deal of uncertainty about where you will end up and what you will end up doing. It is important that the government packages that are put together deliver services to workers on the ground and make sure they have a future in some alternative career. We do not want to see any worker who is in that situation fall through the cracks.
It is because of this issue that I rise to talk about the car industry tonight and to place some facts on the record. Whatever Ford's business issues, whatever the problems with their business model—which were plainly caused by the lack of an export model, and perhaps some decisions by Ford in Detroit prevented the production of an export model—it is important for us to acknowledge that any car maker in the Australian domestic market faces a hypercompetitive situation. It is an unusually competitive market where there are many different brands from all over the world coming into what is the freest car market in the world for a car making country.
The problem has been exacerbated over the past few years by our currency—by the fact that the Australian dollar has been high, at first because of commodity prices and now because it is regarded as a safeguard currency. It is important to note that some 19 central banks, as well as many other foreign investors, are investing in Australia because they see it as a safe economy in a world which is awash with uncertainty, with debt, with low growth and with unemployment, and in a world awash with unemployment Australia stands as an island of economic growth, of economic certainty and of low unemployment. Paradoxically, our success is working against us—it is keeping our dollar high even as commodity prices trend lower.
This is the first time that our country has faced this situation, and it is certainly an unpleasant fact that as our currency is stuck at a higher value than the fundamentals would suggest it should be at, our competitor countries, whether they be European countries or Japan or the US, either by accident or by design have currencies that are notably weaker than they otherwise might be. In the case of the United States and Japan, it is because they are printing money, trying to stimulate their domestic economies. Of course this has the additional effect of making their exports cheaper and so Japanese cars and United States cars are cheaper on the Australian market because not only is our dollar high but also their currencies are low. Of course Europe's currency, and this affects German cars in particular, are artificially low because even though Germany is not suffering a recession they have almost made certain that the Eurozone is and so the Euro currency is now very low compared to Germany's fundamentals. Unsurprisingly, we are getting a lot of German-made cars in the marketplace. This is likely to be a temporary situation. It is not likely to persist indefinitely, but we need to make sure that we provide our car industry with as much assistance as can possibly be given during this time to make sure that we retain the car industry and do not see more tragedies like what happened at Ford Broadmeadows and Ford Geelong. I certainly do not want to see it in my home state with Holden.
Holden is of critical importance to the South Australian state economy. In a report prepared for the state government on 4 February 2011, Barry Burgan, who is with the University of Adelaide, pointed out that Holden's operations were estimated to provide at that time $1.1 billion in gross state product, or about 1.3 per cent of gross state product, and about 11,700 jobs, or 1.5 per cent of employment, and to directly contribute $65 million a year to state taxation. That is a critical figure, and it is important to know that he also had a look at what would happen if Holden were not there. The conclusion he came to was that, if Holden suddenly absented itself from the South Australian economy, we would lose in the order of $1.3 billion in gross state product, 16,000 jobs and $83 million per year to the state taxation base. It is pretty obvious that, without Holden in the state economy, South Australia would suffer from, in effect, a recession. It would be a brutal blow to my state, and I certainly do not want to see Holden go.
Holden have issued a statement on the withdrawal of Ford. It was very unfortunate that Ford made their announcement on the same day that Holden were launching the VF Commodore, which is a really great car. But Holden's statement made it clear that they have a 10-year manufacturing plan that was agreed with the Australian government in 2012, based on the economic and marketing conditions at that time. The plan sees Holden investing $1 billion in the country and producing two all-new global vehicles, which will take production out to 2022. That is an absolutely critical thing for South Australia. Most importantly, one of the things that Holden's statement on 23 May 2013 said is:
The industry needs swift action to make Australia’s automotive policy settings clear, consistent and globally competitive as quickly as possible.
It then goes on to say
Holden is working closely with the Australian Government, Federal Coalition and the State Governments to ensure the viability of the industry …
What Holden is begging for in that statement is a bipartisan commitment to secure this critical billion-dollar investment to South Australia and to the country. The most important thing about this investment is that it maintains an Australian choice once we are past these issues with the dollar, which will affect whatever government sits on the Treasury bench in this place. The high dollar is not a Labor-only issue, although some future government may be the beneficiary of the fundamentals changing around the world. But Holden are begging for a bipartisan commitment.
I wish I could tell the House that we had that bipartisan commitment, but unfortunately we do not, because the Leader of the Opposition persists in maintaining the rhetoric. You would have heard him, on the closure of Ford, saying, 'We will keep the Howard government's plan.' I know people love being nostalgic in this building. More people on the other side of the aisle like being nostalgic about that period, and I understand why. Sometimes I get nostalgic for the easier times before the global financial crisis. But the problem is that that plan in effect will cut $500 million from automotive assistance, and Holden have made it very clear that, if that were to happen, it would jeopardise $1 billion worth of investment. If an incoming coalition government were to abandon in effect what has been a bipartisan commitment to the car industry in this country and jeopardise that investment or see it not happen, leading to the same situation that has happened at Ford, that would be a very great tragedy indeed, because it would plunge southern Australia—not just South Australia but Victoria as well—into a recession. We would suffer a localised recession. It might well have a very detrimental impact on consumer and economic confidence in Australia. So my plea to the coalition—and it is a plea—is to rethink that $500 million cut, rethink the nostalgia of the past, meet with Holden and give them the guarantees that they need to invest.
Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired and the debate interrupted in accordance with standing order 192 (b). The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 21:40