I wish to inform the House that I have arranged for a condolence book to be made available so that members will be able to signify their respects to the memory of Mr Nelson Mandela, former President and distinguished leader of the Republic of South Africa. The book is available in the foyer of my office and will remain there today for members to sign, before being taken to the Senate tomorrow for signature by senators. I invite honourable members to sign the book at a time convenient to them.
I have received three messages from the Senate informing the House of the appointment of certain joint committees. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the messages to the House. Details will be recorded in Votes and Proceedings.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report:
Construction of a new Australian High Commission in Nairobi, Kenya.
In 2004-05, a global review of physical security at Australia's overseas missions was undertaken, which identified a number of high risk chanceries, including the current mission in Nairobi.
As an important overseas mission in Africa, the Nairobi High Commission is significant in representation terms, as well as acting as a hub for Australia's interests in East, West and North Africa. The new site will enable appropriate setbacks for the chancery for blast mitigation, and the buildings themselves will be designed to mitigate blast and ballistic attack.
As well as providing appropriate physical security, this project will deliver a modern, functional chancery building to accommodate tenant agencies as well as provision of guardhouse, service building and recreational facilities all within a secure compound. The proposed new construction will ensure updated security measures and compliance with Australian standards and work health and safety requirements. The estimated cost of the proposal is $57.6 million, and includes all construction costs, site preparation, infrastructure, management and design fees, contingencies and escalation.
Subject to parliamentary approval, construction of the major works package is forecast to begin in early 2016 with practical completion and occupancy in late 2018. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report:
CSIRO Consolidation Project, Australian Capital Territory.
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation—CSIRO—proposes to consolidate its property holdings in the Australian Capital Territory by relocating staff from leased premises in Campbell, Yarralumla and Acton to CSIRO's owned site at Black Mountain. The Black Mountain site has an area of 37.3 hectares and the current dispersed layout reflects a legacy of earlier autonomous divisional structures, which are spread across a number of different buildings with replicated activity clusters.
The intent of the proposed consolidation project is to implement, through two phases, a development program consisting of two science research and support facilities in the order of 13,731 square metres on the Black Mountain site. These new buildings will accommodate staff and functions that currently occupy buildings that have passed their effective design life, do not meet current standards for health and safety, represent inefficient use of space, have high maintenance costs and present operational risk. The buildings which are unsuitable for continued use will be demolished.
The estimated cost of the proposal is $195.6 million plus GST, and includes the following works over two phases: construction of two new buildings with laboratory and office accommodation; construction of a new car park; demolition of unsuitable buildings; refurbishment of four buildings; and landscaping. Construction is expected to commence in July 2014 with completion scheduled for March 2019.
I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report:
Development and construction of housing for Defence at RAAF Base Tindal, NT.
The Defence Housing Authority proposes to undertake the development and construction of housing for the Department of Defence at the Royal Australian Air Force Base Tindal in the Northern Territory. This project aims to extend the base's married quarters precinct to accommodate an additional 50 dwellings. T he project aims to deliver dwellings that are designed to be sustainable and appropriate for tropical conditions. T he new homes will help to lessen the stress and associated impact of moving families to this remote location.
T he estimated overall project cost is a bout $89.4 million , including GST, contingency and escalation costs, but excludes the land cost — as the land is already owned by the Commonwealth. S ubject to parliamentary approval, integrated civil and dwelling construction is expected to commence in June 2014 and be completed by June 2016. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report:
Integrated fit-out of new leased premises for the Australian Taxation Office at the site known as Site 5 and 6, the Revitalising Central Dandenong Project, Dandenong, Victoria.
The Australian Taxation Office proposes to undertake an integrated fit-out of new leased premises at Site 5 and 6 of the Revitalis ing Central Dandenong Project, Dandenong, Victoria. This proposal was referred to the Public Works Committee on 16 May 2013 but the reference lapsed when the previous c ommittee ceased to exist when parliament was prorogued on 5 August 2013.
T he ATO has a substantial presence in the Dandenong region and is currently located in a building at 14-16 Mason Street, Dandenong, which has a lease in place that expires on 31 December 2015. It is expected that the relocation into a new building will provide the tax office with considerable advantages in terms of building design, operational performance and operat ing cost efficiencies, and long- term viability through improvements in building infrastructure.
T he estimated cost of the proposal is $21.3 million , plus GST, and includes all costs associated with an integrated fit-out, as well as furniture, workstations and builders' costs. Subject to parliamentary approval, the proposed integrated fit-out works are scheduled to start in August 2014 and be completed by 1 October 2015. The developer will commence base building work on site in March 2014, with earthworks and excavation for the basement areas being the first tasks. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report:
Reserve Bank of Australia, National Banknote Site, Craigieburn, Vic.
The Reserve Bank of Australia is the sole issuing authority for Australian banknotes. The key objective of the b ank in meeting this legislative responsibility is to maintain public confidence in Australia's banknotes. There are three facets to this: firstly, ensuring sufficient banknotes to meet demand; secondly, minimising the risk of counterfeiting; and , thirdly, ensuring that the banknotes in circulation meet the functional requirements of the public.
T o achieve this objective, the b ank has embarked on a program to upgrade the security of Australia's banknotes. The Next Generation Banknote project will progressively replace the currently circulating banknotes over the next decade. T he current storage, distribution and processing capacity at the Reserve Bank's Sydney, Melbourne and Craigieburn sites is insufficient to enable the Reserve B ank to store and issue the new series of banknotes and to accommodate banknote growth in the medium term.
The Reserve Bank proposes to build a national banknote site on vacant land owned by the b ank at Craigieburn, Victoria, which is the most appropriate location for the expanded requirements. The NBS , the National Banknote Site, will replace the existing National Note Processing and Distribution Centre located on the same site. It will include storage capacity to accommodate the Reserve B ank 's banknote holdings that are currently held in the b ank's Melbourne site.
T he estimated cost of the proposal is $72 million plus GST, and includes all construction costs, site preparation, infrastructure, management and design fees, contingencies and escalation. S ubject to parliamentary approval, work is proposed to commence in early 2015 and be fully operational in early 2017 to enable the transition to the NGB series and meet the b ank's banknote storage, distribution and processing operations for at least the next 25 years. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
The proposals described as Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2013 and Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2013 in the terms of the printed proposals, which are now being circulated to honourable members.
The excise and customs tariff proposals that I have just tabled propose increases to and a change in method of indexation for excise and excise-equivalent customs duty applying to tobacco and tobacco products. These are the measures of the previous Labor government having been announced in the 2013-14 budget and the 2013 economic statement.
Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2013 and Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2013 formally place before the parliament four proposed staged increases of 12.5 per cent to the excise and excise-equivalent customs duty on tobacco products on 1 December 2013, 1 September 2014, 1 September 2015 and 1 September 2016. This first staged increase equates to an increase in the rates of excise and customs duty applying to tobacco, cigars, cigarettes and snuff from 0.35731 to 0.40197 per stick, not exceeding 0.8 grams per stick of actual tobacco content in weight, and from $446.65 to $502.48 per kilogram of tobacco content for other tobacco—for example, loose tobacco—with effect on and from 1 December 2013. In addition, tobacco excise and excise-equivalent customs duty will be indexed to average weekly ordinary time earnings, instead of CPI, commencing from 1 March 2014.
The dates of indexation will change to 1 March and 1 September each year, from 1 February and 1 August, to coincide with the releases of AWOT data by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. These changes were gazetted on 29 November 2013 in accordance with section 160B of the Excise Act 1901 and section 273EA of the Customs Act 1901. They are now being tabled in the House of Representatives. A summary of the alterations contained in these proposals has been prepared and is being circulated.
Debate adjourned.
The opposition will be supporting the bill before the House. The purpose of the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2013 is to amend the Australian Research Council Act 2001 for two purposes. Firstly, to apply indexation to the appropriation figures that are already set out in the act and, secondly, to add a figure for the last year of the forward budget estimates for the financial year commencing 1 July 2016. It is a fairly standard procedure for updating those figures in the act.
Of course, the Australian Research Council itself is a statutory authority and its purpose is to advise the government on research matters. It manages the National Competitive Grants Program and has responsibility for the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative. The act sets out the maximum amount of funding that can be provided to approved research programs in each financial year. Currently, the latest year referred to in the act is the 2015-16 financial year. The bill will increase the funding cap for the financial years commencing 1 July 2013, 2014 and 2015 by the application of an indexation formula. Then it will also insert the funding cap for the financial year commencing 1 July 2016, as the additional year. The funding caps are indexed annually to maintain the value of the base funding for those approved research programs.
I want to take the opportunity to make a few brief comments in addressing the bill about the context of the Australian Research Council. I would point out to the House that, under the former Labor government, the Australian Research Council was restored to its position as an independent authority, awarding peer reviewed grants.
Under the Howard government, which preceded the Labor government, projects were rejected by the minister for research. Under Labor's period in government, no projects were rejected by the minister for research. The Australian Research Council was an independent authority and we respected the peer review of the grant application process.
Australia's researchers are entitled to the very best research infrastructure the country can afford. The country, in exchange, is entitled to answers to the big challenges of our time. We need researchers to be working in partnership with our industries and our communities on that task.
In order to support what is very important work, Labor in government put in place a number of measures to assist this work. We, firstly, boosted investment in science, research and innovation to record levels, including $3 billion over four years for CSIRO and $3.6 billion since 2008 for research funded through the Australian Research Council.
We put research in universities on a sustainable footing, with more than $8.7 billion paid in university research block grants since 2008. We invested $1.5 billion in research infrastructure through the Education Investment Fund, attracting a total investment of $3.5 billion. We supported over 800 of our best and brightest midcareer researchers with Future Fellowships worth over $844 million.
Also, to much great excitement and I am sure this will play out in future years with a great deal of interest across the community, we secured the Square Kilometre Array for Australia, a multibillion-dollar global investment. We also opened up research and development tax incentives to more firms, and boosted the available benefits. Importantly, and I go back to the comments that I made at the beginning, we guaranteed research freedom through compacts with universities and independent research agencies.
Labor will continue to champion the nation's scientists and will make the most of their potential. We are concerned to bring research and business together in new innovation precincts, of the scale to attract the attention of investors all over the world. We are keen to see the work of our best and brightest in Australia build on the momentum of the Square Kilometre Array.
It was, therefore, of some concern to us to see an opportunity taken by a few members of the now government in the lead-up to the election, and indeed since the election, to be very critical of some of the grants that have been awarded under the Australian Research Council. Sadly, I think they too easily took cheap shots at what is very important and particularly useful research.
Obviously, a lot of the research that is funded is around scientific responses to some of the great challenges that we as a nation face and some of it is around social responses—around how we work as communities and societies. Both these tasks are equally important. So it was disappointing to see some attack made on and some cheap shots taken at that type of research.
It is also the case that the former member for Indi, in particular, led a fairly remorseless campaign against the CSIRO and indeed the Chief Scientist. I think it is important that, while we may engage in debate in this country—and we should engage in debate in this country—we do not undermine or demean the role of scientists and the tasks that they perform, not only directly through the work that we fund through programs such as grants under the Australian Research Council, but also more broadly as they seek to have a debate in the community themselves.
It is a great disappointment to us—that is no surprise. We have made the point on a number of occasions that the government did not choose to appoint a minister for science for the first time in decades. While the science task has responsibility under a minister, it is not in the minister's title and it is not drawn to the attention of the nation. With regard to my own portfolio, I would point out there is no minister for vocational education or skills either—one of the biggest tasks in educating our population as we seek to make sure that we have a widely qualified population for the jobs of the future.
We are particularly keen to see organisations such as the Australian Research Council continue to do their great work and to do it with the appropriate independence and authority. It is not our view that ministers should be under public pressure or under pressure from their backbench, or wherever that pressure may come from, crossing out research that has been approved by a rigorous peer reviewed process. I would just like to put on the record that that causes great concern. But the bill before us is a fairly reasonable and an obviously fairly standard adjustment to appropriation figures. For that reason we would support the bill.
The Australian Research Council plays an important role in advancing Australian research and innovation globally, while also supporting the highest quality research and training through the fields of science, social sciences and the humanities. The Australian Research Council amendment on which I speak today will help us continue to support excellence in research and build our nation's research capacity. The ARC Amendment Bill is an annual administrative matter. It applies indexation adjustments for existing schemes and spending caps for ARC grants, including Discovery and Linkage grants. The amendments in the bill result in altering three existing financial year funding figures and extend the forward estimates period to 2016-17, resulting in additional spending of nearly $815 million.
Although this amendment occurs each year, it is a great reminder of the importance of research to our nation's future and how this research can deliver cultural, economic, social and environmental benefits to all our citizens. That is why I spoke on the amendment bill in 2012 and that is why I rise to speak on the bill again today, although this year I do so with a great deal more concern about the state of research in Australia than I did last year. I am concerned because the Abbott government's record in science, innovation and research to date has been disappointing and in my view it has been unacceptable. It began with press releases prior to the election, where the ARC's grants were declared increasingly ridiculous, completely over the top and a waste of taxpayer dollars, and then went to the revelation on the very eve of the election that $103 million in ARC funding would be 'reprioritised' over four years under a coalition government. Also, as was pointed out by my colleague, the shadow minister and member for Cunningham, there was the decision not to appoint a minister for science. In addition to that, there was the abolition of the Climate Commission. One of the issues that really concerns me as the member for Canberra is the significant staffing cuts facing the CSIRO.
So far the Abbott government has hardly positioned itself as pro-research. It is no wonder, then, that Labor is concerned that the Abbott government will undo the good work we did in promoting research in Australia, in positioning Australia to be a leader in innovation and technology and in ensuring our researchers work in partnership with our industries. That is particularly important so that we can capitalise on the research that is created in our institutions, we can realise it in industry and bring it into the broader economy and the community.
Labor believes that science and research are the key to a richer, fairer, greener and more prosperous future. That is why under Labor the ARC was restored to its position as the independent authority awarding peer reviewed grants, as outlined by the shadow minister and member for Cunningham. While in government, Labor boosted investment in science, research and innovation to record levels, including $3 billion over four years for the CSIRO and $3.6 billion since 2008 for research funded through the Australian Research Council. We also put research in universities on a sustainable footing, with more than $8.7 billion paid in university research block grants since 2008. We invested $1.5 billion in research infrastructure through the Education Investment Fund, attracting a total investment of $3.5 billion. We supported over 800 of our best and brightest midcareer researchers with Future Fellowships worth over $844 million. That is particularly important for women in research and women in science.
My sister is a neurologist. She is a researcher in the field of neurology. One of the issues that she has raised with me and also advocated very strongly on is the fact that women are falling out midcareer. That is the time when they are having their babies and they are at a relatively senior level in the field, but they are falling out of research and science as a result of wanting to devote some time to their babies, and then re-entry is difficult. There are also the publishing requirements and a range of other research requirements that make it difficult to advance. Those grants are particularly important for those best and brightest midcareer researchers, particularly women.
We have also secured the Square Kilometre Array, which is a multibillion-dollar global investment for Australia and a very exciting project. We opened up research and development tax incentives to more firms and boosted the available benefits. We granted research freedom through compacts with universities and the independent research agencies.
In stark contrast, the coalition, the Abbott government, so far have shown only disdain for Australia's research community. I am concerned about what that attitude to research might mean for Australia's future, for our ability to position ourselves as a leader in research and innovation and for our ability to ensure the diversity of our economy. But I am also concerned about what it will mean for my electorate of Canberra and the ACT more broadly. As members will be aware, the ACT is home to some of the best research facilities in the country—in fact, the world. There is the Australian National University, the University of Canberra, the CSIRO, the Mount Stromlo Observatory and Geoscience Australia, to name but a few.
Earlier this year I attended the launch of a new Space and Spatial Innovation Partnership at the Mount Stromlo Observatory in my electorate. The partnership is an industry-led initiative backed by government and the research sector that will capitalise on Australia's position as home to what will be the world's biggest space project, the Square Kilometre Array. The Labor government pledged $6 million towards this innovation partnership, to be matched in cash or in kind by core partners. I am concerned that this funding is under review by the Abbott government. The partnership at the Mount Stromlo Observatory will also have access to further project funding of up to $10 million per year through the Industry Collaboration Fund for innovative projects with commercial potential.
The partnership will bring on new investment and create high-tech, high-wage jobs in future industries that diversify Australia's economy. The partnership aims to help Australia carve out a 2.2 per cent share of the global space and spatial technologies market, growing revenue by up to $12.5 billion annually by 2023 and creating more than 10,000 new jobs in the sector. It will build vital links between industry, government, defence, research and education to increase productivity, improve efficiencies, grow skill capacity and ensure long-term sustainability and growth of the sector, and it will be a key driver in the continued diversification of the ACT's economy.
Initiatives like this are examples of why research funding is so important, and why the 'reprioritisation' of research funding is likely to have a significant impact in my electorate of Canberra and across the ACT more broadly. The cutting of CSIRO jobs is already having a significant impact on my electorate. When those opposite initiated a Public Service wide hiring freeze specifying that non-ongoing contracts would not be renewed, they did so knowing full well that it would have a disproportionate impact on the CSIRO. The nature of the work done by the CSIRO means it has a disproportionately higher number of non-ongoing staff. These are staff who are contracted for a specific project, a specific research task or seasonal work. Their positions may not be permanent, but they are no less significant.
The CSIRO's 1,400 non-ongoing staff are now in limbo. We have heard from those opposite that the CSIRO may shed as many as 600 non-ongoing staff this year. In the words of CSIRO Staff Association secretary Sam Popovski, 'How can CSIRO develop the next generation of Australian innovation if their capacity to conduct research and development continues to be cut?' CSIRO staff deserve to know: how long will the recruitment freeze remain in place? What areas of science and which sites will be impacted? What percentage of work performed by CSIRO staff will be declared critical? How many postdoctoral fellowships and Indigenous cadetships will be quarantined from the freeze? At the elite level in which the CSIRO operates, the research community is a small one, and these job losses will have a significant impact. How can we expect to keep talent in Australia if we cannot provide jobs at our premier scientific research institute? How can we ensure the ongoing diversification of our economy if we do not support those at the forefront, at the vanguard, doing the research and the innovation? We must ensure that Australian researchers, who do such important work, can continue to be internationally competitive while being based right here in Australia, right here in the ACT, right here in the electorate of Canberra.
This year, the ARC has announced over $58 million for 132 Canberra based projects that will improve our understanding of mental health in the workplace, our place in the galactic neighbourhood, the formation of ore bodies and much more. One group of researchers at the Australian National University will use an $857,000 grant to investigate the long-term health and employment consequences of work related mental health issues. Led by Associate Professor Peter Butterworth, the project is based on the fact that mental disorders such as depression are a major cause of disability. Improving mental health can increase productivity and workforce participation. However, the psychosocial quality of work is a factor that overlays the relationship between work and health. Poor quality work—for example, unreasonable time pressures or insecurity—increases the risk of poor mental health, absenteeism and exit from the workforce. This project will analyse data following people over time to investigate the long-term health and employment consequences of poor psychosocial job quality, and consider the special case of mature age workers, which I think is particularly important. It will identify those individuals at greatest risk and the factors that can buffer against the adverse effects of poor quality work.
Also at the Australian National University Professor Matthew Colless will lead a spectroscopic survey of the southern sky using a $350,000 grant. The survey of the southern sky aims to quadruple the number of nearby galaxies with measured redshifts, distances and velocities. Science goals include measuring the expansion rate of the universe to one per cent precision, and combining optical spectroscopy and radio data for each galaxy to measure the rate at which gas is being converted into stars in the local universe. This project supports construction of the TAIPAN high-performance spectrograph that will be used to carry out the survey on the UK Schmidt Telescope. The results of the survey will be made freely available to all Australian astronomers.
Researchers at the CSIRO will also use a $863,686 grant to develop new methods for discovering Australia's mineral wealth, deepening our understanding of ore formation, including the transport and deposition of gold. Dr Weihua Liu asserts that in order to efficiently discover vital new mineral resources for Australia, explorers must understand the fundamental controls on ore formation. The lack of data for soluble metal behaviour in hot fluids at high pressure is a significant impediment to our understanding of deposit formation and the application of industrial processes. This project will gain molecular-level understanding of the fundamental chemistry of gold transport and deposition in high-temperature, high-pressure, carbon dioxide-rich fluids and gold colloid systems, using multiple novel experimental techniques and molecular dynamics simulations that make use of Australia's cutting-edge experimental and computational facilities.
At the University of Canberra Professor Kate Holland will use a $375,289 grant to advance knowledge about how the media shapes public and professional understandings and communication practices about mental health issues. Media processes are mostly studied in isolation, but this project integrates analysis of media with interviews with the community, advocacy organisations, expert mental health services and journalists to find out how mental health knowledge is identified, interpreted and communicated. This research will provide an evidence base for policy directed at promoting mental health and challenging stigma, and this will be done within the context of dynamic changes in digital media environments and media use.
The 132 projects funded in the ACT are diverse and innovative, and they will create jobs and secure our future. Unfortunately, however, those opposite see some of these projects as 'increasingly ridiculous', 'completely over the top' or a waste of taxpayer dollars. Labor believes that through research we can better educate our children, heal our sick, discover new opportunities to help our local communities grow in a more sustainable way and make our economy grow in the future.
Australians can and should be proud of the work that our researchers do in every field. There is bipartisan support for this legislation, and there should be bipartisan support for our research community. I ask those opposite to recommit themselves to science, to research and to innovation. I ask them to support those public servants at the CSIRO who are at the forefront of global scientific research. Their talent is too great to risk losing. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate interrupted.
On indulgence, I seek to update the House on the incident that has taken place, we understand, off the southern coast of Java. Border Protection Command received information from our post in Jakarta that at approximately 11.30 Australian eastern daylight saving time yesterday, 9 December, 30 people had been rescued from a sunken vessel at Cibalong, Garut, in Indonesian waters approximately 45 nautical miles west of Cilacap, West Java.
I am advised that no request was, had been or has been made for Australian assistance, either by the passengers on board the vessel or by Indonesian authorities involved in coordinating and undertaking the rescue. Australian government officials in Jakarta are seeking additional information. There have been media reports of three deceased persons; however, this has not been confirmed through our post. Our post has advised of two deaths and several persons being in a critical condition, and we are seeking further updates.
This further loss of life is as tragic as the losses of life that preceded it in similar circumstances, and we extend our sympathies to the families and friends of those affected. It is especially tragic as these deaths were needless and avoidable. This latest incident highlights once again the fatal consequences of people smuggling, particularly at this most dangerous time of year.
People should not believe the people smugglers' lies. Of course Australia will meet our obligations on safety of life at sea, but this does not mean there is a safety net for your voyage. You should assume the worst—as was sadly the case for those who lost their lives yesterday. These lives are no less precious than our own, and that is why the government, through Operation Sovereign Borders, will continue to deploy all means at our disposal to determine, disrupt and prevent wherever possible people's getting on the boats. I thank the House for its indulgence.
I congratulate the member for Canberra on her contribution to the debate on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2013. It demonstrated why we on this side of the parliament value research and understand how important research is to Australia's future. The member for Canberra also highlighted issues around the government's walking away from a commitment to research and the effect that it is having upon her electorate and our future here in Australia. I think that hers was a fine contribution which highlighted every aspect of the legislation we have before us and the concerns that surround it. This bill alters funding for the Australian Research Council by amending the act to alter three-year funding figures and extend funding out to 2016-17. It applies indexation to ARC funding; the ARC bill is an annual indexing bill.
It is important to pause for a moment and look at the role that the ARC plays. It is responsible for administering excellence in research for Australia and aims to identify and promote excellence across the full spectrum of research activities in Australia's higher education institutions. On this side of the House we truly value the role that the ARC plays, and this fact is demonstrated in the contributions to this debate that have been made on this side of the parliament. I have to say that I am rather disappointed that no-one on the other side of this House felt passionate enough to stand up and make a contribution to the debate. It is an important debate; it is about our future, it is about science, and it is about ensuring that we have the proper knowledge and the proper jobs in the future.
What have the coalition delivered in recent times? When they named their ministry, they could not even appoint a minister for science. The CSIRO has been under constant attack by the government since they were elected. There are plans, I believe, to deliver cuts to the CSIRO, and there have already been staffing issues at the CSIRO. The coalition has a really poor record on the research community. It has pandered over the years to the growing voice of the anti-science community. If ever there is an opportunity to take a populist approach as opposed to looking at things objectively—as science does—the government will take it, whereas we in the opposition look at and value the role that science plays in making the future of this nation.
Under the Howard government there was a constant brain drain of our best scientists and best researchers, who were leaving Australia and going overseas because opportunities for research really dried up. We only have to look at the Prime Minister of this nation and his view on climate change, where he totally disregarded all of the advice of the most eminent scientists throughout the world and declared that climate change is 'crap'. When you have somebody heading up a government that has that sort of a view of science—somebody who totally denies that science is worthy of taking note of—there is no wonder that we on this side of the House are very fearful of what this government will do to science and research.
It has also been a view of the government, particularly when they were in opposition, to question the integrity of the Chief Scientist—I think that involved the former member for Indi. She totally disregarded the impact of climate change and she questioned the integrity of the Chief Scientist for defending climate scientists. In excess of 95 per cent of scientists worldwide have demonstrated that climate change is in fact a reality, whilst we had members of the government questioning or denying it. It is good to question, because research is about questioning. But denying and totally disregarding research is not quite so good.
During the Howard government years we had constant, repeated intervention on political grounds from the coalition education minister to block research projects. That once again included research into climate science and controversial social issues. If science or research does not agree with your picture of the world, this government will stop the research from taking place. In my way of thinking research is about knowledge, improving our lives and providing information on which decisions can be based. But, unfortunately, those on the other side of this House do not agree with that.
In opposition prominent coalition members have continued to question the independent recommendations of the Australian Research Council, particularly with respect to research in humanities and social sciences. I do not trust this government when it relates to research. The only research they will allow to take place is research that supports their position. In my way of thinking, research and science are not about validating your belief system or your position. They are about the search for knowledge.
Many fine research projects have been undertaken by the Australian Research Council. I will mention a couple of them. The first concerns Macquarie University's future fellowships. Macquarie University professor Wendy Rogers has a project that investigates and defines the limits of physical diseases to answer questions about when presentation is a disease and when it is simply a risk factor or mild condition. This has the potential to reduce the cost burden associated with over-diagnosis, which is something that I think is worthy of investigation. Prior to entering parliament, I often worked with people who had very similar illnesses or disabilities. They had different responses, which manifested in different ways.
Another very interesting project is being done by the University of New South Wales and being led by chief investigator, Dr Jason Sharples. This project aims to improve the understanding of the physical processes that cause eruptive bushfire behaviour, otherwise known as fire blow-ups. Its expected outcomes include a dynamic fire-spread model framework and the provision of better advice to bushfire authorities concerning fire blow-ups. As a member of the this parliament whose electorate has been hit badly by fires over the last few months, I know how important this research is and how important it is to plan for these events and have in place proper strategies. This is a project the ARC is funding to the amount of $370,000 over three years. It is something that should be welcomed by this House.
Another project I will share with the House is one run by the University of Sydney. The chief investigator there is Dr John Evans. He is looking at Indigenous Australians, and the study concentrates on the fact that, despite significant social disadvantage and alarming under-achievement in educational outcomes, Indigenous Australians achieve remarkable success across a range of high-profile sports. This project will identify the social, cultural and pedagogical factors that encourage and enhance achieving excellence at the highest level of sport as a process of learning. Once again it is looking at a different way of providing education.
Those on the other side of this parliament have a very poor record when it comes to anything that relates to the humanities. I really worry about the future of these projects and future projects under a coalition government. It is very sad to note that the coalition plans to cut $103 million from the Australian Research Council over four years. I note that that is not reflected in this bill. But it is another example of the Abbott axe: cut, slash and burn. The cuts are taking place in selective areas. They are taking place and will take place in areas that do not fit in with the coalition's view of life, areas that might well be in the interest of Australia into the future. I am quite concerned about the fact that the coalition does not understand or accept the importance of research. If it deems it fit to rip out $103 million to pay for election promises, I worry about the level of pork-barrelling that will happen under this coalition government.
As I mentioned earlier, the simple fact that there is no minister for science is a concern. Then there is the fact that the government could not even work out which department the ARC should be under. Initially, it was under the industry department. Now it has moved to education. The proposed cuts to take place in the CSIRO show where this government's priorities are, and they are not in the future of Australia or in the search for knowledge. Preparing our country for the future is not a priority for them. Rather, their priority is about delivering along its ideological lines.
I mentioned the humanities earlier. The humanities are very important. I see the humanities as an area of science and of great importance for research. Research in the humanities is just as important in some ways as research in the more factual scientific world. It is really important that we have research in the humanities. It is all about ensuring political stability, property rights, equality before the law, universal literacy, freedom of religion and cultural vibrancy worthy of the society that we live in. If we do not undertake the proper research in the humanities and become a totally utilitarian society, then we as a country will be the losers in the long-term.
The legislation that we have before us is in essence non-controversial. But I must say that the government's approach to science and research is not uncontroversial. This is a government that is hell-bent on cutting in this area. They are cutting $103 million from the Australian Research Council. This is also a government that wants to direct research to fit in with its view of the world.
I rise to speak on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2013, which amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to ensure that the Australian Research Council can continue to support and serve Australia's vibrant research community. Despite the nonsense that we heard from the member for Shortland, this appropriation bill increases the Australia Research Council's funding and caps it in line with inflation to ensure that this government can continue to support thousands of research projects.
I noted that the member for Shortland talked about money being spent on research that validates your belief systems and how we should be spending our research funding on the search for knowledge. I could not agree more. We must remember that our funding for research is limited. Every dollar that is spent is a dollar that comes from taxpayers' pockets. With that, it is worthwhile looking at some of the expenditure that occurred under the previous Labor government. We need to ensure that every cent of this limited funding that we have for research is used to make us a more competitive. That should be the goal. Its goal should be to improve our medical research, to improve our prosperity, to improve our lifestyles. They should be the ultimate goals of our research, because these are taxpayers' dollars that are being spent and every dollar must be spent wisely.
I want to go through a list of some of the expenditure items that occurred under the previous government. A Queensland university secured funding of $197,302 for a project titled, Sending and responding to messages about climate change: the role of emotion and morality. You have to ask what medical researcher missed out on funding because of that little research grant. A cool $578,792 was granted for a study of credit instruments in Florentine economic, social and religious life from 1570 to 1790. One of my favourites was the $314,000 for a study to determine if birds are shrinking. Another one was the $145,000 to study sleeping snails. Let us not forget the $85,000 that was given to a researcher for the study of Renaissance garden statues. What about $125,000 for a study titled, 'What is the future of trade unions? How trade unions can contribute to an environmentally sustainable world?' We all know that trade unions are important. But should our Research Council be using taxpayers' money to fund such a program with $125,000? Another one was the nice little $185,000 grant to produce a new autobiography of the Labor opposition leader during the 1950s, H V Evatt. The title was 'How his life resonates with modern challenges in a time of global warming.'
In another example, there was a grant of a cool $65,000 for a study to examine who actually reads Thomas Keneally books. I could fill out that one—I read Thomas Keneally books—but do we really have to provide $60,000 of taxpayers' money for that study? A cool $150,000 went into a study of the impact of locally mined silver to make coins in Athens between the years 550 BC and 480 BC. In another example, a cool $200,000 went to determine what young Australians are learning about sex, love and relationships from the popular media. I would suggest that these are not the type of funding projects that the government should be funding.
Another little one here, which I am sure might be a favourite of many sitting on the opposition side, is a study of Marxism and religion and the relationship between theology and political radicalism—$60,000. Another one here is $180,000 for a study rethinking the history of Soviet Stalinism to provide a sophisticated understanding of the complexities of Stalin's Russia. We know the complexities—obviously, Stalin must have been a good bloke who was misunderstood. We need $180,000 to find that out.
In another example, $210,000 was spent on a study of how early-modern women's writing was produced and circulated. And $196,476 was spent on a study of trade unions in Indonesia to document and analyse unionist strategies for the upcoming Indonesian election. Is this really what the Australian taxpayer should be funding, instead of medical research, instead of research to make our nation more competitive?
This is a little bewdy, too: $164,000 for a study of magical spells and rituals from the 2nd century BC to the 5th century AD to achieve success in personal relations—a most important expenditure! In another one: $370,000 for a study to find whether physiological plasticity of individuals renders populations resilient to climate change. It goes on: $265,000 for a study to understand the context and purpose of philosophy within higher education in the eastern Roman Empire in the period 300 BC to 500 AD. In another example, $330,000 of taxpayers' money was spent under the previous Labor government to explore the music-cultural identity and related socioeconomic dilemmas of remote South Sea nomads vis-a-vis the Muslim Malays in the industrialising Riau Islands.
Under the previous Labor government $253,000 of taxpayers' money also went to study archaeology in the Central Caucuses. And $444,000 of taxpayers' money was spent to study a history of advertising industry practices in Australia between 1959 and 1989. Isn't that the type of study that would be better funded by the advertising industry than by taxpayers?
Another example is a study of official histories produced by humanists in the courts and chanceries of Renaissance Italy during the 15th century—$116,00 of taxpayers' money at a time the budget is billions in deficit. It goes on: $112,000 of taxpayers' money spent on a study on rural communities in South Australia and how they will adapt to health challenges from climate change. The only problem is that according to our bureau's records the hottest day ever recorded in South Australia was back in January 1960. In another example, $120,000 of taxpayers' money was spent by the Labor government for a study of the life and times of musical artists, bands, managers, recording studios and relevant radio programs since 1945 in Western Australia.
Is this really what governments should be spending taxpayers' money on? Our Australian Research Council is important. The money we spend on research as a nation is vitally important. But we must be directing that spending on goals and achieving outcomes that will improve our nation's competitiveness, improve our national prosperity—especially at a time we are in such deep deficit, and the previous Labor government has left the nation with such a deep debt that we have to pay off.
I am confident that the new education minister will continue with the very good job he is doing and will ensure that the Research Council expenditure, the generous grants that we give under this government, and the increasing amounts of grants that we give, will continue on those grants that are actually improving and increasing our national prosperity. I commend this bill to the House.
I thank the members who participated in this debate. The Australian Research Council Act 2001 allows the ARC to continue to support the highest-quality fundamental and applied research and research training. The importance of the ARC was highlighted in early November when the funding outcomes for five ARC funding schemes were announced. As a result of this, 1,177 new research projects will be undertaken by some of our best and brightest researchers.
To take just a few examples, researchers will work to understand the causes of eruptive bushfires; reduce the misdiagnoses of disease; identify the causes of outbreaks of the coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish, and ways to manage and protect the Great Barrier Reef; investigate water scarcity in the Murray-Darling Basin; work to develop new cancer treatments—and much more.
The ARC Amendment Bill 2013 before us today is essential. The ARC Act is the legislative basis that supports the financial operations of the ARC grants programs, and the ongoing process of the ARC, to fund this high-quality research. There has been some discussion in the media and on social media since this bill was introduced, with many a theory about a reduction in funding. But let me be absolutely clear: there is no reduction in funding. This bill seeks to amend the ARC Act in line with the commitments made by the previous government in the 2013-14 budget. The perceived reduction in funding is due to the Future Fellowships scheme. This scheme was designed by Labor as a terminating program, and that is what is reflected in the 2013-14 budget, and that is what is reflected in this amendment bill today. The coalition government has not removed one dollar of funding from the ARC.
What I will say today is that any delay in passing this bill could have detrimental impact on the payment of all new grants moving forward and therefore the livelihoods of our researchers. We need this research to address the great challenges of our time, to improve the quality of people's lives, to support the development of new industries and to remain competitive in the global knowledge economy. The outcomes of ARC-funded research are highlighted daily in the media. The Herald Sun recently published a story titled 'Mental illness implant hope' about a study led by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, which has allowed researchers to develop a brain implant that they hope will provide a breakthrough in the treatment of the symptoms of mental illness. The implant, a world first, would provide electrical stimulation and deliver drugs directly to the brain. ARC-funded research undertaken at the University of New South Wales has seen the development of new green steel processes that have to date diverted more than 1.6 million waste car tyres from landfill. And ARC-funded research at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research has engineered a protein that exhibits qualities of an antiviral agent against human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV.
Ongoing funding for the ARC is essential to the vitality of the Australian higher education system and our commitment to strengthen Australia's research workforce. Excellent researchers across all areas of the university system must be able to compete for funding if we are to keep world-class academics in Australia, working in our universities and teaching the next generation. However, the ARC is not only supporting quality research and research careers, but also helping the government to measure our research investment and to assure taxpayers that their money is being invested wisely. The ARC's mission is to deliver policies and programs that advance Australian research and innovation globally and that benefit the community. The outcomes of ARC-funded research deliver cultural, economic, social and environmental benefits to all Australians. It is essential that this bill is passed today to allow the good work of the ARC to continue and to ensure that our researchers have the resources to undertake high-quality research now and in the future. I commend the bill to the House.
The question is that the bill be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I have received a message from Her Excellency the Governor-General recommending, in accordance with section 56 of the Constitution, an appropriation for the purpose of this bill.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, this is my first opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to such high office. I can think of no better person to occupy that office.
I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013. The Labor Party introduced this legislation when in government and we support it in opposition. The amendments being made by this bill will enhance the operational efficiency of the Do Not Call Register; simplify the processes for updating industry codes and increase the transparency of processes to develop industry codes; and provide greater clarity around the role of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, its standards of operation, and processes for regular review.
The various amendments in the bill are not contentious and they have the support of industry, of regulatory authorities and of consumer representatives. After the bill was first introduced into this place it was passed by the House, and then the Senate referred the bill to the Senate Environment and Communications Committee. That occurred earlier this year, and the committee reported in late June of this year. Six submissions were made to the committee, and the submitters were broadly in favour of the measures in the previous bill. I think the Senate committee recommended one amendment, which is incorporated in this legislation.
This bill reflects the continuing importance of consumer protection regulation in telecommunications. The amendments the bill makes are designed to enhance the ability of the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, to enforce the operation of the Do Not Call Register—a register that is now in place in large part because of the sustained and continued campaigning by the member for Chisholm in this place. I should make this point: the government has announced that it intends to proceed with an agenda to remove the burden of regulation, and it has made the point that it intends to have a regulation repeal day early in 2014 dedicated to removing regulation that is considered burdensome or redundant. The government has indicated that its measurement methodology will be based on the Victorian government's methodology. This methodology focuses on costs and does not focus on social outcomes of regulation. So it would be of great concern if the Do Not Call Register is identified as a regulatory burden because of the compliance costs of checking call lists against it.
The other two sets of amendments in this bill apply to protections for consumers of telecommunication services. All members of this House would be familiar with stories of telco providers' service failures. The industry has been criticised for plans that are very difficult to understand—roaming fees, bill shock and customer service failures. The conversations that I have had with telcos since becoming the shadow minister for communications indicate to me that they are committed to improving their customer service. This commitment has been underpinned by the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Code, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the regulator, ACMA. The development of the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Code was a major step forward. It included, for the first time, a comprehensive compliance regime.
These amendments, which permit industry codes to be amended rather than fully remade, will make it possible now for this code and other codes to be more effective. New problems and issues will be able to be quickly addressed by code amendment, and the industry must ensure that this occurs. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman scheme is effective in providing recourse for consumers who are unable to resolve issues with their provider, but it has been slow to adapt to new issues and address governance challenges. The clear specification of standards of operation and the requirement for regular reviews in this legislation will ensure that it continues to be effective in the future. Reduction of regulatory burden is a goal that we share with the government, but it must not come at the expense of removing important protections for consumers. The amendments in this bill are an example of how effective regulatory review can be achieved, and I commend this legislation to the House.
I am delighted to rise today for the first time to speak on a piece of proposed legislation. I too am pleased to speak to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013. As speakers in this debate have already said, this bill seeks to strengthen consumer protections and improve the regulatory framework of the original Telecommunications Act 1997, which was introduced by the Howard government. This is an important act which ensures that consumers are protected and industry is held accountable. It is, however, important to keep legislation up to date with the fast-paced changes of industry, particularly when it involves the ever-evolving technology sphere. Australians are becoming more reliant on technology such as their mobile phones, tablet devices and internet connection to complete their everyday activities, both professional and personal. Having appropriate safeguards in place provides consumers with certainty that their rights are being protected.
Cutting red tape and reducing regulatory burdens has, and continues to be, a priority for the Abbott government. We have already proved our commitment to cutting red tape and looking out for the interests of all Australians by taking the first steps to repeal the carbon tax and the mining tax. Although my opposition colleagues have so far failed to 'see the light' on those pieces of legislation, it is important to note that similar legislation to this telecommunications bill was introduced by the former government, and it received bipartisan and industry support. It was also referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Committee, with submitters broadly in favour of the measures in this bill. Ensuring that amendments to this bill pass through the House will be another step towards reducing unnecessary administrative restraints on the telecommunications industry and updating its practices so that they are in line with the rapid developments of this sector.
This bill will streamline and improve the process for developing and amending industry codes. As the industry regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority will continue to be responsible for both registering these codes and ensuring that they are enforced appropriately within the industry. Industry codes are currently required to be formally revised, which is often an arduous process by multiple stakeholders. Any move to streamline this process should be given full support from all sides of this House. These amendments will allow industry codes to be varied, rather than being replaced in their entirety. This will effectively speed up the process and ensure that stakeholders are not burdened by unnecessary administrative tasks.
Another key aspect of this bill is its focus on the operations of the Do Not Call Register. This is important to the electorate of Durack—and, dare I say, all Australians who do not particularly like their dinner being interrupted far too often at night by telemarketers. The Do Not Call Register was set up by government to protect the privacy of Australians who register their telephone number so as not be disturbed by telemarketers. These Australians do not go through that process just to continue receiving calls from telemarketers, who often prey on the weak and the vulnerable. Approximately nine million telephone numbers are listed on the Do Not Call Register, so it is important that, as consumers, their right to privacy is protected at all times. When discussing legislation it is important to remember that this is not just words on a page, but is something that affects real people. My mother is at an age where she spends an increased amount of time at home and is—well, let's just say—from our seniors generation, which, unfortunately, makes her the perfect target for telemarketers as she is perceived to be weak. She receives many unwelcome calls every week, which, of course, makes her feel vulnerable and pressured to give money that she simply does not have. I believe this borders on harassment at times.
An example of this type of unwanted phone call is the likes of a mobile phone company that you do not have a contract with calling to offer you an upgrade or free phone, which generally comes with a few additional fees once you start to read the fine print. Numerous constituents have made complaints to my office that, despite being on the Do Not Call Register, they continue to be hounded by these marketing companies. Asking my constituents to complete surveys over the phone has been the most common breach of their privacy. As one of my constituents stated: 'These are some of the worst time wasters who ring at the most inopportune times—usually Saturdays, when we cherish the time with our families, or are at least trying to sleep in after a hard week.'
It is important to note that there are some groups who are exempt from this register. These include charities, research companies, political parties and educational institutions. We have all experienced these unsolicited and disruptive calls, so there is clearly a weakness in the current legislation. It is our job as representatives to see that this is rectified and to ensure that all Australians, and in particular our elderly, are protected by the law. In order to achieve this, these amendments need to be passed in their entirety to allow the Australian Communications and Media Authority to better enforce action in relation to unwelcome telemarketing calls and marketing faxes.
In the past, ACMA has encountered difficulty in establishing links between the company who is selling the product and the telemarketing company whom they have contracted or made an arrangement with. The purpose of these amendments is to remove any ambiguity from the legislation so that any telemarketing calls from a third party that are likely to be made, or unsolicited marketing faxes that are likely to be sent, in fulfilment of a contract, arrangement or understanding, are liable. This will clarify responsibility for telemarketing calls or sending telemarketing faxes and will ensure that companies can no longer contract this service out to get around their own telemarketing ban. It is an important amendment which will help to overhaul the current loopholes in the system, with the aim to increase levels of compliance.
Regulatory clarity around the role of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman is another important amendment to this legislation, to ensure that the industry remains efficient, competitive and responsive to the needs of Australian consumers. This bill's amendments will put a greater focus on the TIO and its capability for dispute resolution, particularly in the areas of speed, fairness and efficiency. Periodic reviews against external benchmarks will provide a measure of its effectiveness and will allow the government and the public to have appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that this industry standard is being upheld. These standards were established by the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, with the TIO being reviewed against the standards within three years, and every five years subsequently.
The TIO is an important service for consumers, as it allows the industry to solve consumer problems rather than relying on government regulation to do the job for it. Government regulation is necessary, but it is important to find a balance that ensures industry standards are being upheld without detracting from productivity. These amendments will ensure that the TIO continues to provide an alternative dispute resolution scheme for the telecommunications industry in accordance with consumer and industry needs and standards.
After receiving unsolicited phone calls or faxes from these telecommunications companies, the last thing that the average Australian wants to do is endure a lengthy and convoluted resolution process. If the TIO and ACMA are not able to operate, or are prevented from operating, in accordance with best practice, then the Telecommunications Act becomes simply another piece of paper. It is our role to make sure that the Australian people and industry are able to work together harmoniously and that, where there are faults, these are resolved. This bill will ensure that best practice is upheld, consumers are protected from industry, and industry know their rights so that this legislation can effectively be implemented and enforced.
The Telecommunications Act 1997 has served consumers and the industry well, but we are all aware that technology is changing in the blink of an eye, with a new phone being released every couple of months—I expect it is probably every couple of weeks now. This has made traditional regulatory frameworks either inefficient or redundant, so we need our legislation to be adaptable and to progress with it. The Abbott government is committed to reducing administrative burdens and protecting the interests of consumers, and this bill ensures that appropriate safeguards are in place. I commend it to the House.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013 today and to indicate that I will be supporting the bill. I will briefly reflect on the comments of the previous member about the broad purpose of the bill before us, which is to put in place three amendments related to consumer protections in the telecommunications sector.
The first amendments are, obviously, to improve the efficiency of the Do Not Call Register Act. Can I put on record at this point my congratulations to former Speaker Anna Burke, who originally started the process to establish a Do Not Call Register, doing a lot of work as a backbench member of the opposition at the time. The purpose of the Do Not Call Register Act was to regulate unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls. It is well recorded—and indeed the previous member made this point—that vulnerable people were particularly harassed by those sorts of unsolicited calls. The register provides that a person must not make, or cause to be made, a telemarketing call to an Australian number if that number is registered on the Do Not Call Register, and the call is not a designated telemarketing call. The explanatory memorandum to the bill indicates that a problem had arisen, and this amendment seeks to redress that. To use the direct words, it says:
In some instances, the ACMA has encountered difficulty in establishing evidentiary links between the first person and the other party providing the telemarketing and/or fax marketing services. This has commonly arisen because agreements between the parties relate to the sale and/or marketing of the first person’s goods or services without any specific reference to the means by which the goods or services are to be sold and/or marketed.
Amendments are proposed to address that problem.
Amendments are also proposed to streamline the process for developing and amending industry codes under part 6 of the act. This is to be achieved by: firstly, enabling industry codes to be varied rather than requiring that they be wholly removed; secondly, extending the application of the reimbursement scheme for developing consumer related codes so that it also applies to varying such consumer related industry codes; and, thirdly, requiring code developers to conduct transparent and accountable code development processes, specifically by publishing on their websites draft codes and variations, and any submissions received about them.
The amendments also go to the improvement of the operation of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman scheme, by providing greater clarity about the ombudsman's role and expected standards of operation, by requiring the TIO scheme to comply with standards determined by the minister, and by requiring periodic public reviews of the scheme conducted by a person or body independent of the TIO and the telecommunications industry. The protection of consumer rights is very important, particularly in a very fast-developing sector such as telecommunications. I know the shadow parliamentary secretary at the table with me, the member for Chifley, has put a lot of his own time and energy into looking at this issue.
It is an issue that is very pertinent to people in all our electorates, so I want to take this opportunity to talk about an area of telecommunications service on which I—and, I am sure, many members of this House—have received significant complaints over time, but particularly since the election: the provision of broadband services. With the member for Throsby, I was particularly concerned to see, not so long ago, that there had been a significant change to the information provided on the NBN Co. site about the progress of the rollout of the national broadband network.
People in many suburbs in my area had been able to look on the map on the NBN Co. site and see where they sat in terms of the framework rollout—whether they were in the area for programs to be commenced within one year, in an area which would commence within three years, or in an area which would be commenced post that time: more than three years but within the overall build time. I was lobbied by lots of people who were not in the one-year or the three-year programs, saying that they wanted to be fast tracked. People were very supportive of the construction rollout and just wanted to see it happen even more quickly in their areas.
In some sort of Machiavellian interpretation of the word 'transparency', everything has now disappeared. As I said before, it is as if the government believes that invisibility is the ultimate form of transparency. It is actually completely the opposite. Not providing any information is not being more accountable to the population, and I have had quite a lot of complaints.
Whole suburbs across my area—Woonona, Russell Vale, Corrimal, Bellambi, Tarrawanna, Fairy Meadow, Fernhill, Towradgi, Balgownie, Kembla Grange, Wongawilli, Horsley, Marshall Mount, Penrose, Dapto, Wollongong, West Wollongong, Mangerton, Mount Keira, Keiraville, Gwynneville, Mount Saint Thomas, and Coniston—were previously on maps, so that residents could see where the construction was programmed to start, and hold me accountable as the local member for that commencement going ahead. Now they look at the map and they see nothing. They have no idea what the current proposal is. As a result of this, as members may be aware, there has been a national petition underway, online. It has been run by the NBN defence group.
Many residents came to see me about this in late November. I think it was on 26 November. They brought to me a copy of the petition which, at that point, had 270,640 signatures from across the nation. A freelance graphic designer—one of my local constituents, Marina Varda—came along with a number of other constituents to present the petition to me and to ask me to raise the matter in the parliament. I am absolutely happy to do so on their behalf today. The petition was set up by a 20-year-old student Nick Paine through change.org, and it is to Minister for Communications, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, asking him to consider the coalition's policy.
I acknowledge the former member for Gilmore, who is in the gallery—in the heavens above us. It is lovely to see Joanna Gash, again.
The petition is provided to members on a disc and I just want to put on the record of the House some of the comments by my local constituents about their concerns about this broadband decision. Local petitioners in my area are very unhappy, in many cases, with their current broadband service, and were particularly looking forward to getting fibre to the home. Brendan says:
A full fibre NBN for all Australians is critical for improving the productivity of Australia's digital economy, competitiveness, social services, and community inclusion. It has the potential to transform our country for the better. It just makes sense.
Evan says:
Tony Abbotts plan is in the end going to cost more because what he is proposing to put in place is just going to have to be removed later on down the track, when the speeds it provides are not viable for Australia's growing online requirements.
Jack says:
Because I already suffer under the terrible quality copper that exists now. When it rains my internet dies. Copper is not the future and will not be cheaper in the long run, The LNP need to stop kidding themselves.
Danny says:
As a Liberal Party member, I believe that faster internet is the best way to engage the world, especially Asia through business, to help create a better economy for Australia.
Ryan says.
Fast internet is absolutely vital to Australia's long-term growth. Fast internet means a better economy, better education, better health, more innovation, and maintaining an edge in a competitive world.
Phill says:
The NBN is a core piece of infrastructure in the future of Australia. The internet becomes more and more important every day, we need to set ourselves up now to take advantage of any opportunity that this advancing technology represents.
William says:
FTTH gives fibre access to everyone not just the rich who can afford it.
Rosalind says:
If you are going to do something, do it right! You might gain some of my respect, too, and the respect of a lot more people.
Matthew says:
Australia is years behind in technology when compared to many other countries of a similar economic strength. Without a proper fibre infrastructure we will continue to slip until this becomes a serious threat to our economic standing. The FTTN plan is purely a measure to make it seem like the government are making progress. If you have any knowledge of network construction you realize that the data speed to the node is irrelevant if it hits a bottleneck caused by the existing archaic copper cable infrastructure.
Jesse says:
Investing in the internet is a fantastic way to bring Australia's education and business environments closer to a par with the rest of the world.
Guy says:
My current copper network connection is not capable of supplying ADSL2 speeds let alone supporting high speed internet.
Diana says:
This is important to me as an educator. Our children and their children deserve access to the best; it is we who pay for it and we want them to have every advantage. Not just our children but their children as well. We are behind when it comes to technology and our country will only be able to compete, on an equal footing, on the international stage when we have state of the art facilities driving our ability to do so.
Nicola says:
My partner is a sole trader working from home and relies on the net. We need a premium service.
Frederick:
As a scientific researcher I am required to download vast amounts of data, and currently have to do that at the office and cannot work from home due to exceptionally slow and expensive internet. My work and that of countless others would be made so much easier by having Internet at a reasonable speed and price as is in the rest of the world.
Jordan:
I live in an area where the current copper network can only handle a limited number of ADSL connections. I'm not one of the lucky ones. Currently I have to make do with extremely expensive internet via 3G connection that is unstable. I need the internet for homework. Oh, and I aspire to become a programmer, and a lot of the resources that help me to gain the knowledge is online. On top of that my family are heavy internet users.
Christel says:
Australia needs to step up a notch and digital media is vital to work, study and Education.
Rob says:
I work from Home and have an increasing need for high quality, high speed broadband.
David says:
I'm currently in the final stages of a computer science degree and the University of Wollongong. As such, this issue directly influences my career, and in turn, my whole life.
James says:
I am doing computer science at university of Wollongong and knowing a bit about computers i believe the FTTH would be a more feasible plan. we are getting left behind from the rest of the world, and the power of internet is very important for our future.
Samual says:
If we get this infrastructure right it will provide opportunity and innovation which might not be as feasible under a less superior network. Network loads are only set to increase, we will need it one day.
Daniel says:
I am an IT professional who needs to compete on a global stage that already has fibre internet (e.g. singapore).
David says:
I run an Architectural practice in suburban Wollongong and work from home so that I may also care for my two children. I often spend a day or two without any internet access as the pits are flooded and connections are dodgy on the existing copper network. FTTN will not fix this. Furthermore it seems myopic to spend at least 2/3 of the money to and garner the ongoing expense of powering and maintaining all these nodes, for a solution that has 1/8 of the performance and no expandability. If I ran my business with those principles I would get laughed out of town.
Christopher says:
… because the area I'm in I can't even get adsl2 so the whole infrastructure in this area needs to be updated not just to the node.
There are pages and pages of comments from Wollongong region constituents on this petition, outlining not only their dissatisfaction with their current broadband technology, infrastructure and price but also their great disappointment that fibre-to-the-premises NBN construction is not proceeding. So I am very happy to recognise our almost 200 candidate locals who identified by their suburb that they live in my area. Many Australians signed the petition just listing their location as 'Australia', so there could be more from my region—it is hard to identify how many. But this is clearly an issue for regional Australia and clearly an important piece of infrastructure that people are very unhappy about.
I do not anticipate the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman will be very thrilled at the number of complaints that they may continue to get as people find the old copper network continuing to fail them and not living up to the modern world's needs. So I commend the bill to the House, but I also commend the locals who have taken the opportunity to express this view. I hope they succeed in changing the communications minister's mind.
I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013. This is a good bill, it is a simple bill and it is one that has come into this place following on from some of the very good work that Labor did in government. It is one of those changes and shifts you see in the community through legislation that really has a direct impact on consumers. The more that I think about what this bill does via the Do Not Call Register, the more I see it as a bill to help people who are a little too polite or a little too vulnerable. As we know, a lot of people are preyed upon because of their vulnerability. Sometimes it is older people; sometimes it is younger people; sometimes it is people who are a bit isolated or at home at particular hours; and other people are preyed upon because of their goodwill or just their inability to say no or to perhaps fully comprehend what is being spruiked to them.
It became evident to us, particularly through the good work that some of our backbench members did—in particular, Anna Burke, the former Speaker of this House, when she was a backbencher—that we should look at ways that we can assist and protect consumers. The Do Not Call Register Act became a very important tool in that armoury to help all of those people, and I know it is very widely used. The initiative went further and now there is the Do Not Knock initiative. People may have seen the little stickers you can put on your door—I see people nodding their heads and shaking their heads. It is really effective and it does send a clear message and signal. Particularly with the Do Not Knock initiative, people do have a time which they believe is their time, and we on this side agree. People should be afforded some privacy, particularly around dinner time or at night when perhaps they have had a long day at work and just do not really want to be bothered by somebody selling or spruiking them something at the door.
Even worse and more invasive, though, is what happens from time to time when people call you unwanted. I am sure we have all heard the stories, and they are endless. I could almost speak all day on the scams and things that come through the telephone line, if not the internet. People ring up saying they are from a large technology company and there is something wrong with your computer. If only you do X, Y and Z and give them all your details, they will help you fix it—too bad when you tell them you do not have a computer in the house!
A whole range of very important consumer protection mechanisms are contained in this bill. Even beyond just this bill, consumer awareness and education about protecting yourself is, I think, really important. A lot of the work I did in government in the area around financial literacy was also important in trying to help people arm themselves against people who try to separate them from their money or even them from their time. So it is very important.
We created these new laws in government to protect people, consumers specifically. The bill before us is in three parts and contains some sensible amendments to try to make improvements on what was already in place. We support it because we wrote it. In opposition, it is a good thing to be able to come in here and find a really good bill before the House. It ought to be good because we did a good job in putting it together. It is pretty straightforward. Part 1 of the bill amends the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 to clarify when a person is taken to have caused another person or third party to make telemarketing calls or send marketing faxes in carrying out marketing activities. Part 1 of the bill also amends the Telecommunications Act to streamline and improve the process for developing and amending industry codes under part 6 of the act.
Part 2 of the bill amends the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1995 to do a few things but, particularly, to require that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman scheme, the TIO scheme, comply with standards determined by the minister of the day and also to require that there is a periodic public review of the TIO scheme. That should be done by somebody outside, by an independent person.
Part 3 of the bill amends the Telecommunications Act to insert a reference to the Australian privacy principles as well. So it encompasses all good amendments. As I said earlier on, the Labor Party introduced this legislation in government and we will also be supporting it in opposition, as the shadow minister has said.
These changes will enhance the operational efficiency of the Do Not Call Register. It will also simplify the processes for updating industry codes and will increase the transparency of processes to develop industry codes. It goes further in that it provides some greater clarity around the role of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, its operation standards and processes for regular reviews. We want to ensure that it is very clear how the register works and also very clear how a consumer can access remedies through the office of the ombudsman. It is often very difficult for consumers to deal directly with their service provider, which may not be willing to assist in rectifying certain issues and problems that people might have. So this is an important clarifying point.
As the minister noted in his second reading speech, the various amendments to this bill are not contentious and have the support of industry, regulatory authorities and consumer representatives. So it is supported across all areas, across all stakeholders. The amendments also reflect the continuing importance of consumer protection regulation in telecommunications. It is a pretty messy area of law and if there are not decent, good consumer protection principles and regulations in place, then people can easily get in trouble.
There was an earlier period when it was not possible in Australia to find two mobile phone contracts that you could ever compare. They were deliberately designed to be very confusing, incomparable and incompatible. They made it as difficult as possible for a consumer to discover whether one policy or one contract for a service provider was better value than another contract. We did a lot of work in government to ensure that comparability existed, that contracts were fair and that there were fair clauses within those contracts so that a telecommunications company could not write in there something ridiculous, such as, 'If you take out a two-year contract with a mobile phone, you have to buy the mobile phone all over again for another round,' and things like that. We did some really good things, including providing sensible mechanisms, to ensure that consumers were protected and that there was some accountability and transparency in those types of contracts as well.
The amending legislation is designed to enhance the ability of the regulator and the Australian Communications and Media Authority to enforce the operation of the Do Not Call Register. There is no point in having a register if they cannot enforce it. There is no point in having these things if they do not actually work in practice as well as in principle. We have worked very hard to ensure that they actually work in practice. I still get calls to my office from people complaining, saying: 'I've registered on the Do Not Call Register, but I still get calls.' You have to explain to people that sometimes they are just randomly generated numbers and they may be the unfortunate person receiving that call. But, over time, as more and more people register, it will become clearer to telecommunications and marketing companies that people really do not want to be annoyed in the privacy of their home, particularly at dinner time. There are certain times when we all want a bit of a rest. I think that is important.
This is really good work. Without stretching the telecommunications field too far, obviously, there are a range of things in the legislation that relate to how people work at home and how, these days, their fax machines—if you have still got one—are becoming less and less of an item in business or even at home, as more and more of life is transacted over the internet and how important really good, fast broadband is. And it is good to have the Minister for Communications here at the table. I have not found anyone who does not want a big, fast, cheap, good-value, efficient broadband connection.
You are lucky if you have ADSL2. In fact, very lucky because in most places you cannot get that. And there is this ridiculous circumstance where people go on waiting lists for two years, only to find that they move in the period and they have to re-register, even if they have only moved next door. Or the circumstance where they were living in one street and somebody who had an ADSL broadband connection, maybe their neighbour, is moving somewhere else and says, 'You can have my connection,' and of course that is not possible, either. That highlights the big problem here that our interchanges and nodes are not capable of getting whatever comes to them out to the actual house, to the consumer. That is where, under our policies and under the rolling out of the National Broadband Network, we really saw the big change, the big shift: broadband directly into the home. This was the big pipe. Sometimes people think it is all a bit difficult, confusing and technical; it is not really. Just imagine a big water pipe: the bigger the water pipe, the more water you are going to get. Maybe that is not a good analogy in terms of the home. But the bigger the pipe to the home, the better off you are. If you put in just a little pipe, you will obviously not get a lot down that pipe.
It is very important that we stop the farce in this country—which is holding back business, holding back the economy and holding back people who work from home, which we see more and more of—with this ridiculous notion that, if you take a really big pipe down the street somewhere, that will be good enough. And it is too bad that the majority of ordinary Australians will not be able to either afford to connect or even connect, depending on where they live. So there is a real issue at hand in how we deliver telecommunications right to the individual consumer, just like some of the good things that have been done in this particular bill, in ensuring that consumers are served directly, not just vicariously by some other method.
Obviously, I am very supportive of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Code and also the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, the regulator and ACMA in terms of all the good work that they do. It is with pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013, which is fixed largely on improving the operation of the Do Not Call Register Act. This act reflected community sentiment that they wanted to see something done about telemarketing being used by a range of organisations. At one time I worked for electricity distributors, where deregulation had occurred and companies could pursue new customers. They employed a range of techniques to reach those customers and that included face-to-face doorknocking, which the member for Oxley reflected upon in his contribution to the House a few moments ago. You can now see affixed to the doorframes of most homes a small sticker requesting that people do not knock on doors for the purpose of marketing and peddling business. As a result of that sentiment, we had the establishment of a register to prevent people being disturbed at home by telemarketers.
The statistic that stood out for me in the second reading speech was that, with a population of 22 million Australians, nine million people have signed up and are asking that they not be contacted at home via telephone for the purpose of marketing. So there are 22 million people in this country, nine million households and nearly two-thirds of all the subscribers of fixed line telephone services say, 'Please don't call.' I do not think that reflects at all a degree of them not being sociable or being unfriendly but it does reflect in large part that they have made a determined decision that they do not want to be contacted at home as a way of someone trying to make money from them and that, when they do need to make a decision about how they wish to purchase or procure a product or service, they are quite fine doing that on their own and not being disturbed. It may be the case, as has also been reflected upon through the various contributions made by both sides of the House today, that people will make a decision that will ensure that their privacy after a long day at work is maintained. They do not feel like they need to jump through a series of hoops when people ask them all sorts of very intrusive questions about their purchasing habits or otherwise and wish to be put on this list.
So there have been three sets of amendments made to the consumer protections within the sector. Specifically, as I said, these amendments are designed to improve the efficiency of the act—largely to regulate unsolicited and unwanted calls. It provides that a person must not make or cause to make—which is an important distinction—a telemarketing call to an Australian number if the number is registered on the Do Not Call Register and the call is not a designated telemarketing call.
The explanatory memorandum to the bill indicates the problem has arisen. This amendment has been framed to try to tackle the problem. The explanatory memorandum says:
In some instances, the ACMA has encountered difficulty in establishing evidentiary links between the first person and the other party providing the telemarketing and/or fax marketing services. This has commonly arisen because agreements between the parties relate to the sale and/or marketing of the first person’s goods or services without any specific reference to the means by which the goods or services are to be sold and/or marketed.
These amendments are proposed to streamline the process for developing and amending industry codes under part 6 of the act. I have to commend the industry. No doubt they were very resistant initially to the change that was brought about. The member for Chisholm, with all due credit, at the time in opposition led a very active and energetic campaign to see this arise. I imagine that at that point in time it would have been quite confronting for the industry to be faced with the prospect of this act, but over time industry has recognised the value in responding to consumer sentiment and they have put in place their own codes. With work between the government and industry, industry is prepared to amend the codes. This amendment in particular enables industry codes to be varied rather than having the requirement that they be completely removed. It extends the application of the reimbursement scheme that helps develop consumer related industry codes, and that will also apply to varying those codes. It requires code developers to conduct transparent and accountable code development processes. They would do this by publishing on their websites the draft codes, the variations and any submissions received about them.
Another aspect of what is before the House involves amendments to improve the operation of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman scheme. It does this in two ways. I want to reflect on the TIO as well, which has done a great job in being able to provide redress for people who feel that telecommunications service providers are not responding in a timely or helpful way to the complaints that are raised across a range of services, from telephony through to internet. The TIO, I have to say, has played a very important role within the sector to help address consumer sentiment or dissatisfaction in relation to the way that services are provided to them.
I will go to the two points that will see an improvement to the operation of the scheme.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
There are two, member for Hunter. I note the member for Hunter's long-term and consistent advocacy in the telecommunications space. I think his voice needs to be heard more often on these matters, but I understand he is focused very much in the agriculture space now, being a very active regional member. But, member for Hunter, it is good to see that the TIO, the government and specifically the member for Wentworth are seeing two amendments to the TIO scheme which we support. They will provide greater clarity about the ombudsman's role and expected standards of operation required by the TIO scheme to comply with standards determined by the minister. There will be periodic public reviews conducted by a person or body independent of the TIO and the telecommunications industry, which is another good development to ensure that there is an arms-length ability to look at the way that the scheme is working. It ensures that the operation of the scheme gives people a great degree of confidence in it. I will leave my comments at that. I am grateful for the audience.
It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted. In accordance with standing order 97, the debate may be resumed at a later hour.
I wish to advise the House that I have arranged for a condolence book to be made available so that members will be able to signify their respects to the memory of Mr Nelson Mandela, former President and distinguished leader of the Republic of South Africa. The book is available in the foyer of my office and will remain there today before being taken to the Senate tomorrow for signature by senators. I invite honourable members to sign the book at a time of convenience to them. I did announce this earlier this morning but I announce it again while the House is full so that everyone can avail themselves of that.
My question is to the Foreign Minister. It has been reported that during the Foreign Minister's talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang he said that the minister's recent statements had 'jeopardised bilateral mutual trust and affected the sound growth of bilateral relations'. Can the minister update the House on Australia's relationship with China?
I take it from the question that the opposition does not support the views of the United States, Japan, the Philippines, the European Union, Canada and others, who have all raised their concerns, along with Australia, about the announcement without warning or consultation—
Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is a serious question which was given directly. It is not appropriate for the minister to reframe it so she could be directly relevant to a different question.
There is no point of order. Of course it is a serious question and I call the minister.
So I take it from the question that the opposition have walked away from their position that we would have concerns about any unilateral action or any action taken without warning or consultation in relation to the East China Sea. That was the position of the Labor Party when they were in government. What the coalition have done is restate our concerns over action taken by China that has in fact regrettably led to consequential steps taken by other countries. South Korea has now announced an air defence identification zone in retaliation. This is a concern and all parliamentarians should join with the government in ensuring that we make our concerns known. We are not afraid to stand up for our values and our interests. We are not afraid to state Australian foreign policy even if it does not agree with the outlook of some of our friends and partners. We are proud of the position we have taken. We do not resile from it.
Perhaps I could remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what one would not do in relation to the China relationship, as set out in David Marr's 'Power Trip' article in the Quarterly Essay of June 2010. I remind the deputy leader that the man she chose to be Prime Minister over Prime Minister Gillard referred to the Chinese in less than flattering terms in an article that sets out precisely what former Prime Minister Rudd said about the Chinese interlocutors at the Copenhagen climate change conference.
I remind the shadow minister that the relationship that we inherited had a number of deep concerns. I had a four-hour meeting with Foreign Minister Wang Yi and at the end of that meeting we restated our commitment to the strategic partnership. I am looking forward to the visit of Prime Minister Abbott to Beijing next year. The strategic partnership is strong and firm, but that does not mean that we agree with every point of difference raised by the Chinese nor with any other of our friends and partners. I table this document to remind the shadow minister of the way the Labor Party dealt with China. The 2009 white paper caused enormous challenges— (Time expired)
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister update the House on progress the government is making to provide certainty to workers in the automotive industry?
I thank the honourable member for his question because I know that there is considerable anxiety within the motor vehicle manufacturing industry about the future of General Motors in Australia. The comment made this morning by Mr Devereux, the general manager, that no decision has been made at this point just adds to the uncertainty. What this government have said we want is a clear commitment that General Motors will remain active in Australia. The statements today include no clear commitment to stay in manufacturing in this country, yet it was only two years ago when Holden said it had achieved 'sustained profitability in Australia'. So just two years ago the company was reporting sustainable profitability and now it has not ruled out abandoning manufacturing in this country.
This government are doing their part to endeavour to create a better atmosphere for manufacturing in Australia. As far as the motor vehicle industry is concerned, we have got rid of the $1.8 billion changes to the fringe benefits tax which were going to have such an enormous impact on the motor vehicle manufacturing industry. Of course, we have legislation in the parliament to get rid of the carbon tax, which adds to the cost of every vehicle made in this country.
Holden is an Australian icon, and we want to have a nation where companies such as Holden can prosper and achieve their objectives in manufacturing. So today I have written to the general manager of Holden, Mr Devereux, asking General Motors to make an immediate statement clarifying their intentions in this country. They owe this to the workers of General Motors. Let us not go into the Christmas period without General Motors making a clear commitment to manufacturing in this country and responding to this government's endeavours to improve the manufacturing environment in Australia.
The government is committed to making Australia a place where manufacturing can prosper and where we can work together as a society, as a community and as an economy, not to just allow manufacturing jobs to drift away as they did under the previous regime, but instead to work together to find ways to make sure that manufacturing continues to employ people in this country and that we have a strong and robust manufacturing industry for future generations of Australians.
My question is to the Treasurer. From 2001 to 2012, Holden generated $32.7 billion of economic activity in Australia and paid $21 billion to other businesses in Australia. During that period Holden received $1.8 billion in Commonwealth government assistance. Does the Treasurer consider 18 to 1 a good return on investment?
The best return on investment that you can have is for a business to invest its own money, make its own profits and remain sustainable. That is the best return of investment you can have. It is a foreign concept to the Labor Party. I was looking at the frontbench yesterday, and I was wondering: who has ever worked in the private sector in the Labor Party?
Opposition members interjecting—
Two—two people have!
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
Three—come on, Joel, don't embellish it! Sorry, it is three. On the whole frontbench of the Labor Party, three people have ever worked in the private sector. How many have worked in the private sector in the coalition?
Government members interjecting—
Order! We will desist from all of this unruly behaviour.
There you go—we know what return on investment looks like. Return on investment comes about by doing the hard yards; by having a government that can accommodate investment and risk and that does not look at someone who is profitable and say, 'I want that,' which is what Labor does. Labor does not ever witness a profit that it does not want to take off a hardworking employer or a hardworking employee.
As the Deputy Prime Minister said, 'we want to have a strong manufacturing industry in Australia'. But we have inherited an economy where one job in manufacturing was lost every 19 minutes under Labor. Under Labor, Ford closed their doors and Mitsubishi closed their doors. How about that? Talk about return on investment! That is what you judge to be a good return on investment, is it? Labor's answer to everything is just to throw more money at it. Their response is always to put their political interests ahead of the commercial interests of individual companies.
So I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: put Australia first, put the workers first and join with the Acting Prime Minister and the government in calling on Holden to come clean with the Australian people about their intentions here. We want them to be honest about it—we want them to be fair dinkum—because, if I was running a business and I was committed to that business in Australia, I would not be saying that I have not made any decision about Australia. Either you are here or you are not.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the Acting Prime Minister aware that Peabody Energy has announced that it will close its Wilkie Creek mine near Dalby in my electorate of Maranoa, leading to the loss of 120 jobs? Is he also aware that the company identified the carbon tax as a substantial burden? Acting Prime Minister, what impediments are there to repealing the carbon tax and creating jobs?
I am aware of the news that the Wilkie Creek coalmine, in the member's electorate, is to close. It is an electorate where drought has affected agricultural production and where there have been a number of other setbacks over recent years. To lose these 120 jobs just a couple of weeks before Christmas is very bad news indeed.
The reality is that these are some of many jobs which were lost in the mining industry over the term of the previous government. In fact, if you go to the ABS statistics of August this year, you will see that they confirm that, since May 2012, 7,100 jobs have been lost in the mining sector—7,100 jobs have been lost in the mining sector alone.
As the honourable member mentioned, when commenting on the closure Peabody referred to the carbon tax. They acknowledged other things that affected their profitability, but they said that the carbon tax 'represents a substantial burden on an export-driven mine'. This comes after Origin Energy's managing director also expressed concerns yesterday about the imposition of this damaging tax. The reality is that the carbon tax destroys jobs; it takes jobs away, particularly in the mining sector.
This should not come as any surprise to the Labor Party, who introduced this tax. It was the objective of the Labor Party to close coalmines. That was one of the purposes of the carbon tax. The Greens rejoice every time there is a lost job in the coalmining industry.
The reality is that this is a part of Labor's mess which we must now work to fix up. The government have been active in getting new projects moving forward. More than 100 significant projects, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, have been approved by this government since we came into office, and many of those are in the resources sector. So it is possible to approve these projects and get them moving again, but many of them will falter while the carbon tax is still in place. If members opposite want jobs created they can start by approving the abolition of the carbon tax forthwith. If they are serious about jobs, they will get rid of the carbon tax and encourage employers to invest in this country and create those jobs.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that managing director of Holden, Mike Devereux, was reported this morning as having told the Productivity Commission that the cost of losing the car manufacturing industry would dwarf the cost of keeping it. Given the government is cutting $500 million in auto assistance, isn't the government leaving the auto industry with no future at all?
No. The only future-killers in this building are the Labor Party. Let me give you some facts. The net combined assistance to the automotive manufacturing industry in 2011 was $1.1 billion of taxpayers' money—$1.1 billion in one year. The average assistance per manufacturing employee is $48,000 of taxpayers' money.
We have put another billion dollars on the table, from 2015. A hell of a lot of industries in Australia would love to get the assistance the automotive industry is getting. A hell of a lot of other businesses, and foreign owned businesses, would love to be able to remit money from Australian taxpayers to head office in Detroit, London, Tokyo or anywhere else. There is no shortage of money that has been going to the motor manufacturing industry. If all those assistance measures have worked so well in the past, why have Ford and Mitsubishi left Australia? If all that money has made a difference, why have two of the four major manufacturers left Australia? And why are we in a position today where the third manufacturer, Holden, is refusing to confirm it is around for the long term, even though there is an additional $1 billion on the table? I will tell you why. It is because the Labor Party has made it so damn hard to make anything in Australia. Labour costs are one great example.
If you really care about the motor vehicle industry, I say to the Labor Party: ring up your good mates at the AMWU and tell them to recommend to the workers at Toyota that they should accept the deal offered by Toyota on Friday. This is where the rubber hits the road. Toyota has an additional cost for manufacturing in Australia of $2,800 per vehicle. They have gone to their employees and said, 'We need to have this deal go through to help to manage—just to manage—the cost of employment in Australia so that we can go back to Tokyo and say to them in good faith that the workers of Australia really do want a manufacturing business.' So the best thing the Labor Party can do is put aside the politics and ring up its mates at the AMWU and tell them to accept the deal being offered by Toyota, which will give them job security.
My question is to the Treasurer. With Victoria recording negative economic growth per capita, the future of Holden in doubt, and last week's national accounts showing the importance of public spending to the country's economic health, does the Treasurer agree that it would be the wrong time to make harsh cuts in next weeks MYEFO and in the upcoming federal budget?
If the honourable member for Melbourne really cared about the budget, and I am hoping that he does, but he was in a partnership with the Labor Party whilst in government—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Listen mate, you were the one who went up to the altar with him!
Honourable members interjecting—
The fact of the matter is that the Greens and the Labor Party have formed a partnership in the Senate to block $20 billion of savings. They are not savings we have announced since the election. There are $15 billion in savings we took to the last election and there are $5 billion in savings the Labor Party took to the last election, and the Labor Party is now opposing them. So the Labor Party and the Greens are opposing their own savings, which would improve the bottom line and reduce government debt. The Labor Party and the Greens are so appalled at the state of the budget that they are going to oppose everything we are trying to do to fix it. I tell you what: they are hypocrites writ large.
So I say to the member for Melbourne: if you really care about the budget, back what the coalition is doing. And if you do not have it in you to back what the coalition is doing, back what the Labor Party promised at the last election, because not even the Labor Party has the guts to stand by what they promised the Australian people at the last election when it comes to fixing the budget.
My question is directed to the Minister for Small Business. I refer the minister to the representations I have had from Mr Russell Parson of the Little Creek Cheese Shop in my electorate. Due to the rising cost of gas and electricity as a result of the carbon tax, he made a decision not to employ an additional shop assistant. What impediments are there to repealing the carbon tax and helping small business operators like Mr Parson create jobs?
There you have it: for a Labor Party that might be remotely interested in jobs, there is evidence of the impact of your job-destroying carbon tax. It backs up all the other case studies that have been brought to this chamber and shared with Labor time and time again, case studies of how the carbon tax that you promised not to implement but went ahead and implemented has cost jobs in the Australian small business community. But you did not want to know about. There are 412,000 Australians now not employed in small business—
I rise on a point of order. Unless the minister is claiming that you, Madam Speaker, did not want to know about, he should speak through the chair.
I call the minister. He will direct his remarks through the chair.
This is continuing evidence of their indifference to the economic plight of small business in this country. Here is a case study of the cost burdens that the carbon tax that you promised not to introduce has had on Australian small businesses. You went around saying—
An opposition member interjecting—
The Labor Party went around saying—
I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, it ought not be difficult for him to speak through the chair.
I was not aware that he was speaking directly to any particular person, but the minister will direct his remarks through the chair.
Madam Speaker, you know that 412,000 jobs were lost in small business under Labor and you know the impact that the carbon tax has had. You know that small business is asked about Labor's contribution to the success of their enterprise; and the Sensis Business Index time and time again identifies that small businesses view Labor's contribution as being negative to their economic prospects. Here they go: you do not want to hear about it, do you, Albo?
I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. In his comments, the minister is now reflecting on you and your impartiality.
There is no point of order. But perhaps the Minister for Small Business will desist from using the word 'you'.
There is the evidence for the indifference Labor has to the women and of small business.
We have seen in the most recent Sensis survey a 62 per cent positive turnaround in the sentiment of small business towards Commonwealth government policies. What do they talk about? They say: 'Support amongst SMEs for the federal government improved dramatically following the recent federal election, bringing this indicator to the highest point it's been since November 2007.' They go on to describe this as a turnaround of 62 percentage points following the federal election. The reason for that is that the coalition took a small business policy to the electorate. The coalition bothered to engage with the men and women of small business. At the heart of that agenda was the abolition of the carbon tax.
You have heard from Mr Parsons at Little Creek Cheese. We have heard of examples right across the place. Why don't you just sit down?
I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that he has practised the answer using the word 'you'. But he should listen to your ruling, Madam Speaker. It is not that hard. Every other member of parliament can do it.
There is no point of order. The minister will conclude his answer.
Here we have at the heart of our policy the abolition of the carbon tax. All the Abbott government wants to do is get on and implement its policies. What a novel idea that would be after Labor came to office promising not to do something and then went ahead and did it. What we say to Mr Parsons and all of those small business men and women is this: we are on your side; we are your best advocates; we will not rest until we get rid of this carbon tax—the carbon tax that Labor promised not to introduce and then went ahead and introduced that contributed to the loss of 412,000 jobs in small business. Shame on you, Labor. At least get out of the road so we can get on with our job.
My question is to the Minister for Industry. I refer to Holden managing director Mike Devereux's comments to the Productivity Commission this morning when he said that the federal government has the figures for what is needed to keep Holden in Australia. Minister, isn't it the case that the government's $500 million cut to auto assistance will make the industry unsustainable?
The answer to that question is 'no'. The reason that the answer to the question is 'no' is that the member for Wakefield does not actually know what is required. He, like many opposite, is more than happy to just walk down the road spraying around taxpayer money with no measure, no process and no outcome.
I rise on a point of order on relevance, Madam Speaker. It is here in the SMH: 'It's in the government's hands, says Holden.'
I am sorry, but a point of relevance is not what is in the SMH. I call the minister.
There are many authorities on the car industry sitting in the gallery above us; perhaps on all sides there are many authorities on the car industry! But what I like is a measured, purposeful approach. That way, you know exactly what you are setting out to do. If you set out to do it in a methodical way you will get an outcome that is sustainable.
I have not got time to go through the list of projects that the Labor Party has hurled money at, some at the last minute during the election campaign, in a desperate attempt to silence the industry sector. There were no outcomes promised. There were no long-term prospects for jobs. They just threw money at them to try and shut them up. We are not in that process. We are in a process of ensuring that the car industry has a long-term future. Everyone involved in that process, including the general manager of GM, Mike Devereux, knows how that process is working. We have a Productivity Commission inquiry. The Productivity Commission will report to the government, as the commissioner said this morning at the beginning of the hearings, on 31 March and the government will respond to that report.
What we are seeing here from the Labor Party is an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophecy. Mike Devereux has not said that Holden is leaving Australia. But over there all the way through question time yesterday—and I suspect all the way through question time today—they are putting up a self-fulfilling prophecy to try and get Holden to go. We have a process and we are going to stick to it.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. I remind the minister that I met recently with Port Curtis Dairy Co-operative, representing dairy farmers in Central Queensland, farmers like Peter Woodland at Yongala and Ray Cloose from Rossmoya near Rockhampton. How would abolishing the carbon tax and signing a free trade agreement with South Korea help create jobs in the dairy industry?
I thank the member for Capricornia and the work she has been doing with the dairy farmers at Port Curtis. I let the dairy farmers know of the correspondence has come to my office by reason of the member for Capricornia. She is a diligent and hard worker for that area. But of course the dairy farmers of Capricornia have a range of issues that they need to deal with—and I commend the work that the Minister for Small Business, Bruce Billson, is doing to make sure they are treated fairly as well. One of the things we can change is the excessive costs that they are having to deal with. If we go through the life of a dairy farmer: with a dairy farmer, if it is steel posts, they have to pay the carbon tax on those—or the steel mill does, if the steel mill is in Australia; if the steel mill is supporting Australian working families, they have to pay the carbon tax. But, of course, if the steel comes in from overseas, they do not pay the carbon tax. They have to pay the carbon tax on the wire, if it is from Australia, if it is supporting Australian working families; but, if it comes in from overseas, they do not pay the carbon tax.
In the shed, they have to pay the carbon tax when the electricity is going, so it is going to cost more to milk. And then when it gets to the processor, did you know that down south at Murray-Goulburn they paid $14 million in carbon tax in 2013? This is the sort of cost involved.
Even when you get to the end of the cow's life, and they take it to the abattoir, which supports Australian working families—who, you would think, would be supported by the Australian Labor Party, but they are not: they want to move Australian jobs overseas, and they have been doing a very good job of it—they pay the carbon tax. If you emit 24,999 tonnes of carbon, you do not pay the carbon tax. But if you emit 25,000 tonnes of carbon at that abattoir—like you would at Casino, to the south of you, member for Capricornia—then you do pay the carbon tax, at $24.15 per tonne. In fact, that beast that goes through and triggers the 25,000 tonnes at $24.15 is a $603,000 beast! And where would a lunatic policy like that come from? From the Australian Labor Party! Why don't you stand up for Australian working families—get rid of the carbon tax, stop wrestling with your mates in the Greens and look after Australian working families.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I note Holden managing director Mike Devereux's confirmation this morning that no decision had been made on Holden's future in Australia. I also refer the Acting Prime Minister to this article from the Sunday Mail, which states the member for Mayo has briefed media outlets about 'Holden's apparent decision and demise'. When will the government put a stop to the damaging backgrounding about Holden's future by so-called senior ministers?
Madam Speaker, that question does not fit within the standing orders. It is speculative, it is hypothetical, it is full of argument, it does not make any attempt to actually elicit an answer and I suggest to you that it is out of order.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The point that Leader of the House makes is perfectly valid. It is not a question that is within the power of the Acting Prime Minister to be responsible for and therefore it is out of order.
Madam Speaker, I am trying to work out why the Acting Prime Minister is not responsible for the government putting around backgrounding that will damage Holden's future—it is action by the government.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. It is out of order in that it is not the responsibility of the Acting Prime Minister. I call the honourable member for Pearce.
Opposition members interjecting—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If you are about to make the same point of order, then you will resume your seat. If it is a different point, I will hear it.
Madam Speaker, is it the case that we can no longer ask questions of the Acting Prime Minister or the Prime Minister about the behaviour of their ministers?
That is not a point of order; it is a question.
He is accountable to the parliament for the actions of his ministers.
You are permitted to ask questions of ministers in relation to things for which they are responsible. The member will resume his seat.
Madam Speaker, I am sure you have this well in hand, but I think the point that the Manager of Opposition Business might need to consider is that the Acting Prime Minister, or even the Prime Minister if he were here, is not responsible for the editorials in Sunday newspapers that are speculating about statements or otherwise of members of the front bench. It is not a matter that goes to his responsibilities. Even if the Prime Minister were here, he could not answer it either.
I thank the Leader of the House. There is no point of order. I have ruled the question out of order, and we will hear from the member for Pearce.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the savings task ahead of the current government? What are the current obstacles to addressing the budget issues facing the government and creating jobs?
I thank the member for Pearce for his question and I congratulate him on his outstanding maiden speech. He is absolutely right: there are obstacles. The biggest obstacle is the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party is now blocking $20 billion of savings that would improve the budget bottom line and reduce Labor's legacy of debt.
What is surprising—and it would be surprising to most—is that Labor are now opposing their own savings. The latest one came just last night—a $1.1 billion change to research and development tax changes. On 17 February this year Julia Gillard announced that she was changing research and development tax changes to save $1.1 billion to pay for a plan for Australian jobs. She went on to say: 'This is going to actually be a benefit to the Australian economy and obviously the budget.' Last night in the House the shadow assistant Treasurer stood up and said they would not support those cuts they announced in February.
Then the Labor Party announced on 13 April this year—only a little bit after April Fool's Day—$2.3 billion in savings from cuts in higher education to pay for their Gonski education reforms. And then Senator Kim Carr—Kim il Carr—said that they will not—
Honourable members interjecting—
I would ask the Treasurer to withdraw that comment.
I withdraw. It was so offensive! The $2.3 billion that the Labor Party announced to pay for Gonski, they are now opposing. They still want us to deliver their election promise to spend the money, but they do not want us to deliver their election promise to save the money. And then of course there was the $1.5 billion in the reversal of tax cuts that Labor promised as compensation for the carbon tax they were going to terminate.
So, on one hand Labor is saying, 'You should be more responsible with the budget' and on the other hand they are opposing everything we are doing to get the budget bottom line back in shape. And the Labor Party is now opposing everything they were doing to get the budget bottom line back in shape. There is a little message here: if you want to be a credible opposition you have to have some core principles. I know the Labor Party had no consistent core principles in government. But give it a shot in opposition, because hopefully you will be there a long time.
I advise the House that we have with us in the gallery Joanna Gash, the former member for Gilmore. And we are particularly delighted to see Mr Alby Schultz, the former member for Hume.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
An honourable member: And Mike Symon.
I also acknowledge Mike Symon, who I did not realise was present in the House. Thank you for that prompt.
My question is to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, who has responsibility for transport. I note Holden Managing Director Mike Devereaux's confirmation this morning that no decision has been made on Holden's future in Australia. I also refer the junior minister to the article in the Sunday Mail that states that the member for Mayo has briefed media outlets about 'Holden's apparent decision and demise'. When will the assistant minister stop undermining jobs in South Australia?
Madam Speaker, a point of order: the sentence that was the question—which was, 'When will the assistant minister stop undermining jobs in South Australia?'—is clearly out of order, as it is entirely an argument; it is not a question.
I think I will allow the question. But I would simply say that to call someone the assistant minister and then to use the term 'junior minister'—tending to say it is a pejorative—is unacceptable.
In dealing with the editorial there was no contact made with me prior to that claim being made, and it is false.
I call the member for Moore—and this is his maiden question.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the state of the economy and the budget inherited by the current government?
I congratulate the member for Moore on his outstanding maiden speech yesterday as well.
I will release the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook next Tuesday at the Press Club, and I will there lay down before the Australian people, in all of its detail, the state of the budget that we have inherited from Labor and the state of the economy that we have inherited from Labor. That will illustrate to the Australian people that that government was the most reckless government in modern Australian history. It was a government with absolute disregard for Australian taxpayers' money. And the waste—the entrenched waste that was part and parcel of six years of the worst government of Australian history—is going to be revealed in all of its graphic detail. The outlook will also have the appropriate forecasts for the Australian economy. And it will show, based on the September national accounts, the fact that at the moment the Australian economy is locked in below trend growth.
We have rising unemployment. We have falling terms of trade. There is no act of self-delusion as existed under Labor, but we have a plan. We have a plan to get it back. We have a plan to fix the budget. We have a plan to start living within our means. We have a plan to grow the economy. We have a plan that focuses on getting rid of the carbon tax, getting rid of the mining tax, rolling out an agenda for infrastructure that helps to stimulate job growth. We have a plan that gets the balance right in relation to workplace relations, bringing back the Australian Building and Construction Commission, with all of its powers and resources, to stand up to the thuggery of the mates of the Labor Party. We have a plan that focuses on building the infrastructure that is going to drive a stronger economy: better competition laws, a better financial services regime. We have a plan that needs to be rolled out—and it is not just that it can be rolled out; it must be rolled out. When I reveal the mid-year budget numbers next Tuesday—no matter how bad they are, no matter how alarming they will be—I will say emphatically to the Australian people, there is only one way to fix it: give the coalition a free hand to fix the budget, give the coalition a free hand to fix the economy and get the Labor Party and their mates in the Greens out of the way so that we can get our legislative program through the Senate.
My question is also addressed to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. I refer to the junior minister's comment on 6 November on Perth radio station 6PR in relation to the North West Coastal Highway and the Great Northern Highway: 'We are committed to those projects.' Given that the senior cabinet minister in this portfolio has refused to commit to these projects, will the assistant minister stand behind that statement and commit to commence construction on these projects in 2014?
These WA projects are important, and the North West Coastal Highway is an important project. The Deputy Prime Minister has made that point too. But you funded it, member for Grayndler, from a tax that did not earn any revenue—the mining tax. So, all I would say to the member for Grayndler is: stay tuned.
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
The answer is finished.
I know, and right now is the appropriate time to move what I am suggesting. I seek leave to table the interview by the member for Mayo on 6PR. They are his words.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. Will the minister update the House on the findings of the independent PricewaterhouseCoopers report into the Early Years Quality Fund? What action is the government taking to deliver better outcomes for the early years childcare sector?
I am pleased to table my ministerial review of the Early Years Quality Fund—another sad chapter in Labor's narrative of union distortion and slush funds. The independent review has found that the Early Years Quality Fund was deeply flawed, deeply unfair and a front to boost union membership. Now, I want to make it very clear that we will honour our election commitments. We will pay the contracted funds. I have told the 16 service providers exactly that. However, I have invited them to participate in the coalition's professional development fund—a better way that looks after every educator, every centre and every child. It does what Labor's flawed fund could never achieve: it lifts the quality standards in the sector as a whole.
We know that Labor looks after their union mates, because that is just what they do. We know that every member of the Labor Party in this place owes their existence to a union. But never before has $300 million of taxpayers money being used in the pursuit of this disgraceful aim. It was dangled as a bribe in front of every childcare worker by the member for Adelaide in her position as minister at the time. Union members invaded the lunch rooms of workplaces across this country, insisting on signups. 'Sign up, because if you do, you'll get the money. Sign up, because, without being a member of our union, you won't have an opportunity to participate in this fund.' This was the minister at the time, desperately scrambling in the week before the election to sign these contracts. Why did she leave this fund open so long? Why didn't she administer it properly? You know why, Madam Speaker. Because every second it was open there was more opportunity for union sign-ups. There was more opportunity for members to be tricked into joining the union. This minister sat by and let it happen.
When the union that I talk about came to see me about 18 months ago, I said, 'Why not take this case to the Fair Work Commission, the independently constituted body that deals with wages, created by Julia Gillard.' Do you know why they did not to it? It was because they needed this process to sign up more union members. Members of the Labor Party and ministers in position at that time allowed this to happen, and they did not even have the decency to put a message on the website to say that the fund was exhausted in just 12 hours. And what should make us feel really sick is that this was never about the early years, this was never about quality, this was never about educators, this was never about the children. This was only ever about the union. Shame, Labor, shame!
) ( ): My question is again addressed to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Does the assistant minister believe urban passenger rail projects are nationally significant?
I thank the member for Grayndler for the question, and we hope today that the member for Grayndler will support our Infrastructure Australia bills which are in the parliament. They will strengthen the independence of that body to ensure that a stronger outcome for infrastructure is achieved by the infrastructure government led by the infrastructure Prime Minister. Urban rail projects are important, and we believe the state—
Opposition members interjecting—
You have had your go, Albo.
The minister will simply refer to people by their correct titles.
Opposition members interjecting—
Yes, endorsement from you is okay, Tania, I do not mind that. They are all very fired up over there, though, aren't they. There are three days left, guys, three days left.
Opposition members interjecting—
Those on my left will desist.
Urban rail projects are important projects, and we believe that state governments should invest in them.
Opposition members interjecting—
Rumpole, calm down! They are very substantial projects.
The minister will refer to people by their proper titles.
They are substantial projects, and the state government should invest in them.
I wish to raise a point of order on relevance, Madam Speaker. It was a pretty easy question to answer. We have not had an answer yet; we have just had a bit of chitchat across the chamber. Can the assistant minister be asked to actually answer the question.
You are straying off your point of order. I will ask the minister if he has completed his answer. He has completed his answer.
) ( ): My question is to the Minister for Education, representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister update the House on the progress of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill? How will the passage of the bill help protect the interests of members of registered organisations?
I can inform the member for Eden-Monaro that the government is progressing the Registered Organisations Commission bill, but not with the support of the opposition, unfortunately. It is surprising, and unfortunately I have to report back to the parliament that Labor is not supporting the protection of workers' dues under the Registered Organisations Commission. There is almost nothing worse than stealing from low-paid workers to fund living high on the hog for union bosses—almost nothing worse. What we have seen over the last few years is example after example of some unions and some union bosses deliberately setting up organisations or structures that steal from the workers that they are supposed to represent. I think the worst example has been the Health Services Union in recent times, where the former president of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Williamson, pleaded guilty to four very serious charges of defrauding his members by $1 million. And, of course, the former Labor member for Dobell is in the courts right now defending charges that he defrauded members of the Health Services Union.
I know that there are very good members on the other side of the House, and this side of the House, who are as appalled as I am by the behaviour of Mr Williamson, the alleged behaviour of Mr Thomson—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the member for Charlton withdraw that comment.
I ask that the member withdraw.
I withdraw.
Unfortunately, it goes to the sensitivity of the new member for Newcastle that he would be seeking to interrupt a very serious answer about a very serious issue. There are good people on the Labor side from the union bosses, from the union party, who do recognise that stealing from workers is the worst crime of all. We have seen it with the Health Services Union, the Transport Workers Union, the CFMEU and the National Union of Workers. All of their slush funds have been under a cloud—IR21, Industry 2020, Building Industry 2000.
All of these organisations' slush funds, examples of stealing from the workers that the union bosses are meant to represent, would be dealt with by the Registered Organisations Commission. The Registered Organisations Commission would stand up for workers. What this proves to me is that, yet again, it is the Liberal and National Parties that are the friends of the workers. It is the Liberal and National Parties that seek to protect the workers against rapacious union bosses who steal their money and use it to live high on the hog, and I am proud to be part of a party that genuinely stands up for workers—that does not just use them to win preselection and to get elected.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his statement in question time on 13 November that, if the correspondence between the member for Lilley and the Governor of the Reserve Bank was released, then he in turn would release the letter from the Governor of the RBA to the Treasurer about the $8.8 billion grant. Given that all correspondence between the member for Lilley, as well as me, with the Governor of the RBA has been released publicly, will the Treasurer stick to his word and release the letter from the Governor of the RBA in relation to the $8.8 billion grant?
Is that right, Member for Lilley—all the correspondence between the member for Lilley and the Reserve Bank has now been released? Is that right? Just nod your head. Has he released all the correspondence where the member for Lilley certified to the Reserve Bank that he would not take a dividend out of the Reserve Bank? Then he went and took a dividend of $500 million out of the Reserve Bank. Has he released that correspondence? Has he released all that correspondence—because, I tell you what, you have been caught out on this—
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The members will both resume their seats.
Stop telling lies.
The member for Lilley will withdraw. That is unparliamentary language.
I withdraw.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer interjected the exact same word that was just withdrawn.
If you did, Treasurer, withdraw.
I withdraw.
The point is that the member in his question made a proposition that all correspondence had been revealed. The Treasurer, in answering, was doubting that proposition and was seeking to get clarification from the former Treasurer, which is not within the standing orders. Accordingly, I would ask the Treasurer simply to finish his answer and we will then move on.
I am happy to finish it, because I was asked about the Reserve Bank. I would say to the member for Lilley, as I say to all members over there: there are two things that they need to know about this issue—
The answer is no.
What was that?
The member for Jagajaga will desist, or she will be warned.
There are two issues that need to be addressed. No. 1: the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund never went below 10 per cent when we were in government. That is my best recollection of it: we never went below. And we had consistent dividends taken out of the Reserve Bank during that time. Then, again from memory, in 2008-09, the then Treasurer took $5½ billion out of the Reserve Bank—
Speaker, I rise on a point of order under 104(a). the question did not go at all to the reasons for the money going there. It went to a specific guarantee given from that despatch box about the release of a letter.
I am afraid, when the question related to correspondence which touched on all those issues, it is in order.
When the previous Treasurer, the member for Lilley, took $5½ billion as a special dividend out of the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund, the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund, which is a contingency fund set off against the riskiest assets of the Reserve Bank, fell to 3.8 per cent. In the interim, the member for Lilley, concerned about going to 3.8 per cent, gave a pledge to the Reserve Bank that he would take no more dividends; he would allow them to replenish the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund. Then, in his desperation to deliver a surplus, which of course Labor never delivered—and, I tell you what, he talks about telling porkies: he made 300 promises to deliver a surplus and not one of them was delivered—he took half a billion dollars out of the Reserve Bank.
I flagged in February this year that I was concerned about the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund. I raised it publicly. One of the first things I did was contact the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Secretary to the Treasury and say to them, 'Do you have all the resources you need to deal with any challenges that might emerge over the next few years?' They came back and said they wanted 15 per cent in the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund, $8.8 billion. Contrary to what the L-plate treasurer over there does not understand, the $8.8 billion is a grant within government. If he has not worked out that it comes back with dividends then he should not be there.
Madam Speaker, given that the Treasurer asked whether all letters had been released, I seek leave to table them.
Leave granted.
My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. Minister, what action will the government take to ensure that childcare workers are treated equitably following the release of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report into the Early Years Quality Fund?
It is a pleasure to take a question from the member for Fisher, a previous childcare minister in this place, who would be horrified, after reading the report that I have just tabled in question time, at the behaviour of the Labor Party with respect to the hardworking educators of this country.
We have a better plan and, importantly, I want to mention some aspects of our plan. Our plan is to professionally develop the entire childcare sector and to use the funds that Labor had allocated to its slush fund in order to do exactly that. It is really important that we recognise that $30 million of our professional development fund will be allocated to vulnerable and disadvantaged children, children who are struggling to get a start in Australia today. I am proud of that.
But we do need to remind ourselves of some of the behaviour of unions in the creation of the Early Years Quality Fund. We did not have to look very far, because, very helpfully, the President of United Voice, Michael Crosby, appearing before a Senate committee some little while ago, in response to the question, 'Are you using this fund to sign up members to your union?' said:
Of course we are. We have signed up workers all the way through the … campaign.
… … …
Yes, it is true: we want to be a powerful union in this sector.
But what disturbed me and what is reflected in the report is this, and I want to quote a couple of examples:
Staff reported being told by union reps that unless they joined [the union] they wouldn't get … funding and they're letting down everyone else at their centre.
Peak bodies also reported that staff at member service providers were phoned at home late at night, causing 'distress, angst, and disruption within our workplaces'. There is evidence, clearly delineated in this report, that the requirement to have an enterprise agreement was used by United Voice to increase its membership.
The department advises that it monitored all media streams relevant to the Early Years Quality Fund and that the Big Steps Facebook page made several statements that staff needed to join the union in order to be eligible for funding. A couple of examples that I am also going to table include:
Unions are pushing their way into services using the threat of the fund to make us sign up - a tactic which our staff find appalling as the fund should be distributed evenly …
Also:
The union representative who came out insisted on speaking with every educator and telling them if they did not sign up on that day, they would cause our centre to miss out on the pay rise.
Who presided over this shambles? The shadow minister, the member for Adelaide: no leadership, no advice; just sat there, a puppet of the union movement, using something and pretending—and using a group of vulnerable workers to achieve—
Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. There were some reflections then on a member of parliament which should be withdrawn.
If you are thinking that the term 'puppet of the union movement' is a reflection on the member, then that is a matter that you have decided. However, to assist the House, I would ask the minister to withdraw.
Madam Speaker, to assist the House, I do withdraw.
You've got it in one.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: it should not be the practice of this parliament that words required to be withdrawn are first repeated by the Speaker.
I would remind the Manager of Opposition Business that if I wish to repeat the words I will do so.
My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that decisions he has taken since the election, like granting the Reserve Bank $8.8 billion, watering down tax integrity measures and keeping tax concessions for people with more than $2 million in superannuation, will increase this year's budget deficit by at least $9.2 billion, which will be reflected in Tuesday's fiscal update?
No. I will tell you why. Because the budget is presented on a four-year basis—he was the Treasurer! He was the last Treasurer! This is a revelation—a four-year basis. Secondly, we inherited a budget that did not properly reflect what was actually happening in the public sector.
Honourable members interjecting—
Oh! How about that? What a surprise. So we could not trust the Labor Party when they were in government, but now they are asking for a big trust—
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the Treasurer is reflecting on the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Department of Finance, who released the pre-election fiscal outlook.
There is no point of order.
I do not think there were two people more relieved at a change of government than the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Department of Finance: 'Phew, what a relief! We've got rid of that mob!' I will tell you what: when the MYEFO is released next week, it will show, to the shame of the Labor Party, the true state of the budget. Let us go back to this issue of the Reserve Bank. Somehow they think this is a game—
Ms Owens interjecting—
The member for Parramatta will desist.
a game that we put $8.8 billion into the Reserve Bank. They are all about arguing the process. The bottom line is that they are not arguing the policy because they do not understand it. They are not that sophisticated over there that they should know. There are three major potential risks next year to the world economy: No. 1 is tapering; No. 2 is the stress tests on the European banks, which are significant; and No. 3 is the risk to the debt limit in the United States. They do not understand the ramifications of that in the Labor Party. They did not understand it when it happened before and they do not understand it now.
We have made sure that our institutions are at their strongest to deal with whatever lies ahead. I have put $8.8 billion into the Reserve Bank on behalf of the coalition government to make sure the Reserve Bank has all the ammunition it needs to deal with the challenges that lie ahead. That is what a good government does—it makes sure that you are at your best and can possibly withstand whatever the world throws at you. That is a good lesson for Labor. They did not get that in government. They did not understand that you have to be at your strongest. They took it for granted when they had a river of surpluses coming forward. They took it for granted when they had pockets full of money thanks to John Howard and Peter Costello. They took it for granted when they had an unemployment rate with a four in front of it.
What have they left? They have left endless deficit and debt that exceeds half a trillion dollars. They have left an economy with falling terms of trade and rising unemployment. The only thing holding it up are the expectations from the community that the coalition can do it better, and we will. (Time expired)
My question is to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Is the minister aware that the latest RAA travel time report shows the average speeds for the morning and afternoon peak periods along South Road between O'Halloran Hill in my electorate and the Adelaide CBD are at their lowest in a decade? How will the $500 million commitment by the government to upgrade the Darlington interchange assist with this traffic congestion?
I thank the member for Boothby. He understands the seriousness of this issue in South Australia and the impact that this congestion is having on South Australia and Adelaide in particular. The member for Hindmarsh also knows. He is constantly lobbying to ensure that South Road is upgraded within a decade, as the infrastructure Prime Minister has committed to.
We are getting on with the job. I have been working with the South Australian government on getting a Darlington study underway. We are funding the Darlington study to ensure that the plan is in place to be able to follow through with our $500 million commitment. This is what this government will do. The Abbott government made a commitment at the election, and we will follow through with it. That is a novel prospect for some on the other side, but we will follow through. As the infrastructure Prime Minister committed to, we will upgrade the north-south corridor in a decade. We will get on with the Darlington project. We are working with the state government to do so but we will move on with the Torrens-to-Torrens project as well because it is an important project.
There have been some ill-informed claims made by some interested in this issue. What the Prime Minister said very clearly in South Australia last month was that we believe we need to give South Australia that productivity boost to bring the economy out of the doldrums, where the South Australian Labor government after 12 years had dumped it, in combination with six years of a terrible federal Labor government. As the Treasurer just said, the coalition will put in place an infrastructure agenda—which we will have much more to say about very soon—which will ensure that we build the roads of the 21st century. We will address the issues that the RAA has raised that the member for Boothby focused on. We will address the issues the member for Hindmarsh is focused on and we will ensure that Adelaide retains its title of the '20-minute city'.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Madam Speaker, I seek indulgence to add to an answer.
The minister may proceed.
When I was asked about the Reserve Bank, I referred to my statement in the House when I called on the member for Lilley to write to the government to ask that all correspondence be released. He did not. In fact, the member for Lilley did not.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
No, I caught you out there! The second issue is that I might have incorrectly said that a dividend of $5.5 billion was taken out in 2008-09. It was actually taken out in 2009-10, and it was $5.227 billion.
Madam Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
I do, Madam Speaker.
Please proceed.
The Prime Minister on 19 November and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 20 November, 4 December, 5 December and 9 December compared the number of vessels carrying asylum seekers when I was Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship to since the election and claimed an 80 per cent reduction. By the time of the election, with me as minister, arrivals were averaging two boats a week—a rate lower than what arrived last week.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedingsand Hansard.
44th PARLIAMENT
Speaker's Schedule
Allocation to Committees of Annual Reports of Government Departments and Agencies
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry
Agriculture Portfolio
Animal Health Australia
Australian Egg Corporation Limited
Australian Fisheries Management Authority*
Australian Landcare Council**
Australian Livestock Export Corporation Limited (LiveCorp)
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
Australian Pork Limited
Australian Wool Innovation Limited
Cotton Research and Development Corporation
Dairy Australia
Department of Agriculture***
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation**
Forest and Wood Products Australia**
Grains Research and Development Corporation
Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation
Horticulture Australia
Landcare Australia Ltd**
National Rural Advisory Council
Plant Health Australia
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
Sugar Research and Development Corporation
Wheat Exports Australia
Wine Australia Corporation
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment and the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
**Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Standing Committee on the Environment
Environment Portfolio
Department of the Environment* Murray‐Darling Basin Authority**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on the Environment, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, and the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research*
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Health Portfolio
Gene Technology Regulator*
*Referred also the Standing Committee on Health and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Industry Portfolio
Anglo Australian Telescope Board
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation*
Australian Renewable Energy Agency**
Clean Energy Regulator**
Department of Industry***
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism****
National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority
Snowy Hydro Limited*****
Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency******
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment and the Standing
Committee on Health
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Standing Committee on
Infrastructure and Communications
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Standing Committee
on the Environment
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment
****** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment
Standing Committee on Economics
Agriculture Portfolio
Department of Agriculture*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry and the Standing Committee on the Environment
Communications Portfolio
Department of Communications*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs and the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications
Environment Portfolio
Department of the Environment*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, the Standing Committee on the Environment, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs and the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
Employment Portfolio
Department of Employment*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment
Finance Portfolio
Australian Government Employees Superannuation Trust
Australian Political Exchange Council
Commonwealth Grants Commission*
Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation*
ComSuper*
CSS Board
Department of Finance*
Future Fund Management Agency (including Board of Guardians)*
Medibank Private Limited**
Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust
PSS Board
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications and the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade*
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Health Portfolio
Department of Health*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health and the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio
Department of Immigration and Border Protection*
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Industry Portfolio
Department of Industry*
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry and the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry and the Standing Committee on the Environment
Infrastructure and Regional Development Portfolio Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications and the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Australian National Audit Office
Australian Public Service Commission
Commonwealth Ombudsman (incorporates ACT, Defence Force, Immigration, Law
Enforcement, Overseas Students, Postal Industry Taxation Ombudsman)*
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport**
Management Advisory Committee
Merit Protection Commissioner
National Australia Day Council Official Establishments Trust
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue.
** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
Social Services Portfolio
Department of Social Services*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Treasury Portfolio
Auditing and Assurance Standards Board*
Australian Accounting Standards Board*
Australian Bureau of Statistics*
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Australian Competition Tribunal
Australian Energy Regulator**
Australian Office of Financial Management*
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Australian Statistics Advisory Council
Australian Taxation Office*
Australian Valuation Office
Clean Energy Finance Corporation***
Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board
Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee
Financial Reporting Council*
Foreign Investment Review Board
Life Insurance Actuarial Standards Board
National Competition Council
Payments System Board
Productivity Commission*
Reserve Bank of Australia
Royal Australian Mint
Superannuation Complaints Tribunal
Takeovers Panel
The Treasury*
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue
**Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment and the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications
***Referred also the Standing Committee on the Environment
Standing Committee on Education and Employment
Attorney ‐ General's Portfolio
Australian Film, Television and Radio School
Education Portfolio
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Limited
Australian National University Australian Research Council Department of Education
Employment Portfolio
Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation
Comcare
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal*
Department of Employment**
Fair Work Commission
Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate
Fair Work Ombudsman
Remuneration Tribunal
Safe Work Australia
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
Seafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Authority (Seacare Authority)
*Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade ** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
Health Portfolio
General Practice Education and Training Limited*
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health and the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
Human Services Portfolio
Centrelink*
CRS Australia (Rehabilitation Service)* Department of Human Services**
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Industry Portfolio
Anglo‐Australian Observatory
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation* Questacon – The National Science and Technology Centre Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency**
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry and the Standing Committee on Health
**Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry
Infrastructure and Regional Development Portfolio Australian Maritime College*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies* Indigenous Business Australia*
Commonwealth Ombudsman (Overseas Students Ombudsman)**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
**Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Social Services Portfolio
Social Security Appeals Tribunal* Workplace Gender Equality Agency*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Standing Committee on the Environment
Agriculture Portfolio
Australian Fisheries Management Authority*
Australian Landcare Council**
Department of Agriculture***
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation**
Forest and Wood Products Australia**
Land and Water Australia
Landcare Australia Ltd**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry and the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
**Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry and the Standing Committee on Economics
Environment Portfolio
Australian Antarctic Division*
Australian Heritage Council
Australian Renewable Energy Agency**
Bureau of Meteorology
Department of the Environment***
Director of National Parks
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Murray‐Darling Basin Authority**
National Water Commission
Supervising Scientist Division
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
Wet Tropics Management Authority
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs and the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
Finance Portfolio
Australian River Co. Limited (reports year end of 30 November)
Health Portfolio
Australian Radiation and Nuclear Protection Agency*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health
Industry Portfolio
Clean Energy Regulator*
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism**
Snowy Hydro Limited*
Tourism Australia
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry and the Standing Committee on Economics
Treasury Portfolio
Australian Energy Regulator*
Clean Energy Finance Corporation**
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
Standing Committee on Health
Finance Portfolio
Medibank Private Limited*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
Health Portfolio
Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Ltd
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare*
Australian National Council on Drugs
Australian National Preventative Health Agency
Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplant Authority
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency**
Australian Sports Commission
Australian Sports Anti‐Doping Authority
Cancer Australia
Department of Health***
Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Gene Technology Regulator****
General Practice Education and Training Limited*****
National Blood Authority
National Health and Medical Research Council
National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme
Private Health Insurance Administration Council
Private Health Insurance Ombudsman
Professional Services Review
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on the Environment
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment and the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
Human Services Portfolio
Australian Hearing
Centrelink*
CRS Australia (Rehabilitation Service)* Department of Human Services** Health Services Australia***
Medicare Australia***
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Industry Portfolio
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry and the Standing Committee on Education and Employment
Social Services Portfolio
Office of the Aged Care Commissioner*
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
Agriculture Portfolio
Australian Fisheries Management Authority (Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority)*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry and the Standing Committee on the Environment
Attorney ‐ General's Portfolio
Australian Human Rights Commission (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice)* Ministry for the Arts (Indigenous Arts, Culture and Languages)
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Communications Portfolio
Department of Communications (regarding Indigenous programs)*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications
Environment Portfolio
Department of the Environment (regarding indigenous programs)*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on the Environment and the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
Health Portfolio
Department of Health (regarding Indigenous programs)*
General Practice Education and Training Limited (regarding Indigenous health)**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Standing Committee on Health
**Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment and the Standing Committee on Health
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Aboriginal Hostels Limited
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies* Coordinator General of Remote Indigenous Services
Indigenous Business Australia*
Indigenous Land Corporation
Land Councils which fall under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976
National Native Title Tribunal**
Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations
Office of Township Leasing
Torres Strait Regional Authority
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Social Services Portfolio
Aboriginal Land Commissioner
Department of Social Services (regarding Indigenous Programs)*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications
Attorney ‐ General's Portfolio Classification Board*
National Archives of Australia
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Communications Portfolio
Australia Post
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Australian Communications and Media Authority
Department of Communications*
NBN Co Limited
Special Broadcasting Service Corporation
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
Finance Portfolio
Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation
Australian Government Information Management Office
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Standing Committee on
Tax and Revenue
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation*
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Industry Portfolio
Anglo-Australian Telescope Board
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Department of Industry*
Industry Research and Development Board
Pooled Development Funds Registration Board
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry and the Standing Committee on Economics
Infrastructure and Regional Development Portfolio
Airservices Australia
Australian Maritime College*
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development**
International Air Services Commission
National Transport Commission
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Commonwealth Ombudsman (Postal Industry Ombudsman)*
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Committee on Migration
Treasury Portfolio
Australian Energy Regulator*
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Standing Committee on the Environment
Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Attorney ‐ General's Portfolio
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Administrative Review Council
Attorney‐General's Department
Australia Business Arts Foundation
Australia Council for the Arts
Australian Crime Commission
Australian Federal Police
Australia Film Finance Corporation Ltd
Australian Film Commission
Australian Film, Television and Radio School
Australian Government Solicitor
Australian Human Rights Commission*
Australian Institute of Criminology
Australian Law Reform Commission
Australian National Maritime Museum
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)
Bundanon Trust
Classification Board**
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Copyright Tribunal of Australia
Criminology Research Council
CrimTrac
Family Court of Australia
Family Law Council
Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Film Australia Limited
High Court of Australia
Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia
National Gallery of Australia
National Library of Australia
National Museum of Australia
National Portrait Gallery
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Office of Parliamentary Counsel
Screen Australia
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications
Health Portfolio
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare*
Gene Technology Regulator**
Health Services Australia*
Medicare Australia*
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry and the Standing Committee on Health
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Commonwealth Ombudsman (Law Enforcement Ombudsman)*
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security**
National Native Title Tribunal***
Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General
Office of the Privacy Commissioner
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade *** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
Social Services Portfolio
Australian Institute of Family Studies Department of Human Services* Department of Social Services** National Childcare Accreditation Council Inc
National Disability Insurance Agency Office of the Aged Care Commissioner*** Office of the Status of Women Social Security Appeals Tribunal**** Workplace Gender Equality Agency****
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, and the Standing Committee on Health
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
***Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment
Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue
Finance Portfolio
Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation*
ComSuper*
Department of Finance*
Future Fund Management Agency**
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
**Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications
Treasury Portfolio
Auditing and Assurance Standards Board*
Australian Accounting Standards Board*
Australian Bureau of Statistics*
Australian Office of Financial Management*
Australian Taxation Office*
Board of Taxation
Commonwealth Grants Commission*
Financial Reporting Council*
Inspector‐General of Taxation
Productivity Commission*
Tax Practitioners Board
The Treasury*
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Commonwealth Ombudsman (Taxation Ombudsman)*
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
Finance Portfolio
Australian Electoral Commission
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Attorney ‐ General's Portfolio
Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal Australian Human Rights Commission*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Defence Portfolio
Army and Air Force Canteen Service (Frontline Defence Services)
Australian Civil Military Centre
Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund
Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited
Australian War Memorial
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme
Defence Housing Australia
Department of Defence
Department of Veterans' Affairs
Judge Advocate General
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme
National Treatment Monitoring Committee
Repatriation Commission
Repatriation Medical Authority
Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Trust Fund
Veterans' Review Board
Employment Portfolio
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment
Finance Portfolio
ASC Pty Ltd (Australian Submarine Corporation)
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research* Australia-China Council
Australia-India Council
Australia-Indonesia Institute
Australia-Japan Foundation
Australia-Korea Foundation
Australia-Malaysia Institute
Australia-Thailand Institute
Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (including the Chemical Weapons
Convention Office and the Australian Comprehensive Test Ban Office)
Australian Trade Commission (Austrade)
Council for Australian-Arab Relations
Council on Australian-Latin American Relations
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade**
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation***
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry ** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications
Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio
Department of Immigration and Border Protection*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Commonwealth Ombudsman (Defence Force Ombudsman)* Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security**
Office of National Assessments
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration ** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Department of Immigration and Border Protection* Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority Migration Review Tribunal
Refugee Review Tribunal
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Commonwealth Ombudsman (Immigration Ombudsman)*
*Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
Infrastructure and Regional Development Portfolio
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (matters regarding Australia's Territories)*
National Capital Authority
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics and the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications
Environment Portfolio
Department of the Environment (Australian Antarctic Division and matters relating to the Australian Antarctic and Sub‐Antarctic Territories)*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on the Environment, and the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gorton proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The implications for Australian jobs of the Government cutting $500 million to automotive industry assistance.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Given the challenges that are facing the auto industry, many people in this country are asking where the Prime Minister has gone. Where is the Prime Minister when, as opposition leader, he chose to stand in front of thousands of workers, using them as props during doorstops and professing his support for those workers for four years?
The question now being asked of the government—indeed, of the Prime Minister—is: where is he now, when the auto industry is facing so many challenges?
We all recall how the then opposition leader travelled around the countryside, going to every workplace he could possibly get an invitation to, standing with his hard hat and high-visibility vest and claiming his support for workers. He may have been concocting all sorts of scaremongering fantasies about carbon pricing, but the one message that Australian workers are reminded about is that he was going to be there to defend their interests. We have seen since the election that he is nowhere to be seen. He is nowhere to be seen when it comes to dealing with the announcement made by Qantas last week. He is nowhere to be seen when dealing with the concerns and challenges facing the auto industry, particularly Holden.
By way of contrast, Labor has always committed itself to supporting this very important sector. Labor has committed itself to the long-term success of the Australian car industry, not only given its strong track record of world-class innovation but also to support 250,000 jobs—250,000 workers no less and their families. For that reason it is absolutely critical that the government engages and supports this very important sector. Our automotive industry is a very rare commodity and one that all Australians should be proud of. Australia is one of only 13 countries in the world with the capacity to design and manufacture a motor vehicle. We are also the most open and competitive market in the world. Let there be no mistake: the car industry is central and critical to our capacity as a manufacturing nation. We need to ensure that this country continues to build things. This industry supports 50,000 direct jobs and 200,000 indirect jobs, jobs that provide many families in this country their livelihoods. For that reason we are calling on the government to do better.
Let us look at some other facts. The industry has committed to research and development of $700 million per annum. Its exports are worth $3.7 billion per annum. That is why Labor continues to be a staunch supporter of the car industry, aside from the jobs it creates.
We also know that the co-investment from the $2.7 billion that Labor invested in the industry will see $26 billion in new investment. That is, for every dollar of taxpayers' money that was put into this industry there will be a ninefold return. That is something that seems to be lost on many of those opposite. It is a big investment, for sure, but it returns a much bigger economic dividend for this nation. But today the Australian automotive industry is in crisis. This is a matter of national importance and it should be debated in this place.
Australia's car industry and the workers and the businesses depending on it deserve more than death by dithering at the hands of this government. Labor has put forward the case for this industry, for the billions of dollars it brings in investment, for the hundreds of thousands of workers it employs and the hundreds of small and medium enterprises it supports. Meantime, the government remains either blissfully oblivious or wilfully derelict in responding urgently to the situation.
They're divided!
As we have witnessed in recent days, members of the government are more interested in fighting each other than fighting for the Australian car industry and for Australian workers. Today we heard the Treasurer talk about the matter of Holden's future. He gave every message that he is not there for the car industry. He basically started to threaten Holden, saying that it should be coming clean. I would imagine that Holden wants to know whether this government is fair dinkum, or not, in providing support for that very important iconic company. We have witnessed in recent times inaction and blame games instead of a unified effort to work with Holden and its employees. We need to make sure that we hold the government to account to provide such support.
Let us remember a couple of things that have been said by some of the senior members of the government. Before the election, the member for Sturt, the Minister for Education, said that he desperately wanted to see Holden remain in South Australia; since the election we have not heard a peep out of him. After being rolled by the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture over the sale of GrainCorp the Treasurer needs to save face. So it is no wonder that we are now seeing the Treasurer foreshadow that there will be no support for Holden. We saw how he folded his cards on GrainCorp; now, for him to save face, somebody has to pay a price. Who is to pay that price? It would appear that it is Holden employees and workers elsewhere in this very vital industry. We are imploring the government to re-engage with this important sector. However, when questioned about working with Holden to support Australian jobs, Mr Hockey, the Treasurer, said the government would not be 'running down the street chasing an individual car maker'. He also added some pretty telling words: 'there comes a point where you need to say enough is enough.' What did the Treasurer mean, when asked a question about supporting the car industry, when he said that there comes a time when enough is enough? Clearly, he was sending a message that he was not going to provide the support necessary to ensure that our car industry continues to be a success. The Acting Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture have got a win with GrainCorp—as they would see it they were looking after the agriculture sector—but there has been no effort to support the car industry.
Sitting across from me is the Minister for Industry. He seems to have sympathetic regard, at least outwardly, when it comes to the workers in this industry. He does talk about having an arm wrestle with the Treasurer. Minister, the fact is that we just do not think you are winning the arm wrestle. The Treasurer seems to be winning the arm wrestle here. He lost the one against Barnaby Joyce but he seems to be winning this one against you, and that is of grave concern for workers in the car industry.
This is a vital issue. It is now a major challenge facing this government. Either the government are going to say to the industry, 'We want to see this car industry have a long-term future,' and to the car industry employees, 'We want you to be going into Christmas with the full confidence that the federal government will be behind this sector, supporting workers and their families,' or they are going to squib it and walk away from this sector. My fear is that it is going to be the latter. From what we heard today from the Treasurer, there seems to be no interest by this government in supporting this sector, and that is an absolute shame.
I started this MPI by asking the question: where is the Prime Minister on this matter? For four years, as Leader of the Opposition, he was found in every workplace, using every blue collar worker he could find to stand behind him as a prop at his doorstops so that he could talk about how much he cared about workers in this country. Where is he now when it comes to Qantas? Where is he now when it comes to Holden? He is nowhere to be found. In fact, it is worse than that. He has already pre-empted the inquiry of the Productivity Commission. Before the election, this government said it was going to be a calm and methodical government. What has happened? We have had the Prime Minister come out and basically say that there will be no money for this industry, even though the Productivity Commission has not inquired— (Time expired)
I sit here and listen in bewilderment and wonder. Here we have a party who pretend to be looking after the workers' interests, yet how could anyone who has the workers' interests at heart possibly be politicising this issue as much as they are now and striking so much fear into the hearts of auto industry workers when everyone knows what the process is. No-one is in any doubt about what the process is. The process is very straightforward. I announced it when I walked through the Holden plant, wearing Peter Brock's hat. He gave me that hat when I was minister for industry last time and opened a Holden dealership. I was proud to wear it, even though he knew that I was a Ford supporter and that I was pleased to see Ford win the Bathurst 1000. The reality is that we walked through the plant that day with members of the Labor Party, and they assured me that they would not be political about the process. Their interests and our interests were the same and they were about ensuring that we had a methodical process to look at how the car industry would best survive in Australia. What we have seen in the last two days is a complete dereliction of duty by members opposite as they embarked on a scare campaign and begun setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy. What these people on the other side do not understand is that, every time they suggest Holden will close, someone out there who is considering buying a Holden will have second thoughts.
We know what those people opposite can do to motor sales. We saw it when they were last in government. We saw the $1.8 billion FBT hit that they laid on the industry. It was not, as they suggested, against doctors and lawyers and highly paid people who were going in to buy a Mercedes. If they had actually gone to a car dealership, like I did out at Ipswich, and talked to the dealer principals, they would have known that the people who were coming in and cancelling their order were the tradies, the government employees, the nurses, the ambos, the firies and the teachers—the people who rely on getting a car as part of their package, as a way of having a new car in their garage.
Those people opposite did more damage to the car industry with that one move than anything I have seen in the history of the car industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, I say in all modesty that I have been the industry minister a damn sight longer than anyone over there. In fact, they rattled through a series of industry ministers but not as many as they did on small business, where they changed them almost every week. I would have to say that, in my time as industry minister, which is both now and previously, I have never seen one measure do more damage than the introduction of the FBT.
The other measure that has damaged the confidence of those who manufacture here in Australia is of course the carbon tax. The carbon tax adds a cost of up to $400 per vehicle manufactured in Australia, but there is not a cent of carbon tax put against a vehicle coming into Australia. It is a reverse tariff . It has made it more difficult for our industry to compete against imports.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you would think at a time when the car industry is expressing its concern about its future that the Labor Party would think about the car industry's future and stop playing politics—but no. They cannot resist it. They cannot allow themselves to get behind the process, which the member for Wakefield agreed to. He walked through the Holden plant with me—and I was pleased to have him there. But, given the opportunity to play politics, they are never going to pass it up, are they? I would have thought that, now he has an insight into the difficulties that the car industry faces, he would walk across and say to his mates in the Senate: 'Listen, we've got to do everything we can to get these guys going. We need every opportunity.' Why don't you go over and ask them, Member for Wakefield, to pass the revocation of the carbon tax?
I was backing you in against your own government. I'm on your side.
You're not on my side if you're not revoking the carbon tax, mate, I can tell you now. What we need here is a methodical, measured process, not the process that the Labor Party have embarked on, not the self-fulfilling prophecy that they have rolled out the door this week. We want people who want to get behind this industry. Frightening car workers in the lead-up to Christmas is doing nothing to enhance confidence in the industry.
Of course, the accusations are flying thick and fast that we are not prepared to put any money into the car industry. That is nonsense. It is complete nonsense. Looking at the forward estimates, anyone who can read a budget paper will know that there is over a billion dollars committed to that industry. And I stand here as the minister who committed $4.3 billion to this industry, which it is still spending. So, in addressing this MPI, I am not for a moment going to take any criticism from those opposite that the coalition is anything but totally committed to the car industry and its future in Australia. But I am not going to embark on a process where we simply say, 'Here's a problem; let's hurl some money at it.' I am still dealing with the residues of that—and will be for some time—which the Labor Party thought was a quick way to fix this, a bandaid fix. The Labor Party just threw a money bandaid at it. 'Throw a money bandaid at it and it'll be someone else's problem after the next election.' Damn right it is.
Seeing as the Labor Party want to talk about their record in government on the car industry, let us have a look at it. Two car manufacturers gone.
A government member: Two out of four.
Two out of four, yes. And did we on this side stand up and politicise the issue? Of course not. We felt empathy for the workers. When we were on the opposition benches, did we try, question time after question time, to make an issue of the government's mismanagement of the car industry? No. We were happy to work with them.
Let us look at the numbers. When I left as industry minister, there were 335,000 cars being made in Australia every year; when I came back, what did I find? A third of them were no longer there. It was down to 221,000 units. When I was industry minister, there were 200 businesses in the supply chain. I come back and do an audit, and there are 150 left. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, anywhere you look, the Labor Party stand damned for the state of the car industry at the moment. Now, that is the result of constant mismanagement, constant change.
We heard during question time a question from the opposition—which, again, is of no assistance to the industry at all—about whether or not a reduction in the funding going forwards would be a devastating blow to the car industry. I think they even suggested it would shut the industry down. Let us reflect again on the Labor Party in government. Let us see what they did when they had the treasury bench. Let us see what they took out of car industry plans. They took out no less than $1.23 billion. They took $429.7 million, let us say $430 million, out of the Cleaner Car Rebate Scheme—I will have to check which minister it was at the time, but I think it was Senator Carr, who announced that it was no longer required; and, prior to that, they had taken $801 million in savings out of the Green Car Innovation Fund. That is $1.23 billion.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Did we as an opposition stand up and say, 'The industry is doomed'? Of course not. Did we stand up and say—
So we're simultaneously throwing money and taking it away!
Order! The member for Moreton will desist or he will find himself out of the chamber.
I'd go for the second option, Mr Deputy Speaker!
I will not take advice from the minister either!
Did we as an opposition do anything but show our support for the car industry? Of course not. We supported the car industry every inch of the way and we will continue to do so.
Internal divisions within the coalition government, ignorance and ideology are destroying Australia's automotive manufacturers. I will respond quickly to a couple of points that the Minister for Industry made. Firstly, in respect of who is politicising the issue, it was politicised by those opposite, by the government, when they ordered a Productivity Commission inquiry that will conveniently report at the end of March, after the South Australian state election. How convenient is that. Members opposite talk about the problems of Ford and Mitsubishi, but neither left this country because of a lack of support from Labor governments. In fact, Mitsubishi, when they left South Australia, had to refund money to the government, which shows that their departure was never because of a lack of support from the government.
Let us look at the reality, some of the facts. In today's Advertiser it was reported that, according to an independent study carried out by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, Australia stands to lose 90,000 jobs across the country if we lose the automotive sector, and the economy will take an $8 billion hit as a result of that. By the year 2020, the net economic hit that this country will take will be $24 billion. The same study concluded that, if Holden alone closes, the hit will be $4 billion per annum and there will be 65,000 jobs lost—23,800 in Victoria, 11,600 in South Australia, 15,000 in New South Wales and 8,000 in Queensland. Those figures are even worse than the figures previously put out by the AMWU, who carried out their own study of this very issue.
The fact is that, since the election, there has been a relentless campaign by some coalition members and some media commentators, talking down and tearing down Australian car makers and, in turn, the value of the auto manufacturing industry to the Australian economy. I can understand those people who take a stand on ideological grounds but I cannot understand those who simply refuse to look at the economic facts that surround this issue. The real question is not whether we can afford to support an auto manufacturing industry in this country. It is: can we afford not to? The reality is that we cannot afford to not support the auto industry in this country. If GMH goes down, it is very likely that Toyota will follow because their component suppliers will not be able to produce at the competitive rates that they currently do.
So this debate is not about the future of GMH and Toyota. GMH and Toyota will stand or fall on their global operations, not on their operations in Australia. It is about the future of Australian jobs, Australian manufacturing capability, Australian small- and medium-sized businesses and Australian research and development. That is what it is all about. If you want to get more statistics on that, two suppliers were mentioned in a submission to the Productivity Commission today. BlueScope Steel stands to lose $18 million a year as a result of the need for their product being cut and Toll Holdings and PrixCar will lose about $47 million a year as a result. Those are only two of hundreds of Australian businesses that will be affected.
As the shadow minister has quite rightly said, for every dollar of government support, the return to Australian taxpayers is about 10 times over. For every dollar of government support provided to GMH the return has been 18 times that. The real question is: what will it cost if we do not continue to support Australian car makers? My understanding is that economic losses will be anything up to $26 billion. Another submission to the current Productivity Commission inquiry was from Dr Phillip Toner of the Department of Political Economy at the University of Sydney, who said:
Production taxes on value added of around $12.4bn exceed the value of assistance by a large margin. GST on production alone would amount to around $1.4bn. If other production related taxes are included such as payroll tax, land tax and stamp duties and income tax for the 50,000 employees, the value of tax paid by the sector is likely to be some orders of magnitude greater than the value of assistance.
It is time coalition members opposite stopped undermining their own minister, who at least understands the industry. They should take advice from one of their own senior members, former Senator Nick Minchin. They should support Australian car makers and Australian families and stop hiding behind another Productivity Commission inquiry.
It is a pleasure to rise in this debate. Sales in our automotive industry are increasing. In fact, they have increased by 10 per cent this year. Already we have seen 1.1 million annual sales through 67 brands and 360 models in our market. Unfortunately, Australian manufactured vehicles have seen a nine per cent reduction in sales. We do not have a sales problem in Australia; we have a particular problem with sales of Australian manufactured vehicles. The automotive industry employs 45,000 Australians and contributes some $5.4 billion to the bottom line of our economy, but we have huge competing pressures. These figures have been around for quite some period. One would think that members opposite would have heard their voice, particularly the members for Makin and Wakefield.
When Mitsubishi shut down, did we hear a word? No, not really. When Ford announced its closure, was there a hue and cry from the Labor Party? No, not really. What did we hear? We heard that they were going to introduce a $1.8 billion fringe benefits tax. And what did members opposite say about that? To quote the former Prime Minister, 'Zip'.
What we are seeing now is feigned outrage. In support, their Premier in South Australia, Mr Jay Weatherill, has had everything to say but originally he agreed to a nonpartisan way of finding a solution to this problem. Now we have politicisation of the issue. I put that down to the fact that there is an election coming up in South Australia very shortly. They care very little about the workers.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is sailing very close to the wind.
Given they are all union members on that side, that careless attitude is probably amplified by the union officials in the AMWU representing the workers. People like Mr Smith refuse to budge on this argument. They say their workers have already done the heavy lifting and now it is time for the government to do so. To quote the article in the paper today:
For General Motors in Australia, wages for trades employees have increased by about 76 per cent since 2000, and 21 per cent since 2008, jumping from $679.20 a week in 2000 to $1194.50 a week this year ... for a 38-hour week. Workers are paid shift penalties and overtime rates, with Sunday shifts paid at 2½ times the normal weekday rate.
In good times, that is great, that is acceptable. But when you have an industry which is fighting to keep its jobs, the union would rather say, 'We need to maintain our standards; we don't need to maintain jobs. We need to maintain the high standards we have achieved'—and good luck to them—'but we don't need to maintain jobs.'
The coalition is focusing on keeping jobs in Australia but we have to be competitive. We need to reduce the component cost per motor vehicle by over $3,700 to remain competitive. We need everyone to play a part. This government has already committed a billion dollars from 2016 on—$1 billion extra. In contrast, what did the previous government do with its Green Car Innovation Fund? It cut $1.2 billion. You see, the former Labor government thought the way you grew the motor vehicle industry was to increase wage and production costs, pull money out of the industry and whack an FBT on it. It should be no surprise to anyone that there is virtually no-one on the opposition benches who has had their own skin in the game, who has been in business and understands the costs of operating a business and what is required to make your product competitive.
If we want to see the motor vehicle industry survive in Australia, we need to increase sales. That also needs the cooperation of the Australian public at large. There is no point producing more vehicles in Australia if, indeed, Australian consumers do not want to buy them. I am yet to see a campaign by the Australian union movement demanding that their workers buy Australian made cars, or to see union officials driving Australian made cars. We see their hypocrisy.
I'll send you their email address.
Don 't send me the email; show me the outcomes of how many Australian made cars—not Australian branded but Australian made—your union mates drive. How many Camrys do they drive? (Time expired)
What we have seen in this debate was not triggered by the opposition. It was not triggered by the union movement. It was not triggered by the workers. It was triggered by an unnamed cabinet source—some gutless wonder who sits on the Treasury benches. He did not have the courage to put his name to it but he leaked it to the ABC, the Advertiser and the Australian. He did that in an attempt to shift blame, to create a crisis and to talk down a great Australian brand. It is that unnamed source—that gutless wonder—who is responsible for this entire debate. What we have is a government—
I rise on a point of order. I think the terminology the member is using is not becoming to the chamber.
You're not in the Senate now, Barnaby. Grow up!
Order! The member for Moreton might reflect on what I said earlier about his behaviour. With regard to the point of order from the Minister for Agriculture, there was a reflection on a member—albeit unnamed—on the front bench. I ask the member for Wakefield to modify his language.
I am more than happy to withdraw. This is the government's approach. First of all it does nothing; it sits on its hands. It wanders around the place. The government sends representatives to do tours of the factory and it has inquiries but we do not see much action.
The second phase is to divide, leak, damage the brand, attack and demonise the workers, and attack the community. It is everybody else's fault; it is not the government's fault.
The final phase is to objectify and demonise foreign investment. We saw this on the issue of GrainCorp, thanks to the member for New England. We know who won that battle. There is a fear of foreign investment and a demonisation of foreign investment. General Motors want to invest $1 billion here and put two models into production. They are committed to this country even though the dollar is high. Those on the opposite side of the chamber are putting up the big, 'closed for business' sign. With regard to GrainCorp they put up the big 'closed for business' sign. What has been the result of this approach of doing nothing, dividing and demonising foreign investment? The result is that jobs are at risk, industry is at risk, household wealth is at risk and two state economies are at risk. If jobs are at risk the Australian economy is at risk.
It is not just my state that is affected. In Victoria there are 30,000 jobs at risk. You would think that that would sharpen the mind of the Victorian members a little. Thousands of jobs are at risk in South Australia. Thousands of automotive components jobs are at risk in New South Wales. Even in Queensland there are thousands of jobs at risk. And what has been the response of those opposite? The response is, 'It's just industry's fault. We're just the government; what could we do?' You are in charge and people expect you to do something.
I have seen the workers in this industry in my electorate. I was lucky enough to get leave from parliament last Thursday to visit the factory. I was there with Murray Akehurst, who was quoted in the Advertiser. He is 50 years old. He has spent 16 years working at Holden's Elizabeth plant. The Advertiser quoted him:
"Everyone's scared stiff but we're not just going to roll over and die and let our jobs go," Mr Akehurst said.
What are the government doing at this time? They are divided. They are briefing the media against each other. They could not care less. The government are divided and confused. They triggered this debate. We have been going on a merry hunt for the leaker. It could be the member for Mayo; it could be Senator Cormann in the other place. It could be any one of them, but we know that they are leaking in terms of their own manufacturing minister. And we had the manufacturing minister asking the ABC to identify its sources.
So we have a divided and confused cabinet. Basically, this government has taken on the character of its Prime Minister, who is a weird combination of Malcolm Fraser, Richard Nixon and BA Santamaria. The government does nothing; it divides; it is reactionary and, in the end, it demonises foreign investment. It is all about this closed, little Australia that does not invest in anything and does not make anything—this antiquated economy. It is not good for Australia. Government members should get up off their hands and do something about it. (Time expired)
I am very pleased to speak in response to this matter of public importance because it is of great interest to people in my home state of South Australia. Before I go any further I would like to say that the good people of Wakefield nearly got it right at the last state election. The result in that electorate was so very close. I will say more about that in a minute.
I am proud to represent the interests of my electorate. It takes great pride in being in the federal coalition government, which is keeping the commitments that it made to voters in the last election. While we are on the topic of manufacturing, I would like to point out that so much of the economic wealth that comes out of Barker is directly tied to the manufacturing sector. That is why I am committed to ensuring that Australia boasts the right conditions for all of our manufacturing industries to remain competitive in the long term.
We on this side of the chamber want a viable automotive industry in Australia. We expect the car manufacturing industry, like any industry, to be able to stand on its own two feet. The Labor Party is anxiously waiting for Holden to make an announcement about its future. The Labor Party is hoping—
An opposition member interjecting—
The member for Wakefield is the cheerleader on this because he—unlike those on this side of the chamber—more than anyone in this place, would love to see the demise of Holden, because he could use it for his base political advantage. I have a little bit of advice for the member for Wakefield. His mate the Premier is coming over, I understand. The member for Wakefield should hock him around his colleagues in the Senate so that the Premier can talk to them about the carbon tax. That is what the member for Wakefield should do if he wants to do something serious about this industry and if he wants to send a message to the workers in his electorate—the few of them that still support him.
I must say I was really impressed by the behaviour by the member for Wakefield during question time. I thought, 'Why is he being so well behaved?' Then I thought, 'He would hate to be kicked out when he was due to be speaking on an MPI.' It is so nice to have his company in this place between three o'clock and four o'clock! It is a novel concept, and I am really enjoying it.
Let us get to the subject of the matter. We had a fringe benefits tax, which was an albatross around this industry's neck. Who came up with that genius idea? The people over there. Who came up with the carbon tax? Bear in mind, this was a carbon tax we were never going to have—who came up with that idea? You did—sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; those on the other side of the chamber did. I would never impute that to you.
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
What did you say about FBT? What they said about FBT is, 'You know, the car industry is going so well we're going to tax the car industry.' Those on the other side of this chamber are like the arsonist who says, 'I'm complaining about the scorched earth.' They are arsonists who complain about scorched earth.
I might be new to this caper, but I will make one observation: credibility is an important thing. Those opposite came into this place yesterday armed with a question: tell us why you are putting at risk 200,000 jobs in the car industry. I thought to myself: that is a question; it has been researched; I had better go away and make sure of my understanding of that. So I spent some time looking for observations in the media about how many jobs are at risk and all these things.
Use Wikipedia!
No, I did not use Wikipedia, but someone on your side obviously did, because the highest recorded number of possible job losses I could find was 90,000. That is a long way from the 200,000 of yesterday. As if we did not learn over the last six years that you cannot count! Bear in mind, politics should be about never forgetting and about learning how to count. Those opposite have obviously forgotten they were in government and they cannot count.
I have a memo to those in the community who manufacture calculators—read the memo. Get a calculator to every single member over there, because they need them and because they cannot count. We are not talking about 200,000 jobs; it is nowhere near 200,000 jobs. But I will say this: if you are interested in these jobs, stop politicising this and get behind us. Get behind the Productivity Commission.
The people of Hotham returned a Labor Party member to this House in the September election because they wanted to be represented by a person and by a party that would stand up for their interests and protect their jobs. It is in this spirit that I rise today to make a contribution to this very important debate. I will talk about my local area, but before I do that I want to talk about the impact of this appalling public policy decision on the economy more broadly. Other speakers have talked about the importance of the automotive industry for the Australian economy. I want to add my voice to this.
The industry employs 45,000 people directly. The member for Barker could look up the difference between direct and indirect employment a little later, perhaps on Wikipedia, because 200,000 jobs depend indirectly on the automotive industry. It produces $5.4 billion in net output and the auto industry is the largest research and development contributor of any industry in Australia. Seven hundred million dollars was invested by that industry last year. But all of this is at risk and we will be particularly affected in my home state of Victoria.
Those are some of the direct impacts on and direct threats to the economy, but I also make the point that what we are seeing here is the Abbott government threatening to renege on a deal that was made by the last government to co-invest in the auto industry. I am a person in this chamber who does have direct experience in business and I know that the most important thing that businesses want from government is certainty. What we have here is a government that is supposedly pro-business but feels very comfortable about making a deal with the auto industry and then reneging on it later. This has much more severe impacts. It is basically saying to the private sector that they cannot rely on anything that this government says.
The impact on Hotham will be very significant. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that almost everyone in my electorate will be affected, either by direct job loss or through someone they know losing their job. I want to talk about Mackay Consolidated, a manufacturer of rubber parts I visited in September, in Chesterfield Road in Moorabbin. There are 120 people employed there and they signed a contract with Holden in April 2012 to supply engine and ancillary hoses for the current Commodore model. I met many of the workers in that factory and can I just say that these are people who are not easily going to transition into another line of work. That is just not the reality of the people who work in this important industry.
I want to talk about Venture DMG. They are a plastics component manufacturer who manufacture for Holden. They provide bumper bars and door panels. Three hundred people are employed in their Keysborough site, just outside my electorate, and a further 250 are employed in Campbellfield and work mainly for Ford. ZF Boge create engine mounts and transmission mounts for Holden and 40 workers are employed in their Dingley factory in my electorate. These are jobs at risk. Knock-on effects are going to be felt all over Hotham that will probably impact some of the 5,000 small businesses in my electorate and the hundreds of local families who rely on jobs directly or indirectly due to the car industry.
It is not just about the workers who work in these industries. There is no secret that manufacturers in Australia are doing it tough. It is something that is very top of mind for us in Victoria. In fact, I note that the Liberal Minister for Manufacturing in Victoria, David Hodgett, has talked about the devastating effects that this could have on our economy in Victoria. Over there we hear time and time again that this is really just about the car industry—'This is about their poor management and their poor decisions.' It is not something that most of Australia's economists agree with. Most of Australia's economists can tell that the biggest challenge that faces our manufacturers today is the high dollar. Our dollar is probably double in value what it has been over various points in the last decade.
We face a choice in this chamber—the government over there face a choice. How are they going to manage this period of time when we have such a high dollar in Australia? Are they going to let the rest of our economy decay? Are they going to let workers join the dole queue while we have this very high dollar situation? We will still need to have an economy when the mining boom ends and the dollar comes down again, and this is going to require industry support. It is another example, I think, of what we have over there: a government of economic ideologues. It is time they pulled their noses out of the economics textbooks, went out into their communities, talked to people who work in these factories and tried to understand what the devastating impact of these decisions could be. That is certainly how we feel about it in my electorate of Hotham.
It is a great privilege to speak on this matter of public importance for South Australia and Australia more broadly. I thought it would be interesting for the member for Wakefield that we are having this debate because he will recall that he said he had saved Holden.
It'd better be a good speech, mate, or you won't be here long!
The member for Wakefield might not be much longer in this chamber either if he makes interjections like that!
The member for Wakefield distributed this to his electorate, and I quote:
I have secured guaranteed support for GM Holden, Elizabeth, ensuring production until 2022.
So I am sure the member for Wakefield must be dismayed at the reports that Holden is now contemplating its future in South Australia. I have met many suppliers—good, honest workers—in my electorate in South Australia. I have been out to Holden with the member for Wakefield. We had a tour. We met the industry bodies and we met the unions. And they have been trying to help, unlike members opposite in this debate.
We are all looking for ways to help this industry and to build our manufacturing industry together. We are co-investing. The member for Hotham and also the member for Makin failed to acknowledge this. We are investing $1 billion in this industry, as said previously by the Treasurer and the Minister for Industry. Just like the member for Wakefield said, the Labor Party should be opposing the carbon tax. They should be taking your advice, Member for Wakefield. We all know that it is a direct tax that drives up the costs of manufacturing cars by $400.
After six years of Labor, the public are crying out for relief on taxes. We need to remove the carbon tax—a point we have made endlessly. We have moved quickly in government to support the automotive industry. We have introduced legislation to remove the carbon tax, we have scrapped Labor's $1.8 billion fringe benefits tax and we have asked the Productivity Commission to look at the industry as a whole. We want this to work. I know the minister wants this to work and for Holden workers to have a future. We have made our timetable clear from day one and Holden has not raised any concerns about this timetable.
Let me give you a few facts, because the member for Makin referred to the facts. Under the previous Labor government, Australia lost one manufacturing job every 19 minutes. When Labor took office, vehicle production was 335,000. When they left, it was down to 221,000. We had Mitsubishi go, we had Ford close. We had 200 businesses in the supply chain when Labor took office. When they left, guess how many there were? Fewer than 150.
The reality is that things went downhill under Labor's watch and they know it. The reality with Holden is that their production has gone down, their exports have dropped and that happened under Labor's watch. And what about the member for Port Adelaide and the other Labor members? Where have they been during this debate? The member for Port Adelaide should do his good friend the South Australian Premier a favour by removing the carbon tax. But no. Where is he? Nowhere to be seen. This highlights the challenge. We need to all work together, remove the carbon tax and help the industry. It is up to those opposite.
My electorate has suffered the closure of the Ford Motor Company, an iconic employer. It will end production in 2016 and with that will go thousands of jobs. The impact on our community will be long term and devastating. So any discussion around the possibility of job losses in the car sector is a very sensitive and difficult one for not just my own community but also the broader Australian community.
We do not want more job losses in the Australian community, especially when we in this place can be proactive in helping the Australian automotive industry maintain its viability. There is a case to be made for assisting and preserving the long-term viability of the car industry.
The Labor Party has always been committed to the long-term success of the automotive industry. We understand that it is a job-creating sector, with some 250,000 jobs. The sector actually has a world-class track record of innovation.
While in government we have proven our commitment to the industry. However, the same cannot be said about those opposite. At this stage, I do want to acknowledge that Minister Macfarlane in fact does support the industry and is genuine in his attempts. But it is not the minister who is so much the issue; it is other members who sit behind him and with him around the cabinet table who are the issue.
The government have been hammering away at manufacturing industries and have in fact been committed to hollowing out the automotive industry from the years when they were in opposition. So we should not be surprised at their actions now that they are in government.
In fact, I well remember the opposition leader, now the Prime Minister, was very happy to walk through many factory floors, wearing a fluoro jacket, shaking hands of Australian workers and giving them the very firm impression that he was on their side and committed to protecting their jobs. But we know now that that was a bit of a con and, even though he has said that he wants the motor industry to survive and flourish in this country, it would seem that the Prime Minister and other ministers do not understand what that actually involves. I can tell you one thing: it certainly does not involve cutting $500 million to the automotive industry.
Unfortunately, this government's actions place at risk thousands of Australian jobs. In my home state of Victoria, 28,000 jobs are directly linked to the automotive industry. In my own electorate alone, we still have 1,465 jobs and, in the neighbouring electorate of Gorton, some 1,970. In the electorate of Lalor—and the member for Lalor sits in front of me—we have 1,683 jobs. In all, the northern suburbs of Melbourne are heavily reliant on the survival of the automotive sector for people to have jobs.
I do not think this government understands and does not appreciate the importance of the manufacturing sector to the Australian economy. But, worse than that, this government seeks to drive a wedge between the Australian community and government assistance to the automotive industry by shamelessly pitting one Australian job against another. The member for Kooyong recently commented on Sky TV:
We cannot use the taxpayer as an ATM for the car industry.
That is a reflection of a government that does not understand or care about the long-term success of this industry.
On the other hand, the Labor opposition have always supported and continue to support the Australian automotive industry. We understand and appreciate its strong track record. We also understand that it provides 250,000 employment opportunities for Australians.
We should be proud of our Australian automotive industry. We are one of 13 countries in the world with the capacity to design and manufacture a motor vehicle. In fact, Minister Macfarlane was recently at Ford, in my electorate, where we were given a tour of the design and engineering plant. I am sure that he would agree that it is a world-class and cutting-edge facility. Such innovation capacity is too valuable to jeopardise, because of the ideological blindness of members of this government.
This government does not have the right to jeopardise an industry whose exports are worth some $3.7 billion. It does not have the right to strangle future jobs and job prospects of young Australians, especially those in my electorate and in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. The Leader of the House is on record as saying—before the election, mind you:
I have a long-standing commitment to keep Holden in South Australia.
Now is his opportunity to deliver on that so-called longstanding commitment to protect the production of Holden in South Australia. (Time expired)
I must say that I find some of the statements being made in this debate absolutely extraordinary. I represent the seat of Corangamite, which is a very important part of the country in terms of employment in the car industry. We are a proud home of Ford. I refer to a report in the Geelong Advertiser on 24 May 2013. 'Shattered' is the headline. The report says: '510 Geelong jobs axed by 2016. No Fords to be built here. We are gutted.' That is what the workers say. Guess when this happened? This happened under Labor's watch.
This is from Henry Fuller. I will ask to table this in a minute. For 25 years, Henry Fuller has packed his lunch and headed off to work at the North Geelong Ford factory. Yesterday he and hundreds of workmates were told their jobs will go as Ford ends all production in Australia. What an absolute joke that those opposite are saying we do not care about manufacturing and the car industry. That is an absolute joke. We have committed $1 billion between 2015 and 2020 and we are taking action to repeal the carbon tax, which will be an enormous benefit to manufacturing. What are the members opposite doing? They are stopping this. They are stopping helping workers in this country, and that is an absolute disgrace.
We see money being thrown at the car industry. The big problem that we have seen under Labor for the last six years is that money has been given to the car industry with no accountability. That is a key issue. We support the giving of money, but we do not support the fact that money is given with no accountability. What that means to the people of my electorate is no guarantee on jobs. I will tell you what happened in January 2012. Prime Minister Gillard came to Geelong and announced $34 million for Ford. Guess what she said: 300 new jobs. Fabulous. The only problem was that that money did not guarantee one job. This is indicative of how Labor does business. Eight months later, 330 jobs were lost at Ford. What we have seen is an unmitigated disaster in the way that Labor has managed the car industry and car industry support.
Let me remind you of some other momentous decisions that Labor has made. There was an $801 million cut to the Green Car fund; there was a cut of $429 million to the cleaner car fund; and there was the $1.2 billion, as we have heard. This is a demonstration that Labor is simply all over the shop when it has come to managing the car industry. Let us not forget the fear caused over FBT changes. That was an utterly disgraceful decision. That would have resulted in 80,000 direct and indirect car industry jobs being lost, a one-third drop in vehicle production, a 27 per cent fall in exports and an 18 per cent decline in turnover. And guess what—no-one was falling for the Ruddish and the Labor rhetoric that we were hearing before the election. The people of my electorate, the people of Geelong, knew that that was an utter disaster, and that ricocheted throughout the whole country.
We understand how important the automotive industry is to the people of Geelong and to Australia. The government appreciates the automotive industry's value to Australian manufacturing and the role it plays in innovation and the development and application of new technologies. We want a viable car manufacturing industry in Australia. Let's face it—that is why we have committed $1 billion. The reason we are taking this to the Productivity Commission is that we want the money to be spent responsibly. We are not going to promise money and then see jobs lost. That is what happened under Labor. We are going to ensure that that money is invested in Australian jobs and that that money is invested in the car industry, and that will reap fantastic benefits for the people of my electorate, because what we have seen is an unmitigated disaster from Labor. We are determined to turn this around. We are determined to turn around Labor's reckless management of the car industry and we are very proud to do so.
Over 50 years ago, John F Kennedy in his inaugural speech made one of the most famous statements in modern democracy, inspiring a nation to participate rather than commentate. He said: 'Ask not what your country can do for you but, rather, what you can do for your country'. Today we commemorate the life of Nelson Mandela, who not only did something for his country but is iconic for developing community self-belief. For some of us the idea of doing something for our country is too broad, a little too big, a concept meant for others, something grand perhaps only for heroes, perhaps something to do with pilots, sailors or soldiers. But humans live in groups each best described as a community, so for us as Australians our question is to ask not what we can do for our country but rather what can we do for our community. We have been beguiled by the marketing of such things as my choice, my store, my school, my rights and my opinion, but we are not a collection of selfish individuals, we are a society. I am tired of this 'I, me and mine' dominating the media and seeping into the mindset of our children and our youth. It is overdone and overdue. We need a change back to the Aussie way. We are famous for a 'we, ours and us' way of looking at the world. So if each one of us does something for our community we will make life just a little better and our whole country will benefit. It is this ideal of making things better, of giving back to the community, that has brought me here as a member of parliament.
I was born in Milton, a village on the South Coast of New South Wales. My dad was a young man, Norrie Hardinge as he was known in the village, and my mum was his British immigrant bride, Valerie. Dad was a manual arts teacher, Mum was his wife. Back in the day that was a full-time role and few people undervalued how important being a mum really was. My dad was also a freelance photographer at the local paper. During a photographic accident, something to do with a light bulb blowing up, he sustained a severe eye injury, ultimately swapping it for a glass one that was not quite a colour match.
Soon after we moved to Sydney to live with my grandmother. These three people fashioned the core of my character. My mother, constantly baking and sewing for school fetes and other community groups, established an ethic of community service as part of my childhood. She also sang and wrote stories, much as she does to this day, which inspired my love of language and performance arts. My father taught me bushcraft, the love of woodworking, stone building, how to use hammers, chisels and drills and the absolute joy of the Australian bush. He taught me about billy tea and jaffles, red-bellied black snakes and the scent of the boronia bush—memories that we all share.
My much-loved gran, who loved me unconditionally,—what grandmother doesn't?—as a baby was left on a church doorstep as a foundling child, called Norma after Norman, the minister who discovered her, and they hoped to find her mother, so she was named Norma Hope. She taught me generosity of spirit, that we are all equal in God's eyes, that your actions will always come back to you like a boomerang, so make sure whatever you do is done without ill will, and to have faith in the greater good of everyone. My childhood was shared with my brother, Stuart. We have always been very close, for at times I was his mini mum. We share a deep regard and friendship that continues to this day.
My education, like many Australian children, was not completed in a single primary school nor followed by a single high school. I was in fact blessed, although I did not see it that way at the time, by moving frequently and having to make new friends along the way, and learning to accept all the different experiences. After completing my science degree, during which time I also gained a wedding ring and two beautiful sons, Rodney and Barry, and all the additional learning that you do as a young mother, I began a career as a high school science teacher. Ten years passed in this most honoured yet undervalued profession, that of educating, facilitating, nurturing and developing young adults towards their full potential. One of my greatest wishes is that we renew our respect for teachers and their vital role in creating and maintaining the fabric of our society, that we value them and that we have values in education as a mainspring for the future of our nation. Many people do not value teachers and they do not, in general, value education, often using it as an expedient political football because it has so many emotional hooks, going for big-picture changes rather than asking the teachers on the job about their vision for improvement.
It was during my time as a teacher that the importance of basic skills, literacy and social responsibility became very significant. I co-developed literacy based learning in my classes and was lucky enough to be selected as an exchange teacher to share these ideas in New York. In addition to establishing lifelong friendships, such as those I share with the Costin family,—Chris and Warwick have seen me through many life adventures and still we share the odd pizza and coffee—the years teaching were very rewarding. My beautiful daughter, Kimberly, was born during this time. It was a busy time of community involvement with playgroups, cubs, little athletics, swim classes, music and gym classes, as well as all the other life-spinning activities that many parents grapple with and try to keep in life balance.
After the exchange teaching opportunity our family moved to Kiama on the South Coast to explore the great adventures, the financial roller-coaster and the challenge of owning our own business. So the experienced economic research officer, my then husband, and me, the science teacher, embarked on the journey of making fudge. It was during this time I learned the immense contribution that small business makes to local economies in terms of direct employment and local spend-dollars by the employees, creating hubs of activity, building with expansion and donating to local groups, apart from paying taxes. I calculate that my company, via the taxes we paid, could have built two preschools over 20 years. When moving from teaching to being a business owner, many friends laughed and said, 'Making money from fudge in a small coastal town—impossible!' But it wasn't. We changed a small cottage industry with just three employees to a business with over 40 staff, exporting to six international destinations. I am sure there will also be looks of astonishment today, just as there were back then. However, it goes to show that if you apply yourself, work hard and listen to the people you serve, you can be successful.
I was also elected to Kiama Council during this time. When you grow a business, you often confront ridiculous red tape. After challenging the local council on building changes, in the following election I was invited to run as a candidate. So, Neville Fredericks, and your beautiful wife Jill, your encouragement and confidence at that time were the catalysts for the pathway that has brought me here, the member for Gilmore.
After 17 years as part of a successful, dynamic and very intense business it was time for me to give back to the wider community. There followed a very special period of volunteer work in India, living in a rural village in Tamil Nadu. This period reinforced my love of teaching, and I returned to Australia to complete my Master of Education. I later used this qualification to tutor at the University of Wollongong in the diploma of education program.
Giving back to the community has always been important to me. Being a youth leader—mentoring young women's leadership programs, youth forums and business start-ups—was a way of making things better. Over the six-year period of the last government, I did not see my beloved Australia getting better. Rather, I saw many more families struggling to make ends meet, struggling to stay employed and struggling to make sense of the way things were being done in their community and in their country.
I saw with horror the students retained at school until they were 17 as they destroyed real learning for those who wished to be there. I watched their loss of self-esteem as they struggled to keep up with work that was completely beyond them. I saw the frustration on the faces of the teachers as they noted the complexities of demands that this policy change caused—because, when this country introduced a policy which directed all students towards university education, we set in place a pathway for many to fail. There are other, far more relevant avenues—which lead to much better outcomes, richer self-esteem and, above all, the essential skills that we need—than university study for all students.
I saw wasted educational investment because some schools were unable to choose where to spend their grants. I saw houses left empty; yet there were broken families, victims of domestic violence and people suffering from mental illness living in cars because there was 'no accommodation available'. I saw photographic evidence of pink batts being brought to a person's house but then being left rolled up in the roof cavity. I saw subsidies and special bonuses being misspent and misallocated. I saw effective programs being cut and others where the submissions for funding sat on a desk for several months while the government of the day changed ministers in the merry-go-round of leadership challenges. In all these things I did not see a true application of making things 'a little better'.
Gilmore has been well represented by Joanna Gash. A friend and significant mentor, she has always put the community first, and she continues to do so in her capacity as Mayor of the Shoalhaven City Council. There was a strong advocate in this woman. She established the Shoalhaven campus of the University of Wollongong, got millions of dollars in small and large grants for innovative industry and community groups, presided over the just-about-completed Main Road 92 and gained millions of dollars for roads and infrastructure. It is my intention to maintain such advocacy.
Gilmore, with its amazing beaches, hinterland, rivers and wetland areas, is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful areas in Australia. Although every member here believes that they represent the best, I know I have that honour. At the same time, Gilmore has some of the most significant social complexities to deal with: a low manufacturing base, struggling dairy farms, intermittent transport options, high unemployment and an ageing demographic. The greatest employment growth sectors are hospitality and aged care, which are both traditionally low-end income streams. There are simply not enough services for the needs of many in Gilmore, especially those with mental illness or disability.
'I have a dream' is an iconic statement. But I do have a dream. I see my community with better transport options, increased infrastructure investment, more employment options and education choices and—above all—a community that believes in itself as a group of achievers with hope for their futures and reward for their endeavours. I see the potential for growth in the Shoalhaven university campus. I see a vibrant and self-confident community. It will not happen straight away, but it will happen. By working together at all levels, we will actually achieve. If each of us believes in our small contribution to our community—by joining a local service club or volunteering in one of the community groups, such as surf lifesaving, Rural Fire Service, state emergency service or St John's ambulance—and give our time, we will make a difference. We will make things better, and then we will be doing something for our community.
There are a number of people who have motivated the person who now stands before you. Joanna Gash, previous member for Gilmore, whose help, guidance and gentle suggestion—now those who really know Jo are laughing; perhaps I am understating!—has assisted me to come to parliament and follow my dream of making my country better. I also mention my children, who encouraged me from a distance, as two of them now live in Cairns. There is my daughter, Kimberly, who spoke words of humour and practicality during the tough days and who has simply been my best friend. There is Barry, who, when I first suggested that I might run for parliament, said, 'Mum, better to have lived and tried than to have lived with regret.' His constant support over many years has been a mainstay, and, on Monday—with his lovely wife, Romee—he will bring my granddaughter into the world. There is Rodney, who unstintingly dropped all his activities and came down in the final months to doorknock, to letterbox, and to pre-poll constantly, despite never having done any of it before.
I thank my 'adopted son', Brad Stait, and my 'adopted daughter', Bonnie Marshall, who have been my campaign companions since April 2012. There are simply not enough doughnuts and hot chocolates to say thank you. They were the connection to the Young Liberals, who, under the stewardship of Dean Carlson and Alyson Richards, came in the worst of weather to help in the difficult areas with letterboxing. I thank my local Young Liberals—especially Jackson Calverly, who was the youngest booth captain of them all. I thank also Larissa Mallinson, who assisted in Gilmore before deciding to run as a candidate in Throsby.
There is always a number of very close associates who help in a campaign, and they stand with you through thick and thin. I thank the following people: John Bennett, chair of my FEC, for his unending and straightforward advice; Pat Davis for her constant wisdom and for organising the village visits; Bruce, who often did the last-minute deliveries; Richard and Maxine Warner for the hundreds of A-frames and the handing out at the train and bus stations; Dorothy Barker, one of the most amazing door-knockers of all time, who never hesitated at any door, any gate or any driveway; Pam Coles for coordinating the files and the maps as well as for being a major support; Jan Hancock, whose compassionate and beautiful voice convinced so many to become part of the 1,000-strong team—men and women—to man the booths; the Marshall family for the famous blue trailer; Bill Carter and Danielle, who drove the old bus around; Ellie and Geoff Rose, who looked after the old bus; Kellie Marsh and her son Nathan, the best northern campaigners; John and Kath Le Bas, staunch supporters throughout—even from the beginning way back in 2006; Patricia and Gary White, the southern campaigners; Kay McNiven and Gavin McClure, whose assistance in so many ways was wonderful; David and Sandy Smith, whose ability to make me believe in myself was so very evident and who were always there to help; and Eve Craddock, who was thrown completely into the deep end and saved us all from campaign stress with her organising and her holding the team together—not to mention her scones and cookies.
I thank my state colleagues Gareth Ward, Member for Kiama, and the Hon. Shelley Hancock, Speaker of the House in the NSW Legislative Assembly, member for South Coast—especially Shelley for her understanding during the campaign. Thank you to the team at HQ, Michelle Moffatt, and Mark Neeham in particular, as my point of official connection, and to Sanjay and John D for always being available. I thank the many members of the Liberal Party branches in Gilmore who have worked on fundraisers and booths, coming to shadow ministers events, participating in auctions and games, buying endless tickets for items they really did not want, but it was all for a good cause.
I thank my supporters here today, many having made quite a journey to still show support. Some are not even party members, but believed I had potential, at least in part, to fill the shoes of Joanna Gash, for I was constantly told, 'You have big shoes to fill.' I do unfortunately have fairly small feet, so I will just have to run to make up the difference. Not only did my local community remind me, often, that this would be an issue, but so did many of my colleagues now sitting here and working with me.
I was of course blessed during the campaign, by two Bishops, an Abbott, several religious leaders and many shadow ministers. Apart from the intended pun, I was indeed supported in so many ways by the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, now in the Speaker's chair, an elegant and eloquent person who has inspired so many women in politics on this side of the House, for which I personally am very grateful. Madam Speaker, you have been a stalwart support for me over many years, and I thank you.
I was also supported by Julie Bishop, Phillip Ruddock, Joe Hockey, Christopher Pyne, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison, John Cobb, Bob Baldwin, Greg Hunt, Senators Marise Payne, Bill Heffernan and Connie Fierravanti-Wells, each adding colour, flare and knowledge to the campaign, and not least our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who came and conquered in the carbon tax forum, making sure the Gilmore community understood the dreadful impact this badly thought-out policy had on local employment. The carbon tax affects local industry, local families and local employment. I thank them all from the bottom of my heart.
More recently I have had the support of the Liberal Womens Council, and my colleagues now sitting on the benches with me, as we made friends, the day we stood before the cameras for the corflutes. Oh, my goodness that day in May in 2012 seems so far away! Karen McNamara, Fiona Scott, Lucy Wicks, Craig Laundy, Peter Hendy and Angus Taylor have all been great sources of support on our common journey, and I look forward to working hard alongside them. Although at times we may compete for funding to be allocated to our electorates, we already share a great bond.
I thank the teachers who have appeared in my life at different times and have given lessons when I least expected. For some unknown reason ,many have the name of Linda. Linda A taught me that you never put your head in an oven with a lighted match just to see whether or not the first ignition attempt worked. Singed eyebrows and eyelashes are really not becoming. Linda C taught me the power of the paint brush and Linda D gave me the craft of pencil and charcoal. Linda W taught me to look out for myself, in all things legal and financial. Finally, Linda M who reminded me of my connection to God, and taught me the power of prayer.
There have of course been other teachers in my life. Dr John Nicholas, who taught our Dip Ed class the holistic view of the environment, making us look beyond the limits of flora, fauna and natural habitat, to the interaction of people, the necessity of the built environment and all its demands on the social and survival fabric of human existence, and that effectively our environment sits in balance between the tripod of these three aspects: natural, human and built. I thank these teachers for all they have taught me, and I thank all those who I have taught, for those experiences are amongst the ones I cherish the most.
I take this opportunity to also thank those descendants of Australia's first people who have shared their love of country and their techniques in painting, and others who taught me to listen to wisdom in the silence amongst the rocks of Kata Tjuta. I thank the elders in my community—Melissa, Auntie Ruth, Auntie Grace and Uncle Gerry—whose welcome to country gathers up the strings of disunity every time they speak, to weave them into a design of reconciliation, understanding and a will to work together. I thank Noel Lonsdale for sharing the possum cloak in a recent unveiling at Boat Harbour, showing the symbolism of our unity.
I remind all in this House of Auntie Matilda's words of Canberra being the womb of Australia. This is the time for renewal and rebirth. The strategies of the recent political path have reflected only division, deception and disloyalty. The result has been chaos for those who sit opposite, but worse still for the families who have been impacted by 'unintended consequences' of bad policy decisions. Whilst political bluster may suffice for some, the reality is that our government bank account is in a mess. The players—balance and fiscal responsibility—have effectively taken their bat and ball, and even the stumps, and gone home.
Everyone in this chamber is here to represent their community to the best of their ability, but it is Tony Abbott in the Prime Minister's chair, and it is this side of the House that is in government. l am proud to be part of the team that works to reward individual endeavour, to help people to their feet and allow them the independence of their own choices. There is hope for our nation in this strategy.
I deeply honour those in Gilmore who decided to put their faith in me to help change the government for Australia. I also respect those who did not, for we have a robust democracy in this nation. Now we must work together to achieve great things. I am determined to make sure the trust and honour granted to me is not misplaced. Gilmore has extraordinary human capacity and amazing potential. It is time that we in our region believe this, to lift our community, and its self-respect, to begin the process of achievement and hope, rather than denial of individual merit. We who are leaders—whether community leaders, elected leaders or opinion makers—have a responsibility to increase the social value in our community's own eyes, despite our own political bias. It is time to go beyond the facade of perception and look at the true worth of our community. We in Gilmore are generous beyond many others, giving well above the average for such groups as the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. I should know: I have door-knocked for both. The network of service clubs, leisure clubs, sports clubs and over 90 church congregations provide assistance locally and internationally whenever they are called upon.
We deserve the infrastructure and community investment that will enable us to reach our potential. I look forward to working with the Tony Abbott government to deliver all the projects committed to and now confirmed, especially the Shoalhaven Bridge project phase 2 and the funding for the Dunn & Lewis Bali Memorial Centre, so that the youth of Ulladulla have a facility that commemorates their friends lost in the bombing and yet also allows training and workplace opportunities, as well as becoming a community activity hub.
We know we have double the national average unemployment statistics and we recognise this as a multilayered problem. We need all sectors in our community to think outside the square when unusual opportunities come along. Instead of being negative or sceptical, let us encourage the potential.
In the words of Robert Kennedy:
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
I am inspired by the school students of Gilmore, some of whom are here today—Gemma and Jake, assisted by Laura—for their energy is contagious, and they too share the dream of making a difference.
The electorate team—Janelle Brown, Kimberley Wadey, Nikkie Macey and Adam Straney—are all working on the vision for Gilmore. Finally, Dad, as you are unable to see, I am wearing blue and white, and metaphorically, Dad, the sailboat has finally left the shore, although there might be a few barnacles on the hull and there might be a few patches on the sails. And, Mum, you are the wind in the sails. Rodney, Barry and Kim, you are the invisible hands that draw up the anchor, set the sails and hold the tiller, for the journey has begun.
Yes, indeed, it seriously is time to ask: what can we do for our community? From the innocence of childhood to the cynicism of adulthood, it is time for a change for the better. It is time for 'we will'. The responsibility is ours. It is absolutely up to us to make things better and make a difference. Thank you.
Order! Before I call the honourable member for Hume, I remind honourable members that this is his maiden speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him
I rise with great pride on behalf of the people of the electorate of Hume. As the crow flies, the closest Hume border is 10 kilometres from where I stand. But it is in many respects a world away. Uniquely in this country, the Hume electorate spans the fringes of two capital cities. It is bounded by outer Sydney in the north, the ACT in the south and small western towns like Stockinbingal and Quandialla. Taking in 12 local government areas, it is the electorate of historic small towns, villages and rural hamlets. From the rugged high country of Crookwell, where snow often settles in winter, to the flat, sometimes dusty and dry red dirt of Caragabal, we have wind swept tablelands and gentle slopes and plains.
In the earliest settled agricultural region in Australia, it is a joy to me that we have some of the best livestock country and some of the highest yielding wheat and canola crops in Australia. Yet, with the nation's biggest transport corridor running through its heart, Hume is more diverse and more connected than you might think. Over 30 per cent of the Hume workforce commutes into Sydney or Canberra each day. My constituents range from ultra-progressives, particularly close to Canberra, right through to hardcore conservatives. But in the middle is a great swathe of people who are fairly moderate and mostly tolerant and who want government to get off their backs so that they can get on with their lives. They work on farms, in shops and in hospitals and schools. Like country people all over, they typically have a lot of common sense. People in Hume are great detectors of spin.
Hume's representatives have been as fearless and wise as the great explorer after whom the electorate was named. I am honoured to follow the exceptional Wal Fife, John Sharp and, of course, Alby Schultz, who is here in the gallery today. I thank them for their service, and I aspire to the high bar set by each of them.
In the early 19th century my Taylor ancestors set out from Yorkshire on their pilgrimage to make a better life. Let us just say they were not on the right side of the establishment and, being offered no land from the government, they kept moving south. They made their way via Berrima to Taylor's Hill—now Mount Taylor—just a few kilometres from here. For his assistance to the Rum Corp in deposing Governor Bligh, James Taylor was given land. But some in the family were pushed south again. That side of the family was sceptical of power and dismissive of the political establishment long before Federation and Canberra were conceived.
I was born an hour's drive south of here and now I live an hour to the north on the edge of a beautiful frost plain near Goulburn. My childhood home sits on the Monaro, high on the Great Divide. My three brothers and I had a freedom and an independence that most children these days—and even then—could only dream of. It was not until the mid-1990s that on our place we switched from horses to motor bikes for our stock work. So I spent much of my childhood and young adulthood on the back of a horse. We rode 10 kilometres across the paddocks to pony club in Nimmitabel. We fished in the big dam for yabbies and trout. We rode our pushbikes to the school bus. We mustered, drenched and marked our way through school and university holidays. At a young age, it was unexceptional to be sent to pick up a mob of sheep or cattle many miles away with just a lunch pack and a horse—and, if we were lucky, a good dog.
We had exceptional parents. Dad, who is here in the gallery today, was busy running the farm and later even busier making a contribution to rural politics during that extraordinary era when farmers were leading national reforms. Our mother was devoted to us. She taught us all to read and write well before we went to school. Education was paramount and we learnt to approach every task as if our lives depended on it, and to never, ever give up. Mum was strong but gentle. She was unfailingly kind, loyal and generous, with the strongest moral compass of anyone I have known. We lost her to breast cancer when she was in her 40s, the age I am now. She would be proud if she were here today because she believed in service of any kind. She was deeply influenced by her parents and their values, especially her father. My grandfather William Hudson was, and remains, a pervasive role model in my life. He was commissioner and chief engineer of the Snowy Mountains scheme and led it from its inception in 1949 until just before completion in 1967. He conceived of the idea and insisted, against resistance, to bring in large numbers of refugees from war-torn Europe. He insisted that people from over 30 countries, who had just been fighting each other in the Second World War, live and work together in multi-ethnic camps. The Snowy scheme, quite literally, changed the face of our nation.
My grandfather treated every single person with whom he came into contact, from humble truck drivers to senior engineers, with equal dignity and respect. He abhorred snobbery and judged people on character and conduct, not rank. He worked prodigiously and was extraordinarily humble. The Snowy was never about him. He retired to Canberra, a stone's throw from here, and he died owning a modest house and modest possessions. He never focused on accumulating material wealth.
On nation-building we can take many lessons from the Snowy scheme. There was, even then, a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. The project met a clear and universal public need which could only be achieved through government involvement while setting new benchmarks in the use of private contractors. Legislation ensured it was insulated from party politics. It was forward-thinking and its safety regime was the world's best at the time. After a quarter century of construction, the scheme came in under budget and before time. At the peak of a rewarding career in the private sector, my decision to enter public life was not an easy one. In the end, though, it was influenced heavily by my grandfather's record and impact as one of our nation's great public servants.
At the University of Sydney I found law interesting and rigorous, but it never pushed my buttons like economics. Economics is about making smarter use of limited resources to make people better off. It shapes history and society at every level. Good economics is the key to good government, job creation and funding for world-class schools, health services, roads, railways and broadband networks.
At university I read Smith, Bentham, Burke, Mill, Marshall, Schumpeter, Galbraith, Keynes and Friedman. But 20 years ago I stepped into McKinsey. Since that time I have learnt that no single economist, thinker or philosopher has the answer for everything. At McKinsey, then at Port Jackson Partners, I worked alongside some of the world's best management thinkers. From mines and farms in South America, Africa and the Pilbara, to ports, smelters, steel mills and railways across Asia and Australia, and even to cow sheds and wool sheds deep in rural New Zealand, I learnt about what really drives growth, jobs and productivity. I learnt to think strategically, to focus on the two or three things that really matter. I built a career on helping clients understand the phenomenal rise of China and India and the changing role of minerals, energy, food and water in the global economy.
Helping some of our biggest companies to shape their long-term plans gave me licence to think long and hard about Australia's place in the world, a world where ideas, people, money and products cross borders faster and with more intensity than ever before. I have witnessed the lasting benefits that massive private sector investment can bring. I have witnessed extraordinary leadership turn organisations around. But I have also seen successful organisations, including governments, grow big, lazy and complacent when discipline is lost.
In my own personal involvement with small businesses, particularly in agriculture, I have learnt the necessity of experimentation and the value of persistence and I have felt the ignominy of failure. In this place I will never forget that it is the army of small-business people and entrepreneurs who put their necks on the line, their noses to the grindstone and their faith in humanity every day. They contribute more to our economy than big business ever will.
The heaving and irresistible force of globalisation now well and truly bears down upon us, fuelled by rapid Asian growth. It is creating huge new opportunities and the world is signalling that Australia should focus on what we do best. It is also signalling that we should let go where we are not competitive. Our response will define our future.
Since John Macarthur put his first bale of merino wool on a ship to England, we have depended upon trade, foreign investment, immigration and innovation. More than ever our future prosperity will stand on these four pillars. The last government put at risk a huge opportunity in our resources sector. Although the remaining prospects are strong, this must never happen again. With tens of millions of people in the developing world moving each year from agrarian poverty into urban and middle-class lives, our small country is poised on the brink of yet another prospect: a boom in demand for our food and fibre. But it is only a chance. We could easily botch this one. Many of our competitors are eyeing this prize.
Resolving the clash between liberal economics and isolationism, between openness and insularity, is the first-order priority in taking advantage of our changing world. Those who argue for fortress Australia are wrong. The pursuit of global opportunities in sectors where we can excel will strengthen us. This is how we will sustain our sovereignty, not by putting up new barriers. However, the monumental benefits of openness are not sufficiently clear to many Australians on all sides of politics. That is partly because the raw appeal of populism is an easy grab on the evening news, but it is also because our policy settings are not right. We must hungrily seek out fast-growing new markets to our north. We need the big licks of capital and the skills others can provide. We must boldly expound and stay true to a narrative that explains the benefits of openness.
At the same time we must guard against the voracious thirst of vested interests and monopoly. Whether it manifests in companies, unions or the most powerful monopoly of all—government—monopoly will exploit if left unconstrained. Our competition watchdog must be given everything it needs to encourage competition and see off exploitation in a more global economy so that consumers and small businesses can prosper. We need to stop giving public money to rent-seekers and we must be strong against the loud voices of narrowly-focused interests. Laws passed in this place must not drag down the living standards of the majority by benefiting a few. This government has shown that it understands the urgent need to step up and focus on bilateral trade deals that position our best exporters to win. New Zealand has achieved great benefits by backing its strengths, and agriculture in particular has gained much. Tax and welfare policy must encourage participation and productivity, recognising that capital, businesses and highly-skilled people now move quickly to more attractive countries. But we must also ensure that global companies and investors cannot game our tax system at our expense.
In immigration, like any self-respecting nation, we must control our fortune, not have it foisted upon us. Along with a generous humanitarian program, we should be unapologetic about actively seeking out new citizens—and many of them—who bring us skills and a strong work ethic and who will contribute to the fabric of our nation. Meanwhile, we must embrace innovation from all over the globe, focusing our research and development on our strengths. Our industrial relations system will need to be more flexible and more outward looking. Australian school and university students now compete with those beyond our borders, billions strong, whose appetite for learning is unprecedented. This year there are more university students in China than the entire Australian population. Our competitors know that you do not need to spend billions more on education to achieve outstanding outcomes. We need to get smart, stop the ideological warfare and focus on great teaching.
In the shorter term, we face clear challenges. This government has been left with a deep structural deficit. Consumers are saddled with debt and are nervous. Our dollar is stubbornly high and mining investment is on the skids. In time, export growth is the hope of the side. But to pick up the slack we must strongly encourage non-mining investment, particularly infrastructure and housing—finding clever means of attracting investment without drowning ourselves in more red ink. Making the most of every dollar of government expenditure is now more crucial than ever. The productivity revolution has been sweeping through the private sector for decades. It is now time for the public sector to follow. Whether in health, education, defence or welfare, it is time for governments to treat every dollar of expenditure as if it were our own.
I want these things because I want grain, meat and cherry producers in my electorate to be selling without barriers into fast-growing Asian markets now. I want the children in Hume's schools to have the same opportunities as their Asian competitors. I want to know that we will look after our most vulnerable and elderly as their numbers continue to grow. I want the Barton Highway, which connects 12,000 of my constituents to Canberra every day, to be the road it should be. I want more rural doctors and hospitals to be installing new technology and offering new services, not cutting them. I want mobile phone reception and internet connectivity to be improved quickly so that more of my constituents can run their small businesses or work from home, creating more local jobs.
At the same time, we must protect our basic values and bedrock institutions. I first encountered political correctness as a student at Oxford. It was 1991, and a young Naomi Wolf lived a couple of doors down the corridor. Several graduate students, mostly from the north-east of the US, decided we should abandon the Christmas tree in the common room because some people might be offended. I was astounded. My friends from Oklahoma, Alaska and Oregon explained this new kind of moral vanity that was taking hold in America. A few of us pushed back hard. In the end we won, because we were mainstream. But we must resist the insidious political correctness that would have us discard those core values that have made us great. In our times, the world over, the foundation of democracy—free speech—and the foundation of capitalism—property rights—are being chipped away by shrill elitist voices who insist that they know what is best for people who are not remotely like them. I can tell you, I will always defend property rights and free speech. And in this place I will back the parliament over the executive and the judiciary, because it is through this parliament that each of us here is accountable to our constituents.
I owe so much to so many people: to Alby Schultz and Gloria, thank you for the faith you placed in me, your support and your famous generosity of spirit; to the 1,000 people across Hume, many of whom are here today, who helped on polling day; to the core Hume campaign team—my wonderful campaign manager, Michele Costello and Nancy Roberts, Paula Clegg, Graham Templeton, Sam Rowland, Brooke Hilton, Jane Reardon, Danny Kennedy, Ian Norris, Ian Weakley, Geoff Pearson, John Plews, Ruth Gibson, Sarah Bucknell, Holly Campbell, Bob Rogers, Tim Meares, Frances Douch, Geoff Kettle, Maree Ireland, Sam McGuiness and Holly Hughes—and many others who volunteered not for days but for weeks and in some cases, Paula and Nancy, for months of their time. Thank you. You set the gold standard.
I thank MPs Pru Goward and Jai Rowell as well as a host of current and former federal MPs who visited the electorate. I thank those who provided wise counsel, including Bill Heffernan, Malcolm Turnbull, John Howard and the Prime Minister.
Finally, to my family. I met Louise 25 years ago. She was—and still is—talented, clever and warm. She was a girl from the bush who was interested in big things: politics, God and the world around her. And she came from a family that was brimming with love. I was lucky to find her and her parents, Paula and Richard, who are so generous and so supportive to us and to everyone who inhabits their world. To our beautiful children—Hamish, Olivia, Adelaide and Roo: we love you dearly. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for accepting such a dramatic change in our lives.
Some people say politics is about power. I do not agree. It should be about leadership, service and making an enduring difference to the lives of others. I hope the work I do in this place makes a real difference and will one day make my children proud. Thank you.
I congratulate the members for their first speeches. It is always a great moment in the House, and it is good to see their families and friends here to support them. I listened very carefully to the Governor-General's speech when both houses joined in the Senate chamber on the first day of parliament. I listened for the positive plan that the then opposition had talked about so often. I looked for that plan and for what they would bring to government for the future. What struck me then and in the first weeks of this parliament was an extraordinary lack of vision for the future by the government. In fact, if I was 19 years old and I was starting my adult life—and I am not, in fact I am a long way from that—I would be scratching my head and looking at this government and thinking that perhaps it had very little to offer me. For the 4.29 million people under the age of 15 in this country that is certainly the case.
Governments govern for the past, the present and the future. Governments honour the contributions and sacrifices of generations past—those sacrifices that are so evident in the prosperity we enjoy now. They investigate past wrongs and they offer apologies. They govern for the future. They govern for the present. They balance the needs of many sections of the community on a daily basis. But they also govern for the future. They govern for the young people who are in school, they govern for teenagers and they govern for their children and their children's children. And great governments govern for the generation after that.
This, unfortunately, is a government that seems to have walked well and truly away from the future. It is not a government for the young. If you have a look at the things that they have done in those first few weeks of parliament, you can see what I mean. There is no minister for youth. There is nobody on the frontbench or in the ministry of the government that speaks for youth and that is a focal point for engagement with youth or for representing the views of our next generation in the government. There is no minister for innovation. There is no minister whose job it is to ensure that we grow the diverse range of industries that will sustain our economy into the future. There is no minister for science. There is no single person in the ministry who ensures that we are positioned to benefit from the scientific advances that take place around the world. They have slashed investment in the CSIRO. They have slashed funding to a broad range—a whole list—of bodies and organisations whose job it was to assess the long-term needs of this country.
If you are looking for a government that represents the past, look at the front row here. There is only one woman in the cabinet and only two sitting in the front row. That is certainly not a government that is looking to the future. They have walked away from the responsibility for education. They are happily handing that over to the states. They have walked away from responsibility for preventative health. They have walked away from any real action on climate change. They have walked away from the minerals resource rent tax which would help to ensure that the assets of Australia are used for the benefit of future generations. In their own language on debt and deficit—and I say 'their own language', because it was this government, when in opposition, that talked about the debt burden on future generations—in the first week of this parliament they sought to almost double the debt ceiling and have now removed the limit. So, a government that in opposition talked about burdening the next generation with debt seems to believe that it now needs no limit and no accountability to the parliament for its actions.
They said they had a positive plan for the future. I have to say it is very difficult to see it. Perhaps one of the most critical decisions that this government is involved in, and one which will affect future generations, is, of course, that of climate change. We live on an incredibly fragile planet, a planet full of wonder. For those of us who spend time in the bush—and I do—it is an extraordinary world. It is unimaginable to me, and to many of us on this side of the House, that a government would take any action at all that would make it less likely that future generations would be able to enjoy the full diversity of life on our planet. We have a whole range of species that are very fragile. In the Sydney region, if there is not real action on climate change around the world, the number of extreme fire danger days could rise from the current nine days per year to as many as 15 by 2050. If there were ever an endeavour that a government should undertake to ensure that future generations enjoy, as we do, the full range of wonder in the world, it would be action on climate change.
It is almost as if the current government went into a deep sleep when they lost government in 2007. It is almost an episode of Rip Van Winkle in many ways. They went to sleep dreaming of the Howard years and imagining that someday they could bring them back. But, in that period of six years, things have moved on. Action on climate change, for example, is increasing. The Climate Council estimates that 99 countries, including Australia's major trading partners and neighbours, are implementing policies to act on climate change, including renewable energy targets, emissions trading schemes and vehicle emissions targets. These countries collectively produce over 80 per cent of global emissions and over 90 per cent of the world's economic output. So, in that six years when they were sleeping and dreaming of the past, the world has moved on. Unless this country moves on we will be doing our young people and their children and the generation after that an extreme disservice.
There are three real reasons why you act on the environment and climate change. One is the environment itself, which is something of value in its own right. It is the only thing that we deal with in this parliament, both in government and in opposition, which is not a human construct. It is the one thing which actually exists whether we are here or not, and it deserves a very special place in the minds of governments for that reason. But there is also the cost. We know that each year we delay real action on climate change we leave a greater cost burden on the people that come after us. We leave a greater cost burden on the next generation. If we do not build the economic model which generates investment in finding the answers in this country, if we do not introduce a market-based mechanism, then we risk leaving our industry, our entrepreneurs and our scientists out of a field that is growing at an incredibly rapid rate in the world. Last year, China, which is much maligned for not acting on climate change, spent more on renewable energy than it did on coal-fired power stations. China has moved into the new world, and we do the next generation an incredible disservice if we do not move as well—if we do not provide the economic frameworks which will drive industry in Australia to explore the possibilities for finding answers to what is a very real problem.
Look at the mining tax. I saw a beautiful photo not so long back which explained perfectly the whole purpose of the minerals resource rent tax, why we in government introduced it and why it should be maintained. If the government thinks it has some flaws, the government can amend it, but it is an incredibly valuable piece of regulation to protect the future generations' assets. It was a beautiful picture. On one side was a huge open-cut mine, with a ginormous yellow truck gouging ore from its side. Above it was the word 'mine', with a question mark. On the other side of the page was a picture of a small child in a sandpit, with a tiny, yellow Tonka toy, digging sand out of the sandpit. Above him was the word 'ours'. It was the clearest explanation I could think of for the purpose of the minerals resource rent tax, which was to ensure that the assets in the ground that we in this generation can take out with gay abandon, the assets that belong to all generations of Australians, would be able to be enjoyed by future generations. The abolition of the MRRT without regard to cross-generational issues of wealth is a tragedy, and it is another indication of a government which does not have the youth and the next generation of this country in its mind at all.
If you are talking Rip Van Winkle, as I was before, in terms of action on climate change, you need not go any further than the NBN. They went to sleep in 2007 and dreamed of the Howard years. Things have moved on. Fibre is the way of the future, without any doubt. I am well over 50 now. I admit I am closer to 60 than 50. It is a future that I can imagine. It is the future for the three-year-old child you see on the bus who already knows how to use an iPhone. The world that they will create through fibre is something that we cannot imagine. But it is the role of government to make sure that the economic circumstances and the infrastructure are there for that generation—for those who are now 15, 16, 17 and 18 years old—to build the world that they want to live in, a world where the entrepreneurs of Australia can play their part in shaping the technology of the future.
To walk away at this point from ensuring that Australia has the technology that it needs for the next 50 years borders on criminal. Again, it is an indication of a government that does not have youth in its frame and does not see the next generation at all. It does not see the benefits to regional Australia. It does not see that we as a nation have within us every language and culture of the world. We have the capacity to deal from our own homes with every country in the world. We live on the edge of the fastest growing region in the world. We have within us people who know and understand and live the cultures of our northern neighbours. Yet we have a government that—although I hesitate to say it—seems a little uncomfortable with our place in the world. It certainly is not setting up future generations to benefit from the extraordinary powerhouse to our north by providing what is today a basic piece of infrastructure: fibre. Copper—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Rip Van Winkle. They have been asleep for 80 years, I think, shadow minister—80 years at least—if they think we can go back to copper at this time.
If you want to see a government not caring about the next generation, not seeing them what they need, you need not look any further than at the total walking away from federal responsibility for standards in education that we have seen in the last week. We have seen a government that does not know that, in the six years they slept in opposition dreaming of the Howard years, the arguments that went on between the different elements of education—the private, independent, Catholic and state schools—were resolved. Through some incredibly hard work by Labor in government, by people in the community and by leaders in all of those sectors, we found a way past that and settled on a model which actually ensured that our young people would be funded on the basis of need. The model ensured that we would no longer have the incredible difference in the results of children raised in advantaged households and those raised in disadvantaged households.
We currently have an appalling circumstance in this country, which we sometimes do not realise. There is a disparity in the results of those that live in disadvantaged areas and families and the results of those that do not. The government, knowing about that disparity and knowing that so many of our young people are falling behind, is not prepared to act on it. In the areas of science, technology, engineering and maths, which we know will drive our prosperity in the future, we are seriously lagging, particularly in the lower quartiles. We know that fixing that is not a three-year job. Ensuring that teachers are trained and that young people who enter the school system now leave the school system with the skills they will need in 15 years—not the skills we need now—is a massive undertaking that will take a generation. It is a long-term activity that a decent government would be undertaking now if they recognised their role to govern for young people. But this government is not doing that. This government is happy to cap student fees. It is happy to see fees going up again, as they did in the Howard years. They are talking happily about privatising student debt. They are talking, quite clearly, about strategies which will take us back to the Howard years, where the difference in enrolment rates between people from a disadvantaged area and young people from an average or upper-middle income area will widen. Shamefully, that gap widened under the Howard years, and this government is prepared to see that gap widen once again. This is a government that does not see the needs of our young people and the needs of their children.
Superannuation is another area where the government is not prepared to do the hard yards to ensure that young people have the kinds of retirement that they would expect. The delay in the superannuation increases is a significant blow, particularly to young people. I know that young people may not know that. I have quite a few people in my family who do not always understand the value of superannuation. But those on the government side do understand the value of superannuation because, I have no doubt, they are well superannuated. Yet this government does not see that there is a need for young people to start saving for their retirement as early as possible. Even the cuts to the public service will hit the young. When you slash so deeply into public service jobs you create a circumstance where it is very difficult for young people to find a path in.
So let us recap on what we have with this government. The government came to power after the last election on a promise of a positive plan for the future. We saw the blue book; we saw it being held. We heard then that they had a positive plan for the future. We heard today in question time that they have a plan. We were not quite sure what that plan is, but we heard minister after minister get up today and talk about having a plan. We are still waiting to see it, but they have plan.
Yet, when you look at what government ministers have actually done in this first four weeks of parliament, you find that they have hacked away at almost everything which would build a nation for the next generation. They have hacked away at environmental reforms. We saw this House vote for the handing back of powers to the states. We heard statements about their winding back of the World Heritage listing in Tasmania. This government has a plan to wind back the marine parks. This government is hacking away at the work that was done to protect our environment for generations of the future. This government has hacked away at the model which will drive investment in new technologies for clean energy. They have hacked away at it—attempting to abolish it. There is nothing to replace it yet. Clearly, this government does not understand the need to ensure that our next generation is at the forefront of finding answers to climate change.
This government has no concern that our assets in the ground belong to future generations as well as this one. It is happy to rip away—hack away—at the mechanism which ensures cross-generational wealth, so that the wealth of this generation is maintained for future generations.
It has not been a good start, at all. For those 4.29 million people—nearly one in five—who are under the age of 15 there is a lot to worry about from this government. Those on this side of the chamber know that we need to govern not just for the children who are going through primary schools now; governments need to govern for the generation after that, and the generation after that. It is a tragedy to watch the actions of this government in hacking away at the things that this generation will need in order to prosper.
A government with a plan for the future? It is hard to see. The government said they had it, but it has been hard to see the plan in action in this first four weeks. I have to say that this does not bode well for the next generation.
Debate adjourned.
Building the right infrastructure in the right location at the right time is critical to national economic development and productivity. To secure the productivity gains that drive jobs growth you have to invest in roads, ports, railway lines and airports. Most importantly, you need to ignore the electoral map. If you make the right strategic investments the resulting productivity gains benefit every Australian—not just the communities in which you have delivered the infrastructure. It is my experience that many elected representatives dealing with infrastructure struggle with the need to take a long-term, non-partisan view. Some representatives make decisions that are based on their political interests rather than the national interest. Others, like former Prime Minister John Howard, simply ignore infrastructure spending and blame the states when anyone complains about infrastructure bottlenecks. That approach, of course, helps no-one.
Labor took a very different approach when we were elected in 2007. In line with our proud heritage we focused on nation-building. I argued in the lead-up to that election that the challenge for infrastructure was to delink the infrastructure investments cycle—which was, by definition, long-term—from the electoral cycle, which is much more short term. Infrastructure Australia was specifically designed as a vehicle to do just that.
I am here today to oppose the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill because it is a blatant coalition attempt to re-establish the old link between the political process and the delivery of infrastructure. This bill gives the Minister for Infrastructure the right to interfere with Infrastructure Australia's considerations by nominating pet projects for assessment. It would also allow the minister to ignore entire classes of infrastructure investment, such as public transport.
I note that Minister Truss, in his contribution to this debate, claimed that the legislation was designed to increase Infrastructure Australia's independence. Having opposed the very creation of Infrastructure Australia, in recent times the coalition have argued that they would increase its independence and strengthen it. The fact is that this legislation does exactly the opposite. It reopens the door to pork-barrelling and the short-sighted approach of the past. It can only have two outcomes: lowering growth of economic productivity and, as a consequence, reducing growth in employment.
I, of course, have seen this approach before. Minister Truss hails from the National Party—the party of the pork-barrel; the party that has always been preoccupied with supporting funding for its own electorates rather than having a broader view of the national interest. When the coalition were last in government, they had no infrastructure policy. I was the first ever infrastructure minister to represent this nation. They simply refused to invest in anything other than regional roads—except for pet projects such as regional road programs that funded Campbell Parade at Bondi Beach in the member for Wentworth's electorate. There was no coordination of infrastructure provision. They made it up as they went along.
In fact, the Howard government's idea of regional infrastructure provision was the Regional Partnerships scheme, found by auditors to have been rorted by the government. Who could forget the $600,000 grant to keep struggling Queensland company Beaudesert Rail afloat, against the advice of corporate administrators. There was the $426,962 given under the dairy assistance program to the Indigo Cheese factory in the electorate of Indi, which, of course, did not produce any output. Indeed, the company shut down in March 2007. Three months later, the government paid the company a further $22,135 instalment on its grant because its standards of oversight were so poor that grant recipients did not have to produce anything to continue to qualify for money. No wonder the Australian National Audit Office investigation into Regional Partnerships found that it had fallen short of an acceptable standard of public administration. That is why I was very cynical about the coalition's rhetoric, and, unfortunately, that cynicism has come to fruition in the form of this bill.
Labor came to office determined to create a system whereby infrastructure needs would be independently assessed and where elected representatives could make decisions based on evidence about a project's potential to lift productivity, not on the basis of their electoral strategy. When we created Infrastructure Australia in 2008, we asked it to conduct the first ever national audit of infrastructure needs in Australia's history. We also asked it to advise on approaches to infrastructure policy. It did that at arm's length from government and that national audit provided the basis for funding.
One of its key early findings was the development of a formula for an integrated policy approach to provision of infrastructure. It identified seven priority themes which it recommended needed to be addressed as a whole, in preference to the piecemeal approach of the past. These principles were prioritised. The first of the principles was, indeed, the development of a more extensive, accessible and globally competitive National Broadband Network. Infrastructure Australia described the importance of better broadband as 'almost impossible to overstate'. The second principle was the consolidation of a national energy market. The third was competitive international gateways like ports and airports, including the creation of a national ports' strategy. The fourth was the development of a national freight network. The fifth was transforming cities with effective roads and public transport. The sixth was the provision of essential infrastructure for Indigenous communities. And the seventh was adaptable and secure water supplies.
Members opposite should take note of this list. It reminds us that infrastructure comes in many forms, many of which are interdependent. That is why you need to have an integrated approach without Infrastructure Australia being directed to look just at a specific project or to not look at other projects. Take the National Broadband Network. It is not just a communications infrastructure vehicle; it also has an impact on the way that cities function. It has an impact on transport. If people can telework from home, it reduces urban congestion. That is why you need to have this integrated plan, not the cherry-picking approach that would result if this legislation is carried.
Infrastructure Australia argued that, if you wanted to improve the functioning of our nation, you needed to cover every angle, not just building roads or clearing port bottlenecks. To get maximum productivity growth, you need to adopt a holistic approach, including the functioning of our cities and regional communities, and you need to address every element critical to the infrastructure equation. Let me quote from Infrastructure Australia's December 2008 report to the Council of Australian Governments:
In delivering this new national approach, Infrastructure Australia has not sought to predetermine any particular infrastructure outcome or solution. Rather, it has created a broad framework that was used for assessing any investment or actions.
This advice sums up the point that I am making—that adequate infrastructure provision requires a flexible approach that does not pick favourite modes of infrastructure but simply uses objective evidence to choose the best outcomes.
Labor did not give itself the ability to interfere in Infrastructure Australia. It also did not give itself the power to even direct Infrastructure Australia about what projects it could or could not consider. We asked only for evidence so that we could make evidence based decisions. As at the 2013 election, the former Labor government had allocated funding for all of the 15 Infrastructure Australia priority projects—every single one. In the same Infrastructure Australia report to COAG that I mentioned a moment ago, its chairman, Sir Rod Eddington, wrote that his organisation's formation represented a new level of leadership on infrastructure:
It introduces a bold new approach to identifying, planning, funding and implementing infrastructure of national significance across Australia. It also introduces rigorous and robust economic analysis of infrastructure investments prior to government decision-making.
And yet Sir Rod Eddington was not even consulted about this legislation before it was introduced into the parliament. That is a fact.
This brings me to the proposed changes in the bill. Under the bill before us, Minister Truss wants to give himself very specific powers: to set time frames and the scope of audits and evaluations; to direct which matters can and cannot be considered; to order Infrastructure Australia to evaluate particular projects nominated by him; to confer tax loss concessions upon projects without reference to Infrastructure Australia; to sack members of the council of Infrastructure Australia for the ill-defined crime of misbehaviour; and to rethink the representation of state and territory governments that are currently represented on the Infrastructure Australia Council.
All of these changes are retrograde steps. Governments which give themselves poorly defined rights to sack people are in fact giving themselves the power to dispose of advisers whose advice does not suit their political line. I am deeply concerned about the bill's provision allowing the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development to order Infrastructure Australia not to consider classes of infrastructure when it assesses the relative merits of infrastructure projects.
This provision goes to the very heart of the design of Infrastructure Australia. It will dismantle IA's ability to give governments advice on the full range of infrastructure investment which is required to drive productivity gains and create jobs for future generations. I fear the motivation for this move is rooted in the coalition's inexplicable and, frankly, irresponsible refusal to invest any Commonwealth funds in urban passenger rail. Our cities are congested. The Australasian Railway Association estimates that traffic congestion is costing our nation $15 billion a year and says the costs will increase unless governments take real action now to unclog our cities. An essential element of the solution to congestion is greater use of public transport. That is why in government Labor allocated money for a range of projects recommended by Infrastructure Australia, including Brisbane's Cross River Rail project and the Melbourne Metro. In this year's budget, $715 million was allocated for the Cross River Rail project and $3 billion for the Melbourne Metro.
Our view is that the Commonwealth needs to help states invest in urban public transport and that this investment will ease congestion and lift urban productivity. We consulted with both the Queensland and the Victorian governments on those assessments. They were found by Infrastructure Australia to be nationally significant projects. Indeed, funding for planning money for both of those projects was previously allocated, the planning was done, the projects stacked up, and yet the coalition have a view that the Commonwealth should just fund urban and regional roads and that there should be no funding for urban public transport.
The problem there is the definition of 'nationally significant' projects, which is why the assistant minister could not answer the question that he was asked today in parliament. The fact is that, during the term of the former Howard government, as he would be aware, the coalition government shied away from funding urban roads as well as urban rail. The Howard government funded a total of $300 million in Sydney infrastructure over 12 years. It completely vacated the field. The problem with the approach of the Prime Minister, who says, 'The Commonwealth should stick to its knitting and invest in roads,' is that it ignores the fact that, historically, the National Party, while they have held the transport portfolios, have also not invested in urban roads, either. They have not invested in our cities. And, as the most urbanised country on the planet, the fact is that there is a direct link between investing in our cities and growth in our regions. We need to do both and we need to have a national approach to it—something that those opposite do not seem to understand. Labor in fact doubled the roads budget, compared with the Howard government's record.
The current government's roads-only policy is an affront to everything we know about effective provision of infrastructure. As I mentioned earlier, when outlining Infrastructure Australia's seven themes, you cannot drive productivity without taking an integrated approach and you cannot take an integrated approach unless you have Commonwealth leadership. A piecemeal approach, with projects as determined by the minister, without looking at alternative options, which this bill will allow, will reintroduce the very problem that Infrastructure Australia was created to overcome. This bill is proof that the coalition simply does not understand nation building.
It will take us back to the bad old days when infrastructure provision was not an integrated process but a recipe for pork-barrelling. When it comes to policy, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you are already making a good pudding it makes no sense to change the ingredients.
Thanks to the recommendations of Infrastructure Australia, here are some of the projects that the previous Labor government delivered: the Hunter Expressway, which will be opened in coming months; major upgrading of the Pacific Highway, worth $7.9 billion, through works including the Bulahdelah Bypass, the Kempsey Bypass and the Ballina Bypass, all opened by Labor; and the Bruce Highway, with funding of $5.7 billion, including work on what the now transport minister describes as the worst road in Australia, the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway. Minister Truss would know that because it is in his electorate. He just did not fix it during the 12 years in which he was part of the government. It took a Labor government to deliver this project. We delivered Victoria's Regional Rail Link, again, something that the now Prime Minister seemed to be totally ignorant of, when he said in his interview where he declared that no funding for public transport would be forthcoming from a government he led: 'We don't do public transport projects; we don't do them.' There he was sitting in a studio in Melbourne, the site of the largest ever Commonwealth investment in an urban public transport project, the Regional Rail Link, a project in which today there are 3½ thousand Victorians in work, and which will benefit Melbourne, Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat but, most importantly, the national economy by improving productivity.
South Australia's Noarlunga to Seaford Rail Extension project has been opened. The Gold Coast Rapid Transit project is significantly increasing the productivity of the Gold Coast. Infrastructure Australia operated in conjunction with the Major Cities Unit, and that has already been abolished by the new government as one of their first acts coming in—'No, we don't want to be involved in cities.' It recommended projects like the Perth Citylink project. The new member for Perth, the former member for Perth and I went to the opening just prior to the election. It is an exciting project that has transformed Perth as a major international city by uniting the city's CBD with the Northbridge precinct. It is an exciting project boosting productivity, boosting sustainability and boosting livability in Perth. Brisbane's Moreton Bay rail line was first promised in the Queensland parliament in 1895; delivered, though, by the former Labor government and set to be opened next year. Both projects are exciting projects and important projects.
In line with the principles for effective delivery of infrastructure, IA also produced major reports for COAG which led to important microeconomic reform, a national port strategy adopted for the first time, a national land freight strategy and a strategy to improve delivery of infrastructure to Indigenous communities. An integrated approach to infrastructure delivery also requires consultation with industry—a hallmark of Infrastructure Australia's approach and something that industry welcomed. This was acknowledged by Ports Australia chief, David Anderson, in 2011 when he said the government was to be complimented for making a serious endeavour to develop a nationally based approach to port planning and regulation. Mr Anderson said:
The National Ports Strategy is based on the simple but effective premise that our ports will develop long term plans that will be out there for all stakeholders to view and own and that this approach will drive processes to ensure that port land and its associated freight precincts and road and rail corridors are appropriately developed and protected.
Governments that close their ears to impartial expert advice are letting down the nation. Infrastructure Australia also played a role in advising about the national transport regulators. That microeconomic reform will benefit the national economy by $30 billion over 20 years, and yet, under the approach envisaged in this legislation before the House, that will end.
Let me come to transparency. I note that the minister has said that this bill is about greater transparency, but it makes the minister the gatekeeper for publication of information via his powers to direct IA's activities. Under existing arrangements, IA routinely published the outcomes of its considerations, providing important information to inform the public debate and sending clear signals to the investment community. If the coalition had paid any attention at all they would know that rhetoric such as 'We'll produce an annual report to the parliament' already happens. There is already an annual report to the parliament and to the Council of Australian Governments. It is published on its website. Because we do not direct Infrastructure Australia on what they can look at, there are recommendations that, frankly, I do not support as the former minister. There is a recommendation, for example, about putting a toll on the Pacific Highway. I do not support that. I do not think that is viable. But it is appropriate that where you have an independent, at arm's-length body making recommendations, from time to time there will be disagreements and governments will take different positions. That is what the Infrastructure Australia process is all about: challenging governments at the national level and at the state level to lift their game and to do better when it comes to infrastructure provision and delivery.
The changes proposed in this bill, giving the minister the ability to block the publication of project evaluations, make a mockery of transparency. On what possible basis is that acceptable from those who, in opposition, spoke about transparency? There is a provision in this legislation to block the publication of project evaluations. That is something that simply does not exist at the moment.
The minister made clear in his contribution to this debate that he wants IA to conduct more of its own research on the economic benefit of infrastructure proposals rather than rely upon work originating from state governments. Infrastructure Australia now makes assessments of the work that state governments have done. Those opposite were talking earlier in their rhetoric across the chamber about the East-West Link in Victoria, for example. The only published BCR on the East-West Link found a benefit-cost ratio of 0.5.
So you're against it.
That is what the Eddington study found—0.5—and yet they will not publish any of it. You get the childish statement across the chamber from the assistant minister, saying, 'So you're against it.' That is not what I said. What I said very clearly was: publish the economics of this project; let it be seen transparently—
In the middle of a tender process.
Those opposite say, 'In the middle of the tender process.' That is the whole point. You find out if it is viable before you go to tender and before you provide funding for it. The assistant minister across the chamber has a lot to learn.
I note the minister does not propose, however, to lift Infrastructure Australia's funding at all—there is no suggestion of that—and yet they are going to replace the existing IA council with an IA board and bring it under the auspices of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. Bodies that exist under this act cost more to run. It places obligations on reporting and compliance that are currently done by the department. He does not actually understand that is the process. IA in terms of its financial operations operates with the department for reporting and compliance requirements. That reduces the cost. Yet Infrastructure Australia will be asked to do more with fewer resources.
On top of this, the minister in this legislation proposes sacking the entire Infrastructure Australia council and creating a new board structure to which new people will be appointed, one would assume political appointees. One would assume that that is why that is occurring. It is just like the creation of the new CEO position as opposed to the Infrastructure Australia Coordinator. One assumes it is an attempt to create a system whereby the minister will be able, in the time-honoured fashion of the coalition, to appoint political cronies.
It is appointed by the board.
Yes, but you appoint the board. The fact is that the only person with any political background on the Infrastructure Australia council is Mark Birrell, a former minister in the Kennett government who was appointed by the former Labor government cabinet on merit. That is why we did not have a situation whereby we engaged in the sort of interference that will occur under this system. We have seen these motives before.
As I explained earlier, the Prime Minister refuses to invest in urban passenger rail, preferring to invest exclusively in roads. But even his proposed investment in roads ignores the Infrastructure Australia process. He said that the East-West project had been through a recommendation by Infrastructure Australia. That is not the case. He said it repeatedly and it is simply not true that it was recommended and on the Infrastructure Australia priority list. The WestConnex project in Sydney also has potential but it is yet to have finalisation of its route and finalisation of any costings being done. That needs to be done before federal government money is confirmed. You need to have those processes. With regard to Adelaide's Darlington Interchange project, which was raised today, the coalition say they have got $500 million for that project. Well, where is the other $800-900 million that the project will cost coming from? With regard to the South Road upgrade, the Torrens to Torrens section has been recommended by Infrastructure Australia as the priority, an area in which preconstruction work has already commenced but will not be able to continue without federal government funding if it is withdrawn.
The fact is that this legislation is contemptuous of the evidence based approach of Infrastructure Australia. It is far more attuned to the electoral map than the national interest. If you are a nation builder, the only map you look at when thinking about infrastructure is the national map. The member for Gippsland would know full well that I as a minister dealt well with him. He was a good representative of his local community, and his claims were dealt with on their merits. If you have a look at where our road funding went, at the end of our government something like three-quarters of the funding that had been allocated had actually gone to coalition seats; three dollars in every four as the most conservative assessment that you could make. We made assessments based on the national interest. That has always been Labor's way, with the transnational railway, the Snowy Mountains Scheme, the NBN and national strategies for ports, shipping and aviation. You need to have an integrated approach, one that is blind to modes of infrastructure, one that puts efficiency first, one whose aim is productivity and jobs. The coalition has never understood this concept in the past, and this bill shows that nothing has changed. This bill is short-sighted and it will take this nation backwards. It would be more honest if they just abolished Infrastructure Australia and the whole process.
In joining this debate on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 I note the contribution by the people's choice for Leader of the Opposition, the member for Grayndler. He is right in what he said, on some occasions. It is a bit sad to see the member for Grayndler living in the past with almost a sense of denial that 7 September occurred. When I referred to the former minister being right, he did deal with me reasonably as the member for Gippsland when I came to him with issues relating to the Princes Highway and other infrastructure issues but he did always say no as well in relation to those issues. So it is not as though the former minister can claim any great credit for infrastructure development in Gippsland when the answer, although it was pleasantly given, was inevitably no when it came to extending the national network to include the Princes Highway east of Sale to the New South Wales border.
The former minister talked about the independent assessment process and keeping ministers out of evaluation for major infrastructure projects to avoid, as he described, rorting or inappropriate influence. But he conveniently overlooked his government's own record in its dying days in relation to the regional development association and the way it approved grants under Regional Development Australia for a sports complex on the outskirts of Melbourne, at Wyndham in the seat the former Prime Minister; for a swimming pool in Ringwood in the suburbs of Melbourne; and for the Penrith football club, again in the suburbs, this time in Sydney. There was a long list of projects approved by the former government under Regional Development Australia with no regional links whatsoever. So it is a bit rich for the former minister to come in here and make allegations and cast aspersions about a coalition government when his own government's record in relation to pork-barrelling and inappropriate use of regional funds had a long and chequered past.
The Australian people know that we have a big task to undertake here as the new government. They know that we are cleaning up the former government's mess, and they want us to get on with the job. So it is disappointing to listen to the former minister engaging in old battles dating back to the Howard era. He had to cast his mind right back—almost a decade—to find fault.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
My firecracker friend over here: just light the fuse and off she goes! It is almost like Groundhog Day—every time I stand up, I get the member for Perth!
The Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 will help to meet the government's election commitment to make Infrastructure Australia a more independent, transparent expert advisory body by changing its governance structure and better clarifying its functions. The policy embodied in this bill was taken by the coalition to the election, and the coalition was rewarded with the majority vote of the Australian people. I call on those opposite to, rather than be obstructionist and oppose for the sake of opposition, recognise that on issues such as infrastructure the Australian people have clearly spoken and given us a mandate to proceed in a responsible and moderate manner.
The new Prime Minister has clearly indicated that he wants to be seen as an infrastructure Prime Minister, and one of the steps in delivering on the coalition's infrastructure promises to the Australian people is this bill before the House today. The government understands that investment in nationally significant infrastructure is central to growing Australia's productivity and to improving the living standards of Australians—not only Australians in the cities but also Australians in regional communities—now and in the future. There is a long list of projects that this government has committed itself to building in our term and beyond, if we are so fortunate at future elections as to be given the opportunity by the Australian people to govern again.
We have already made some significant commitments to a number of vital infrastructure projects right across the country, starting with $6.7 billion for the Bruce Highway in Deputy Speaker Vasta's own state. I am sure that he would be well aware of the issues confronting the Bruce Highway. In fact, last year I drove the Bruce Highway in the company of several members from the Liberal-National Party and the now Deputy Prime Minister. We took a firsthand look from Brisbane to Cairns; we drove the whole road and had a look at the issues confronting communities up there, including the productivity, social and economic concerns which go with having a highway which is not up to standard. The new coalition government has undertaken to spend $6 billion on the Bruce Highway project alone.
There is $5.6 billion to finally finish the duplication of the Pacific Highway. I know, from campaigning during the election with candidates—at that stage they were candidates; they are now the new members—for Page and Lyne, and with the continuing member for Cowper, how important the Pacific Highway is to people in communities near the highway. There is a great need to improve the links between Sydney and the South-East Queensland growth corridor. There is also: $1.5 billion to WestConnex in Sydney; $1.5 billion to the East-West Link in Melbourne; another billion dollars to continue the Gateway Motorway upgrade in Brisbane; $615 million for the Swan Valley Bypass; $686 million to the Gateway WA project; $400 million for the Midland Highway in Tasmania; and $500 million for the north-south corridor in Adelaide. On top of all that, other funding has been committed to projects such as Roads to Recovery and the regional Bridges to Renewal program. These are areas where this government is committed to investing in the critical infrastructure which will really make a difference to people's lives and also make a difference to the economic productivity of the Australian nation. We are looking to create jobs for people right throughout Australia—not just in our cities but also throughout our regional communities.
We do intend that Infrastructure Australia will play a role in assisting all levels of government to plan for the longer term investment in infrastructure which will be required into the future. I take exception to the member for Grayndler's comments at the end of his contribution in which he suggested that it sounded as though we may as well abolish Infrastructure Australia. That is not the intent of the coalition. We believe that Infrastructure Australia has done some good work, and we want to strengthen its independence through improved processes and a more traditional, board-like structure. We believe that Infrastructure Australia will go on to deliver even better results for the Australian people.
In the five years since Infrastructure Australia was created it has become evident to members on this side of the chamber—and, clearly, others may have a different view—that the current structure does not provide the degree of independence and transparency needed to give the best advice to government about the infrastructure priorities which will reverse Australia's productivity slide. I am not one of those people who ever stand in this place and suggest that the former government, in which the member for Grayndler was a senior minister, did nothing. I would never stand in this place and suggest that, because I think members come to this place with the full intention of delivering for their communities: they want to make a difference. I believe that the member for Grayndler, when he was the minister for infrastructure and minister for transport undertook some good reforms and did strive to deliver for the Australian nation. But that does not mean that a new government cannot come to office and seek to make improvements. That is what the coalition is endeavouring to do with this legislation.
This bill will establish Infrastructure Australia as a separate statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act. The bill will give Infrastructure Australia the capacity to be more independent and to strengthen the work it does in partnership with the Commonwealth government, other levels of government and the broader Australian community. The bill will see the Infrastructure Australia authority as led by a CEO responsible to their board rather than, as in the current structure, responsible to the minister—which we believe is again a great improvement in the independence that Infrastructure Australia now has from the government.
There are things about infrastructure on which we agree with the opposition. We agree that there needs to be a more integrated and broader approach—a more holistic approach—to making sure that all the infrastructure fits together better, and I think that the member for Grayndler made that point well. The new government recognises that Australia needs improved long-term planning for infrastructure investment which is based on robust, evidentiary assessments of our future needs. To achieve this goal the government has tasked Infrastructure Australia with: undertaking new, five-yearly, evidence based audits of our infrastructure asset base; developing top-down priority lists at national and state levels; developing a 15-year infrastructure plan; evaluating both economic and social infrastructure proposals; and publishing the justification for prioritisation, including cost-benefit analysis.
I cannot go past the point made in the chamber by the Minister for Communications, who noted the failure of the previous government to undertake a proper cost-benefit analysis of the National Broadband Network. This coalition government, which does aim to invest heavily in the future infrastructure that Australia will require, is determined to deliver value for money to Australian taxpayers. We will be regularly publishing cost-benefit analyses, as the former Labor government failed to do.
From my perspective, in the seat of Gippsland you will not be surprised to hear there is a long list of infrastructure requirements that I will be aspiring to deliver over the course of this parliament and beyond. Every member comes to this place seeking to make a difference in their community and secure a fair share of government funding for critical infrastructure and new services. I will be working with the new minister, the assistant minister and other senior colleagues on a range of projects I will be hoping to fund in partnership with state and local governments.
These projects will be like the East Bairnsdale Enabling Infrastructure Improvement Project, to which the coalition committed $1 million during the election campaign. This is a very good flood mitigation project that seeks to resolve a complex drainage problem that exists in Bairnsdale's industrial precinct. For those not familiar with the Bairnsdale area, the project we are talking about is at the rear of Patties Foods, which bought Four'N Twenty pies. It is a business we are very proud of in Gippsland. It started out 45 years ago when the Rijs family, an immigrant family, came to Australia and started their own cake shop. Now, 45 years later, they are responsible for a business that turns over $250 million per year. That is an extraordinary success story.
We have a plan to work in partnership on the first stage of that project. The new federal government is putting in $1 million, the state government is making a major contribution and Patties Foods is also contributing to the project. This will assist future residential and industrial growth in the Bairnsdale area, but it will also benefit the Gippsland Lakes by reducing the nutrient run-off into our Ramsar listed wetlands, which are so important for the tourism industry in the greater Gippsland region.
In addition to that, during the election campaign the coalition, through Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, announced that we would partner with the Victorian state government on an $11 million safety upgrade on the Princes Highway East. This work will allow for the construction of three new overtaking lanes between Nowa Nowa and Orbost. These overtaking lanes will provide more opportunities for safer transport in our region. I mentioned previously that the Princes Highway, east of Sale, currently does not qualify for federal funding. It is one of those issues I have been working on with the former minister and with the current minister. In that the Princes Highway is recognised as a road on a national network, until Sale, it has been the beneficiary of $140 million of federal funding over the past five years and $35 million of state funding. But the highway from Sale all the way virtually to Sydney does not receive federal funding. I think this is a problem and I will be working with the new member for Eden-Monaro and other members who are interested in the road to try to improve safety. This may be through off-network projects in partnership with the Commonwealth, or seeing whether we can get the status of the road changed. It is an issue for us. The road has a high accident rate. Tragically, many fatalities occur on that stretch of road and there are also many accidents, where people are seriously injured. I will be working with the new minister, with the new member for Eden-Monaro and with the New South Wales and Victorian state ministers on efforts to upgrade the Princes Highway, not just to Sale but right through my electorate and all the way up the south-east coast of Australia, through the seat of Eden-Monaro.
I would like to mention one other infrastructure project that I am very keen to see progressed in this term of government. The Victorian coalition government is carrying out the first stage of the Macalister Irrigation District 2030 plan. This plan has been around for a long time. It is basically an attempt to modernise irrigation infrastructure that has been allowed, through decades, to deteriorate to the extent that it does not meet modern needs. These planned upgrades include channel automation projects, outlet rationalisation and construction of a balancing storage that will support the return of more than 12,000 megalitres of water a year to productive use.
For members who do not live in rural seats, talking about irrigation upgrades and 12,000 megalitres might not sound particularly important. But 12,000 megalitres per year means more wealth created in regional communities. It means greater productive capacity for the Macalister Irrigation District. It means that milk production can be boosted by in the order of 24 million litres per year. So it is a critical infrastructure project and one that the previous federal government failed to invest in in any way, shape or form. The previous state Labor government failed to invest in it. So I am very proud to see that the Victorian coalition government is going to start this project with $16 million over the first three years. It will be a challenge in the future for any Commonwealth government, whether it be a Labor or coalition government, to work with my community to invest in critical infrastructure like the Macalister Irrigation District 2030 plan.
I thank the House.
The rationale for the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 as outlined by the minister in his second reading speech is a fig leaf—a complete fiction. It is a fiction because, while pretending to strengthen the independence of Infrastructure Australia, the minister, through this bill, is in fact making Infrastructure Australia less independent. We know this because the bill repeals section 6(3) of the existing act to remove the provision that says:
Directions given by the Minister … must be of a general nature only.
In its place, the bill before the House sets out a whole host of ways that the minister can direct the work of Infrastructure Australia and intervene in the arm's length process that was fundamental to Labor's approach.
There can be no doubt that the establishment of Infrastructure Australia has been a resounding success. In the relatively short space of time it has been up and running Infrastructure Australia has successfully entrenched the idea of a more strategic approach to infrastructure investment in Australia. In fact, the model has been so successful it has been mimicked by state governments around the country. Infrastructure Australia has shown that the allocation of scarce government funding should be directed to projects in order of national and economic importance.
I want to pay tribute to the member for Grayndler in his role as the minister for infrastructure. He has a fine legacy. Indeed, a part of that legacy is the fact that he was the first infrastructure minister in any Commonwealth parliament, and the establishment of Infrastructure Australia is one of his great achievements and a great gift to the nation. While the idea of Infrastructure Australia is not new, it took a Labor government to properly resource and implement this all-encompassing and apolitical approach to infrastructure planning and funding. Infrastructure Australia established the need for objectivity and long-term planning into infrastructure funding. Through the establishment of Infrastructure Australia, Labor overhauled the way our nation plans, prioritises, finances, builds and uses infrastructure. With the establishment of IA, Labor took a nation-building approach to infrastructure and ended the National Party disgrace of pork-barrelling and buck-passing on to the states. Naturally, those opposite were suspicious of IA when it was set up—at the time, the now minister did not even see the need for such an organisation to exist. It is welcome that, despite the changes entailed in the legislation before the House, IA will remain and continue its important role.
It is a fact that the minister's powers to interfere have been expanded. The coalition wants to weaken the independence of Infrastructure Australia by increasing the power of the minister to interfere in IA's evaluation processes. The minister will acquire the new power to nominate pet projects for evaluation under section 5A of the bill. The minister will have the power to exclude classes of projects from IA's consideration—for example, public transport projects, which we have been advised by the Prime Minister are not a part of the coalition's knitting bag. The minister will have a new power to prevent the publication of project evaluations and any reasons for decisions and evidence relied upon. This reverses the current position where material is ordinarily released and relied upon by industry and investors to base important decisions on.
The bill will replace the current provision preventing the minister from giving directions other than of a very general nature only and enable the minister to give new directions, acquiring specific power to give directions in specific areas, including what projects may or may not be considered by Infrastructure Australia. The minister will also be able to direct the manner in which other functions are performed. It is also a fact that the legislation before the House will mean that the decisions of IA will be less transparent, because they will require permission from the minister to publish the material that it believes to be commercial in confidence.
My understanding is that nobody in the business community or elsewhere has said that the existing board of IA has done anything other than a first class job. On that basis, it is passing strange to those of us on this side of the House that one of the first acts of the new minister is to bring legislation before the House that sacks the board, creates a new board and enables the minister to appoint, presumably, people who are friendly to those on that side of the House to the new board. That ensures that the new board will not have the same arm's length independence that Infrastructure Australia has enjoyed until this point.
It is also of concern to those on this side of the House—and this is perhaps even more extraordinary when you listen to the direct action rhetoric of the Minister for the Environment and others—that one of the first acts of the new government is to remove the provision in the IA charter that requires it to consider the impact of climate change of infrastructure policy and infrastructure projects and their capacity to reduce carbon emissions and to create more environmentally efficient infrastructure. That strikes us on this side of the House as very strange indeed and a backward step.
It is also a fact that the new body will be less resourced while given more tasks. The minister has said that the changes will be achieved without extra funding. As we can expect that staff salaries will increase over time and the corporation will cost more to run, this will reduce resources available to IA to do its functions. The government is saying that IA will have to do more of its own research—despite the fact that it already does research—on and analysis of the proposals that are brought to IA by state governments. Far from doing more, it is quite likely that IA will only have the capacity to do much, much less.
Another one of the problems with the legislation is that it stalls projects that are currently under assessment. We know that there are a number of projects currently being assessed for tax concessions under the tax concession arrangements put in place by the Labor government. These will now be held up and rendered less certain as a result of ministerial intervention—this at a time when governments, businesses and constituents of members on all sides of the House are crying out for increased action when it comes to spending on infrastructure.
Greater intervention is being dressed up as stronger governance. The government is making much of the change in governance structure via placing IA at arm's length from the department under CAC Act. But as we have already seen, this is a fig leaf to ensure that Infrastructure Australia has less independence and the arm's length that currently exists is reduced significantly.
I want to make a few observations on the importance of this legislation and infrastructure in general. Labor had a distinct approach in government to the planning and the funding of infrastructure. Labor's approach was about nation building. It understood that state governments, local governments and the federal government had to work together on the basis of the best projects to ensure that we got the best outcomes for the nation. That is because nation-building infrastructure is a responsibility shared by all layers of government. It is a responsibility that each and every member in this place has an interest in, since it touches the lives of constituents, either when they get on their bus or train to get to work or when they get in their car to travel our highways and national roads. It touches them more indirectly through increased productivity in our freight, rail, ports and social infrastructure.
Labor did not expect that the new government would embrace this approach. But we are disappointed in the new approach of the government to reduce the independence of Infrastructure Australia. Labor's last budget saw an unprecedented nation-building program, one that is building the modern, well-planned infrastructure that makes working people's lives easier, our businesses more competitive and the Australian economy more productive. Under Labor, total public and private investment in the nation's roads, railways, electricity generators and water storage facilities was 40 per cent higher in real terms than it was during the last full year of the former coalition government. We were working together with the private sector to encourage and to encourage investment in critical infrastructure. That is the benchmark to which this side will be holding the Abbott coalition government when it comes to his promise to be an 'infrastructure Prime Minister'.
In government Labor doubled the federal infrastructure spending from $141 per capita to $269 per capita, and that is a legacy that we are very proud of. We did this with the large-scale road, rail and public transport projects initiated by Infrastructure Australia and expected to generate long-term economic, social and environmental benefits worth almost three times more than what they cost to build.
Australia has an enormous infrastructure challenge ahead of it. We live in the highly competitive, globalised world of the 21st century. The quality of our infrastructure will drive productivity and will quite literally drive our capacity to continue to be a wealthy and lucky country into the future.
Since its inception Infrastructure Australia has served the Australian people well. Its arms-length approach to Australian infrastructure projects, putting economic productivity as the central criterion, has seen 55 per cent of Infrastructure Australia nation-building money going to urban rail on the basis of merit. It is on this basis that we are very concerned about some of the early decisions of the Abbott government. As I have said, they simply do not see urban rail as part of their knitting bag.
In government Labor strongly backed vital urban transport projects, including the Commonwealth's single-largest investment in urban rail, the Regional Rail Link in Melbourne. Disappointingly, since the election of the Abbott government, Commonwealth funding has been withdrawn from a number of important projects that were in the last federal budget, including Brisbane's critical Cross River Rail project, a tunnel under the Brisbane River that will deliver capacity for 17,000 additional passengers during peak times—needed because the existing rail bridge over the Brisbane River is about to run out of capacity. If Brisbane is to grow, Deputy Speaker Vasta—and I know this is a matter of direct concern to you—this is a critical piece of national infrastructure.
I also point to the Melbourne Metro, which Infrastructure Australia has reported could increase—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene by asking the member a question as to whether he is aware that the regional rail link in Melbourne is being funded—
I will ask the shadow parliamentary secretary: are you willing to give way?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would yield but they never ask the right question. On that basis I will continue. The Melbourne Metro project, which Infrastructure Australia has reported could increase passenger capacity on Melbourne's urban rail network by 30 per cent, has had its funding withdrawn.
Then there is the Perth Airport link. I see the member for Perth in the chamber at the moment. I have seen her speak quite passionately about this issue. She is a passionate advocate for infrastructure in her electorate and has a long history in urban rail and transport in her former role in the Western Australian state parliament. Then we look to the upgrade of Adelaide's Tonsley Park rail line, another project the government has withdrawn funding from. Prime Minister Abbott is on the record as having said:
We have no history of funding urban rail and I think it's important that we stick to our knitting, and the Commonwealth's knitting when it comes to funding infrastructure is roads.
We on this side of the House disagree with that. We on this side of the House understand that urban public transport infrastructure has to be integrated, and when you put more cars on roads that has a flow-on effect on congestion. We understand that we need an integrated plan for our urban public transport and that the Commonwealth has to work with state and local governments to ensure that our cities are fit-for-purpose when it comes to meeting the infrastructure challenges now and into the future.
We have seen some disappointing starts with the Abbott government when it comes to infrastructure planning and infrastructure funding. It is on this basis that Labor will be opposing the proposition before the House. We think it is a fig leaf; it is unnecessary and it reduces the independence of IA. (Time expired)
I call the member for Brisbane.
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome seeing you in the chair and I congratulate you on your role. The Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 will implement the government's 2013 election commitment to strengthen the role of Infrastructure Australia as an independent, transparent and expert advisory body. The bill will re-establish Infrastructure Australia as a separate entity under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 and will provide for an independent governing entity that is both legally and financially separate from the Commonwealth. The bill will more clearly define the functions of Infrastructure Australia. It will enable Infrastructure Australia to demonstrate transparency and rigour in its prioritisation of projects, and in its advice on policy reforms, while facilitating a level of independence from governments.
The government understands that investment is of national importance, with particular significance in infrastructure, and is central to growing Australia's productivity and improving the living standards of Australians now and into the future. That is why as a government we have committed ourselves to building the infrastructure of the 21st century. We have already made significant commitments to a number of vital infrastructure projects across the country, including $6.6 billion to the Bruce Highway, $5.6 billion to finally finish the duplication of the Pacific Highway, $1.5 billion to WestConnex in Sydney, $1.5 billion to East-West Link in Melbourne, $1 billion to continue the Gateway Motorway upgrade in Brisbane, $615 million to the Swan Valley bypass, $686 million for the Gateway WA project, $400 million to the Midland Highway in Tasmania and $500 million to the north-south corridor in Adelaide.
But it is clear that the task does not end there, and we intend Infrastructure Australia to play a very important role in assisting government at all levels to plan for longer-term investment in infrastructure that will be required well into the future. In the five years since Infrastructure Australia was created it has become evident that the current structure of Infrastructure Australia does not provide the degree of independence and transparency needed to give the best advice to government about the infrastructure priorities that will reverse Australia's productivity slide.
As I was preparing for this speech I noted an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Adele Ferguson on 12 March 2013. In the article she said:
It is a sad indictment on a government that returned to power in 2007 promising to rebuild the nation and lift productivity using infrastructure as the centrepiece.
To this end it gave the country its first infrastructure minister and set up an independent advisory body, Infrastructure Australia (IA). IA was designed to eliminate pork barrelling by creating a priority list of infrastructure projects based on a cost-benefit analysis and advising on major policy reforms - including how to make public private partnerships (PPPs) work and rational tolling.
Fast forward to today—
That is 12 March—
and outside of the NBN - which has its own set of controversies - the government's grand plan for infrastructure is in tatters and sound policy and decision-making have been hijacked by real politics.
A previous speaker spoke of pork barrelling. Well, if there were ever any examples of pork barrelling, they were while those opposite were in government. They stripped money in the first instance. It says in the article that '$3.6 billion was outlaid in the last federal budget'—and here we are talking about the budget before 12 March—'compared with $7.69 billion in the previous year'. I remember quite well the promise 10 days out from that election that $2 billion would be committed to the Parramatta-Epping Rail Link in Sydney. Well, the rail link did not even qualify for Infrastructure Australia. And talk about pork barrelling: I think it is very rich for those on the opposite side to be talking about pork barrelling.
But it was an absolute, utter failure, and that is why this bill has to be introduced. The Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 will strengthen Infrastructure Australia by restructuring its governance. It will clarify the scope of its responsibility and entrench its role as a key advisor to government. This bill is also very welcomed by industry, and in particular I refer to the support of the bill from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland, which is headquartered in my own electorate of Brisbane. The CCIQ is very supportive of the proposed amendments contained in the bill and believes that Infrastructure Australia ought to play a stronger role in setting infrastructure priorities nationally and in Queensland. The amendments included in the bill work to further Infrastructure Australia's role as key advisor to government on current and future infrastructure needs; mechanisms for financing investments; and policy, pricing and regulation impacts on investment. Queensland will reap the benefits of greater participation between Infrastructure Australia and state governments when setting infrastructure priorities, thus delivering better outcomes for the small and medium business community in Queensland that rely on ongoing priority investment in local infrastructure.
The bill will give Infrastructure Australia greater agency and clear mandates to advise the federal government on every social and economic infrastructure project undertaken nationally. And Queensland will reap the benefits of greater participation between Infrastructure Australia and state governments when setting infrastructure priorities, thus delivering better outcomes for small and medium businesses in Queensland that rely on ongoing priority investment in local infrastructure. More importantly, the CCIQ believes that the proposed amendments will reorientate Infrastructure Australia's role towards a focus on improving productivity through infrastructure investment—a much needed measure to encourage a reversal of diminishing productivity predictions nationally.
A key aspect of this bill is increased independence. The bill will establish Infrastructure Australia as a separate statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, and for the first time Infrastructure Australia will be both a legally and a financially separate entity from the Commonwealth. The bill will also see Infrastructure Australia led by a CEO responsible to their board, rather than responsible to the minister as in the current structure—a great improvement to their level of independence from the government.
There will be increased transparency. The government recognises that Australia needs improved long-term planning for infrastructure investment that is based on robust and evidence-based assessments of future needs. To this end, we are going to be focusing on long-term planning based on robust, evidence-based findings through a greater understanding of the critical issues facing Australia's infrastructure and land transport systems. To achieve this goal, the government has tasked Infrastructure Australia with undertaking new five-yearly evidence-based audits of our infrastructure assets base; developing top-down priority lists at both a national and a state level; developing a 15-year infrastructure plan; and evaluating both economic and social infrastructure proposals and publishing the justification for prioritisation, including cost-benefit analyses—that is something new! This will be for projects worth over $100 million seeking Commonwealth funding, excluding defence projects. It will regularly publish cost-benefit analyses. That is one thing Labor repeatedly promised to do when they were in government, but they failed to deliver this in any meaningful way. Together these measures will enhance Infrastructure Australia's ability to provide the best possible advice to the government on infrastructure matters.
Prior to the most recent election, the coalition announced a number of policy reforms to better deliver infrastructure investment in the short to medium term. The reforms to Infrastructure Australia contained in this bill are part of a suite of reforms that were clearly articulated as part of the 2013 election commitments in our policy to deliver the infrastructure for the 21st century. The basis for these changes was Infrastructure Australia's current governance structure, which inhibits its independence in its advice to government. The direct line of reporting between the Infrastructure Coordinator and the minister places significant power in the position of Infrastructure Coordinator, rather than the infrastructure council. Under Labor, Infrastructure Australia has not been successful in fundamentally changing the way projects are identified as national priorities. In particular, while it has delivered priority project lists, projects are derived from state and territory government project proposals and the prioritisation is based on the extent to which the project business case is advanced, rather than the extent to which the project will contribute to improved national productivity.
The government is committed to delivering on a broad infrastructure reform agenda aimed at improving productivity and driving economic growth. These reforms will be critical to delivering this agenda. Labor's failure to properly manage infrastructure development and investment in this country led Prime Minister Abbott to promise the Australian people to be an 'infrastructure prime minister'. In particular, the coalition will build more modern infrastructure to boost productivity.
As I stated earlier, the eastern states are very big infrastructure winners from the coalition's election victory, with over $17 billion in funding committed for road projects in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and Northern Territory also received significant funding commitments. The coalition has also committed funds to significant freight rail projects and promised further measures to facilitate infrastructure project investment and delivery. The Abbott government has made strong funding commitments to road and freight rail projects. This bill delivers policy changes to facilitate investment and the delivery of major infrastructure projects. This significant pipeline of projects will be welcomed by the building and construction sectors and is likely to deliver productivity dividends in future years.
The coalition's total infrastructure package at the election was more than $20 billion. The Abbott government's agenda includes over $20 billion in new or upgraded infrastructure projects, including an investment of almost $5 billion of additional funding over the forward estimates period. Recently the state treasurers and the federal Treasurer agreed to commence work on new incentives for building Australia's economic infrastructure, for the way that will be funded and for the way we will increase the private sector's involvement. This group will reconvene early in 2014 to continue these discussions. In order to leverage greater private sector investment in infrastructure, the government has also committed to a Productivity Commission inquiry into infrastructure funding and financing arrangements; examining an infrastructure bond scheme; and considering alternative financing arrangements, in conjunction with traditional grant funding, where the Australian government can leverage greater private sector investment in infrastructure. In order to ensure rigorous planning and advice to governments on infrastructure projects, the government has committed to strengthening the role of Infrastructure Australia. The government is also continuing to deliver the Roads to Recovery and Black Spot local road programs, directly assisting councils to improve their local road networks.
A bill of this kind is long overdue to facilitate the kind of infrastructure investment and development that this country so sorely needs after years of Labor's neglect and incompetence. The bill delivers on a promise that the coalition made to the Australian people at the election, and here we are, delivering once again. I commend the bill to the House.
This legislation totally fails to deliver on the coalition's pre-election promise to 'ensure better infrastructure planning, more rigorous and transparent assessments of taxpayer-funded projects'. The Liberal government has inexplicably and disgracefully ruled out funding for urban public transport projects such as the Melbourne Metro Rail Capacity Project, Brisbane Cross City Rail, Perth light rail and airport link and the Tonsley Park rail upgrade in Adelaide. The changes before the House will allow public transport to be excluded with the stroke of the minister's pen. These changes will harm business confidence, drag down productivity benefits and reinstate a process where taxpayers' money is wasted on lesser priority projects. It facilitates closed-door deal making and tax break deals that weaken confidence in merit assessment.
Labor has a strong record on infrastructure funding. On any objective measure, the far-reaching reforms we implemented and the unprecedented capital works program we initiated did make a real and substantial difference. Australia went to second place on the international league table which ranks OECD countries by the scale of the investment they are making in their fixed capital. When we left office, our nation was investing more than any other major advanced economy with the exception of South Korea. Total annual investment in our nation's roads, ports, railways, energy generators, water supply facilities and telecommunication networks hit a record $58.5 billion in 2011-12, equivalent to four per cent of GDP—the biggest share of national income since at least 1986-87. Annual infrastructure spending by the public sector alone was greater than two per cent of GDP for the first time in a quarter of a century—that is, since the last time there was a Labor government in Canberra. But this bill returns us to the bad old days of political, rather than merits based, decision making about infrastructure, and the days of the regional rorts that marred the Howard government.
If we were serious about merit based infrastructure planning then the East West Link—the freeway through Royal Park in Melbourne—would not proceed. Concern with the lack of due diligence behind the decision to proceed with the Royal Park freeway is growing. This is because it is acknowledged in the transport industry that adding road capacity through the freeway will bring in more vehicles more quickly and actually worsen congestion on Hoddle Street, Flemington Road, the Tullamarine Freeway and other roads that are currently at capacity. Industry assessments are that the freeway will not fix congestion because, as the 2008 Eddington report identified, less than 20 per cent of all vehicles travel through from the east to the west, while 80 per cent of all vehicles exit to inner Melbourne areas to access jobs and services. They will continue to do so, despite the Royal Park freeway and, with more vehicles reaching exits more quickly, congestion will in fact be worse.
There is no strategic justification for the project. There is nothing to allay concerns relating to the 2008 Eddington report's identification of a negative cost-benefit ratio for the project, with 50 cents lost on every dollar spent. The east-west road link, on this basis, would fail the critical productivity test and would actually be negative for state product and GDP. When a poor public project is selected, the community loses twice: first, because scarce capital is misapplied, and, second, because taxes and funds raised to finance that project distort behaviour in ways which have a significant cost. Further, the use of scarce capital for the Royal Park freeway will crowd out other worthwhile projects. As The Age commentator Kenneth Davidson has accurately pointed out in relation to this project:
It will cripple the state's fiscal position for many years through massive payments to the public-private partnership consortium that will finance it.
The financial burden on the Victorian taxpayer will be so big that it will 'crowd out' the state's core responsibilities for funding schools, hospitals, rail transport and even other roads for at least a generation.
We need to remember that the Eddington report identified that, for every dollar invested in the project, Victoria will see a return of only 50 cents.
Tolls on the planned freeway would have to be three times the current cost of an average trip on CityLink for the project's investors to make a profit, according to an international study led by University College London, which analysed numerous transport mega-projects, including Australian road and rail projects. It found that, for investors to get a return on the freeway, motorists would have to be charged a minimum $10.50 to use it. The authors of the study stated
At a projected construction cost of just under three times the cost of CityLink, the tolls for the tunnel will need to be at least three times the cost of an average trip on CityLink if investors are to make a similar return.
And:
Experience in Sydney has shown that motorists unfamiliar with paying tolls, such as those along the Eastern Freeway, will resist tolls this high and seek alternate routes.
This would be prohibitive for motorists and demonstrates just how unrealistic this project is. It is a white elephant. The study's authors predict that the probability that many motorists would baulk at such a steep toll and take other roads instead, such as Hoddle Street, will put pressure on the government to toll the Eastern Freeway.
I agree with Kenneth Davidson when he says:
The contempt shown at every step of the way for due process suggests that the financial establishment which benefits from these projects - and the politicians who serve those interests - are well aware that these breathtaking examples of sophisticated financial engineering can't stand the light of day.
This extends to the Federal Liberal government, which has promised $1.5 billion for the project despite the absence of a business case. Infrastructure Australia confirmed recently in Senate estimates that the Victorian government is yet to provide its full business case for the east-west road link despite the Commonwealth government's funding commitment. It also confirmed that the new government had not asked it for advice on the east-west link. The Victorian and federal governments want to proceed with the Royal Park freeway without any proper public scrutiny. So much for transparency! It is extraordinary that the government's key infrastructure advisor has yet to see the full business case for this project, which begs the question: is the government keeping the business case secret because the economics of the project are seriously flawed? I believe that it is.
The freeway would be delivered as a public-private partnership availability model. This means a third party would build and manage the toll road, but toll revenue risk would be borne by the state government. This means that, if the road fails to meet optimistic traffic projections, my fellow Victorians will foot the bill. In recent years, a number of high-profile PPP projects have generated large financial losses. These include $800 million on Sydney's railway AirportLink, $100 million on the Brisbane Airtrain, $1 billion on the Lane Cove tunnel, $300 million on the Sydney cross-city tunnels and an estimated $770 million on Melbourne's EastLink. How can the government legitimately withhold the business case from the public when the public bears a significant financial risk? The east-west link demonstrates a fundamental problem of transparency and accountability in public-private partnerships.
The Age reporter Josh Gordon has revealed astonishing research prepared for the Linking Melbourne Authority which shows thousands of motorists will experience more congestion, not less, with this freeway. Traffic at the top of Hoddle Street near the Eastern Freeway, already chock-a-block, will rise by up to 35 per cent during the morning peak by 2021 due to this project. Morning peak traffic on Manningham Road in Bulleen is tipped to increase by a quarter by 2021. Morning peak traffic on Earl Street, Kew, is expected to surge by up to 40 per cent once the freeway is completed. It is bizarre—billions of dollars spent to achieve more congestion.
The money for the Royal Park freeway would be better spent on improving public transport infrastructure, frequency and reliability. This money should go towards building a railway line to Doncaster along the Eastern Freeway, building a rail link to Monash University and extending the Epping rail line. The east-west link ranks behind other planned transport projects, including the Melbourne metro rail tunnel, which has been assessed by Infrastructure Australia as economically beneficial and ready to proceed. In fact, the Melbourne metro rail project received $40 million federally on the recommendation of Infrastructure Australia that it was in the highest priority category. This project has been assessed as being able to add travel capacity equivalent to 100 lanes of freeway. The expert and independent adviser rejected the Royal Park freeway on economic grounds and has recommended that $3 billion be made available to begin building the metro rail tunnel. The Victorian government and the Commonwealth government should act on this advice.
The Doncaster rail project would carry an estimated 100,000 passengers per day and take 800 cars per train off congested roads. This equates to each train removing a 3.7-kilometre lane of traffic. Doncaster rail could be built at a fraction of the cost of the tunnel. The project, carrying 100,000 passengers per day, would not only enable a 20-minute journey to the CBD but would substantially ease vehicle congestion on the Eastern Freeway, Hoddle Street and other arterials north and east of the CBD. I commend the work of the Metropolitan Transport Forum and Yarra Councillor Jackie Fristacky, who have put forward useful ideas for public transport infrastructure in Melbourne.
Apart from Doncaster and the metro rail, other needed projects which could be funded in lieu are Rowville, Mernda and airport rail lines; the Dandenong rail corridor upgrade; removal of at least 20 key level crossings; and system-wide signal upgrades to increase capacity on all rail lines. The decision to proceed with a freeway through Royal Park instead of investing in vital public transport is a critical issue for Melbourne, where rail services nowadays effectively reach only 30 per cent of Melbourne's population.
Another freeway will create more carbon pollution, increase traffic congestion, and destroy local amenity for the communities that will be affected by the tunnel's construction. Community opposition to the freeway reflects concerns around the demolition of homes, the impact on Melbourne Zoo, reduction in parkland, the cost of tolls and the increases in traffic congestion along adjacent roads. Melbourne Zoo is seeking assurances that the east-west link tunnel construction will not have an impact on the animals. The western entrance of the tunnel will be just a few hundred metres from the zoo. Concerns centre on ground vibrations and loud noises during the project's construction. University of Melbourne zoology professor Mark Elgar has said that vibrations and noise from drilling work could increase the stress levels of zoo animals. Melbourne Zoo director Kevin Tanner has said that the zoo has been in contact with zoos around the world to see how they have been affected by similar projects.
One of the greatest challenges facing the 21st century is the challenge of climate change. We cannot tackle climate change by building more roads. By all means, let us build transport infrastructure—let us be a nation of builders—but let it be public transport infrastructure. We cannot build our way out of congestion. We have been trying it for years and it does not work.
For years we have been told that one more freeway would solve Melbourne's traffic congestion problems. I used to believe that—I supported CityLink, I supported EastLink, I supported the metropolitan ring road and I supported the Craigieburn Bypass—but it never works. Many studies around the world have shown, freeways generate new traffic and new trips, so it would be better to put public money into public transport. This will do more to help traffic congestion, more to contain carbon emissions, and more to help people who do not drive cars—for example, younger people, older people and people with disabilities.
The changes the coalition is seeking today will reduce transparency and allow a return to the days when a minister can skew process towards pet projects that have less merit, over more important projects that deliver real productivity gains. I strongly support the remarks of the shadow minister in expressing his opposition, and Labor's opposition, to this legislation.
I rise to speak today on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013. Quite contrary to the contribution from the member for Wills, which we have just heard, and unlike those opposite in the previous government, the current government is focused on trying to improve transparency and accountability in terms of how we spend scarce taxpayer dollars. The entire purpose of this bill is to seek to establish Infrastructure Australia as the advisory body to governments, investors and infrastructure owners on a wide range of issues. These include, but are not limited to, Australia's current and future infrastructure needs; the mechanisms for financing infrastructure investments; policy, pricing and regulation, and their impacts on investment; and the efficiency of the delivery, operation and use of national infrastructure networks. The bill seeks to strengthen the role of Infrastructure Australia as an independent, transparent and expert advisory body through a change in its governance structure and through better clarification of its functions.
The bill will re-establish Infrastructure Australia as a separate entity under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, and will provide for an independent governing entity that is both legally and financially separate from the Commonwealth. The bill will more clearly define the functions of Infrastructure Australia. A better definition of Infrastructure Australia's functions and deliverables will assist in improving infrastructure planning and prioritisation on a national basis, thereby providing a more transparent, robust, evidence based approach to allocating scarce public funds to projects with the highest yield in productivity returns. This is important because we regularly hear, in this place, discussions about productivity. The ease and capacity of people to travel to and from work, or for transport companies to move freight around our cities or across the country, is vitally important. That is one of the key productivity drivers to our economy.
Infrastructure is only useful for productivity gains once it is completed. So it is important that infrastructure is completed in a timely and cost-effective manner that is affordable to federal, state and local budgets, so that those productivity gains can be realised sooner rather than later.
The Deputy Prime Minister, in his second reading speech, outlined the actions to fast track delivery of the iconic inland rail project—a project for inland rail from Melbourne to Brisbane to create another freight route to take truck traffic off our highways and to provide rail connectivity through some of our most productive agricultural regions. This rail line will link into Sydney as well as into other key towns along the way. In my discussions with a number of logistics providers I found that they are looking forward to these nation-building infrastructure projects to improve the transport and cost efficiency of our freight networks around the country.
A high-level implementation group will be chaired by the Hon. John Anderson, former Australian minister for transport and former Deputy Prime Minister. The implementation group will report directly to the Deputy Prime Minister and its first priority will be to settle on an alignment and to reserve land for the route. The group will examine financing options and engage with the private sector and those with significant interests in and benefits from construction. As I said, I have already spoken with a number of transport and logistics groups in my electorate of Forde about the capacity to use this freight line to improve the delivery of freight both into and out of some of our major industrial areas.
The coalition will work with state governments on this particular project, but we will work with state governments on other projects. During the election campaign, we announced some $6.7 billion to commence works on upgrading the Bruce Highway in the state of Queensland and another $1 billion to continue the Gateway Motorway upgrade on the northern side of Brisbane. I know, having travelled that part of the Gateway to visit my father-in-law, that you want to pick the right time of day to use it, otherwise you will be sitting in traffic for a significant period of time. There are many other infrastructure projects around the country which are designed to help local communities benefit from this forward planning—because we are going to be a government that builds things and focuses on the infrastructure that allows us to grow and develop the productive capacity of this country.
There are some local issues in the electorate of Forde around infrastructure that I would also like to take this opportunity to touch on. There are infrastructure projects such as the M1 from Loganholme to Daisy Hill. This was first looked at under the Howard government and there was a commitment from the former Howard government of some $500 million per annum over a 10-year period to complete this piece of infrastructure. Over the last six years we did not see any funding from the previous Labor government and, due to the budget conditions that we have inherited as a government, we have not been able to allocate the funding at this point in time, but I will continue to speak with my colleagues and the Deputy Prime Minister about how we can look at starting to fund this key infrastructure project. As a result of the community being ignored by the previous Labor government, this is now a significant bottleneck during peak hours, both in the morning and in the afternoon.
We also need to plan for the future public transport needs of the residents of the western part of Forde. We already have a rail line there, the interstate rail line. During the previous term of government I invited the now Deputy Prime Minister to visit the western part of the electorate to look at how we can utilise the rail corridor that already exists and expand it to carry a passenger service that will cater for the rapidly expanding residential estates, not only within the Forde electorate but also in the neighbouring electorate of Wright—namely, the estates of Yarrabilba and Flagstone, which over the next 30 years expect to have approximately another 200,000 people living in them, with a very significant lack of public transport infrastructure to support such a large growth in population.
Infrastructure Australia does a tremendous job when it works with the government to develop Australia's infrastructure requirements. This bill is a reflection of this government's desire to continue to give official bodies the capacity to provide sound advice to government better and more efficiently, in the context of our overall objective to reduce red tape and regulation and to make sure that we use taxpayers' funds wisely. One issue that has led to this, in our view, is that the current governance structure of Infrastructure Australia inhibits its independence. We want it to be a robust, independent organisation that can provide us good, sound, quality advice so the decisions we make on how we spend taxpayers' dollars are well considered and thought through. The direct line of reporting between the Infrastructure Coordinator and the minister places significant power in the position of the Infrastructure Coordinator rather than the infrastructure council.
Infrastructure Australia has not been successful in fundamentally changing the way projects are identified as national priorities. In particular, whilst it delivers priority project lists, the projects are derived from state and territory government project proposals and the prioritisation is based on the extent to which the project business case is advanced, rather than the extent to which projects will contribute to improved national productivity.
The government are committed to delivering on a broad infrastructure reform agenda, improving productivity and driving economic growth. We believe these reforms will be critical to delivering this agenda. The government in this space will seek ensure a seamless transition to the new independent governing entity through the amendment in the bill. We will ensure that the new board, the chief executive, the staff and the relevant financial appropriations are in place to commence the new body. The current structure of Infrastructure Australia, as I said at the outset, does not provide the flexibility that is required to achieve these outcomes.
What we seek to achieve with Infrastructure Australia is a broadening of their skills, so they can undertake new five-yearly evidence based audits of our infrastructure asset base; develop those top-down priority lists at national and state levels; develop a 15-year infrastructure plan, which gives us some vision and direction for the future; evaluate both economic and social infrastructure proposals; and publish the justification for prioritisation, including a cost-benefit analysis. This will be for projects worth over $100 million seeking Commonwealth funding, excluding defence projects. Regularly publishing a cost-benefit analysis is one thing that Labor has consistently failed to do in any meaningful way across any number of projects, whether it be the NBN, pink batts—all manner of areas.
In closing, together these measures will enhance Infrastructure Australia's ability to provide the best possible advice to government on infrastructure matters. This will allow us as a government to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely on projects that are going to aid economic growth, improve productivity and the future wealth of this country.
Listening to the debate today on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 and reading the second reading speech of the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development has been very interesting. You see quite a Stalinist or totalitarian use of language where you actually use words that mean the direct opposite of what you are saying. We are talking here about Infrastructure Australia, a very admirable institution, set up under the Labor government, an institution that, apparently, 'We are going to make more transparent.' How are we going to make it more transparent? By stopping any independence on that body in terms of the publication of their reports or assessments of infrastructure.
At the very heart of this notion of Infrastructure Australia was the idea that we would get a group of people—and we got very senior people from business, academia, even persons from the blue team—with political experience to sit on this body and to provide fearless and sound assessments of the various infrastructure projects that the government had to prioritise. A key part of that process was the publication of their assessments. We are now going to change that so that the minister actually controls whether or not those assessments are indeed published.
The fundamental driver of this legislation, which is the independent publication of these reports, has now been changed. So rather than getting greater transparency, a very great part of this legislation is in fact designed to subtly reduce that transparency and independence. I think it will impact on our ability to get people of the same quality whom we have had in the past on that body. That ability to be independent and to be sure that the work and effort you put into that task would, at least, be rewarded by a frank publication of your assessment has now been undermined by these changes. You cannot blame us for being somewhat cynical, when those of us who have lived through the Howard years saw that then ministers for transport were, almost invariably, wheat farmers—not that I have got anything against wheat farmers, but that should not be the only occupational qualification required to be a coalition transport minister.
Under that administration we had what was officially called 'Roads of National Importance' but of course we knew that they were not RONIs; they were RONPIs, 'Roads of National Party Importance.' I find it extraordinary that we talk about pork-barrelling under Labor, when we had, as I said, these 'Roads of National Party Importance.' They probably did not go to the lengths that their state equivalents did. For example, when a National Party transport minister came into office and found that Main Roads was just about to publish a journal listing and prioritising all the roads in the area where he lived and that the road that he wanted to go to his farm was not included, he then had all the documents shredded in secret—fortunately, some good person reserved one document, which made its way into my hands—and reissued that with a total reprioritisation which, surprise, surprise, turned the road past his farm from being a very low priority to being a very high priority! I do think members opposite should be a bit understanding of our cynicism.
Interestingly, we are now going to be engaging in infrastructure development that is related to productivity. Can I tell you about some of the difficulties I had as a state transport minister in trying to get the Howard government and the wheat farmers interested in the roads into the Pilbara? They produced a national transport plan which, as I have said in this House before, had one road west and one road north. It did not include those major centres of national production—that is, Karratha and Port Hedland. Indeed, we struggled. Time and time again, we approached them and said: 'We need money to duplicate the Dampier highway into Karratha; we need money to totally revise the road network into Port Hedland.' Notwithstanding the fact that they are probably the biggest generators of export income in this nation, those roads could not compete with the roads you need to get to the wheat farms to get funding.
As I have said before in this place, it was Martin Ferguson as the then shadow minister who made the commitment that, if Labor were elected federally in 2007, the federal government would contribute to the development of those roads. It was the right and proper thing to do. I am very pleased to say that the member for Grayndler was the one who delivered on that promise. It was not hard to get productivity on a heavy-haulage road into Port Hedland and a heavy-haulage road into Karratha.
I have noticed a theme coming from a number of members—and I have noticed that people do not listen to each other's speeches, generally. The implication is that they are justifying this bizarre decision to think strategically and holistically, but somehow or other we are not going to think about passenger rail when we are thinking holistically or strategically about the city. They seem to be implying: 'That's because we're talking about productivity.' As I have said here before, you cannot talk about productivity in Australia without talking about productivity in our cities. Eighty per cent of our GDP is developed and produced in our cities. The ability for those cities to deliver that productivity is underpinned by the need for mobility. It is a great tragedy that time and time again we see the Liberal Party surrender the Transport portfolio to the National Party, where the focus is very much on freight roads and rural roads to the exclusion of the city, but there is no desire or belief that there should in fact be an urban policy. Eighty per cent of Australians live in large cities of more than 100,000. In Western Australia—
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to raise the question of the federal government's wonderful investment in the Regional Rail Link. I seek to intervene to ask that particular question.
Does the member for Perth accept the intervention?
Absolutely not. She can try by way of interjection, but—
Ms Henderson interjecting—
Do not worry. Next time around, I will be asking you every five minutes. Next time you get up to speak, you will be getting a little bit of your own medicine. I am quite happy for you to interject but not trying to—
Member for Perth, the member for Corangamite was simply asking for an intervention, which is part of the new process introduced into this House, so please do not take that personally.
No, I will not, but I certainly will reciprocate the favour. This is not something that I have invented. The government have said time and time again that they are not interested and they are not prepared to develop an urban policy, because that is something that they leave to the state governments. I do not quite understand how we are going to have all of this holistic and strategic thinking that we have been talking about if we are going to put our blinkers on and not talk about urban policy.
The member for Wills was previously talking about the Doncaster rail project. That is an absolutely magnificent project. It is a real tragedy that it is not one of the highest priorities for Victoria. I have had the pleasure of being invited by the Public Transport Users Association in Melbourne and working with Jackie Fristacky and others in the city of Yarra, using classic examples from Western Australia as to how you can deliver a railway line down the centre of a freeway, achieve great productivity for your community and get tremendous results. It is a very good way of ensuring that you can deliver a modern public transport network in built-up areas. This is precisely what we need in Perth. We need further investment in rail. We particularly need a rail link to the airport. We have one of the highest rates of movements in and out of our airport because of our fly-in fly-out activity. Unless we have further investment in public transport, we are simply not going to be able to keep that great productivity growth that is happening in Perth.
I want to use this opportunity to raise a major infrastructure project that has been sabotaged by the state government in Western Australia. It would have been funded by Infrastructure Australia had it not been for the sheer wickedness of Premier Colin Barnett. That project is the Pilbara integrated power solution. We have a situation in the Pilbara where we are struggling to provide the power infrastructure to fuel our industry. Even the most conservative entities such as the Department of Planning talk about how the Pilbara economy cannot expand without additional power generation being installed. We have Regional Development Australia saying that an immediate additional source of at least 100 megawatts is needed to meet short-term demand. Medium-term demand must be in the order of 350 megawatts with at least a million dollars worth of investment. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy is telling us that we need $4 billion worth of investment. But what we have continued to allow in the Pilbara is a group of independent warlords setting up their own little power stations, with no linkage of the network. As a result we have high-cost and substandard provision of infrastructure that is simply not going to cope with the future.
We had a report by SKM just last year that tells us that if we made that investment—if we were prepared to put in what in 2008 would have been $1.1 billion—we would actually get a saving over the next 20 years of $3.8 billion by building that integrated grid. So great are the power savings that we would get by putting all of those different power stations on the grid and allowing large-scale renewables to hang off them that the total benefit would be $3.8 billion, plus we would have a system of immensely greater resilience, much more resistant to the problems that are created by cyclonic behaviour and increasing cyclonic activity in that area.
But unfortunately the No. 1 submission to Infrastructure Australia in mid-2008 was withdrawn. The first thing the Premier did when he became Premier in 2008 was to withdraw that project because he wanted Oakajee—which of course has gone absolutely nowhere. He wanted to withdraw this. He wanted to manipulate the federal government into a position where they had to fund Oakajee. It is an absolute disgrace, and we have seen it. I want to work over the next three years to make sure that this project— (Time expired)
Can I say from the start that as a representative of Northern New South Wales, the regional community of Page, I welcome the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 as being long overdue. Nation building and developing Australia's infrastructure for this century, with an eye on the next, must be at the heart of any good government. It is important for the nation and for regional areas like mine. This amendment bill will strengthen Infrastructure Australia by re-establishing it as an independent, transparent and expert advisory body.
As a regional representative, I can personally testify that nationally significant infrastructure projects are crucial to growing Australia's productivity and improving living standards. I gave my maiden speech to this House almost three weeks ago. Since then, underpinning everything I say in all my speeches has been the theme of the need to build nation-changing infrastructure as a way of creating jobs—jobs not just in the construction phase of a particular piece of infrastructure but also from the economic flow-on effect.
The Pacific Highway is a crucial part of our nation's economic artery which connects the major cities on Australia's eastern seaboard from Brisbane to the north, via the Bruce Highway, and from Brisbane south to Sydney, to Canberra and to Melbourne, via the Princes Highway. While this federal coalition government has rightly committed to funding the final significant section of the Pacific Highway between Ballina and Woolgoolga to the tune of $5.6 billion, it was done despite Infrastructure Australia, not because of it.
In the five years since Infrastructure Australia was created, it has become apparent that the current structure of the organisation does not provide the necessary degree of independence and transparency needed to give the best advice to the national government about the infrastructure priorities that will reverse Australia's slide in productivity. However, this amendment bill will strengthen Infrastructure Australia in its governance, clarifying the scope of its responsibilities and entrenching its role as a key adviser to government.
One of the problems of the existing structure is Infrastructure Australia's inability to correctly and independently identify projects as national priorities. For example, while it compiles priority project lists, these projects are based on state and territory government projects, and the prioritisation is based on the extent to which these project business cases are advanced, which in some cases is irrelevant.
While I have great respect for our state governments and for our federated system of government, the needs and wishes of a particular state are not the same as those of the nation. This House is charged with looking at the broader, bigger picture: the national picture. It is only the national government, not state governments, which can advance national priorities. And it is only by taking this larger national view that we can improve the nation's productivity.
It is my sincere hope that by ensuring Infrastructure Australia's independence we can avoid the political squabbling which until the last election threatened to delay the completion of the duplication of the Pacific Highway. Although the duplication of the highway was named as nationally significant, it was dogged with delays when the previous Labor government wanted to argue about the funding split with the state. These arguments became highly political. The previous federal Labor government—and I credit it—lifted funding on the Pacific Highway from a fifty-fifty funding split to 80-20. This, though, coincided with when we had a state Labor government. When the state Labor government was defeated, the federal government in its wisdom decided that it should lower its spending commitment to the Pacific Highway. What rationale was that based on except the fact that the state government had changed from a Labor government to a coalition government? That type of rationale and that type of decision making is absurd, and it is not what the Australian people deserve.
The families in my electorate were angered when the previous federal Labor government made such a political statement with infrastructure that was of such national importance. They did not care who funded the highway or who promised what; they just wanted it fixed. This double standard by the previous federal Labor government was not good enough.
Businesses are the same. They need certainty. They need to know that a project will be completed by a certain date. They cannot create sustainable jobs without planning certainty.
Thankfully, we as the new government recommitted to funding that necessary infrastructure at 80 per cent federally, and I am a proud member of the government that has committed to that.
On a different tangent, to show the inconsistencies of the previous Labor government with areas of infrastructure of national importance, we also saw this type of politicisation within the RDA funding which members of the previous Labor government go on so much about. Regional funding was meant to be as it was: for regions. The previous Labor government decided that the Perth Airport qualified as regional spending.
No, surely not!
There are members in the House shaking their heads in disbelief that they did. When questioned on how the Perth Airport qualified under regional spending—wait for it— they said that people from the regions fly into the Perth Airport. That was their rationale for their spending on that.
It is not just the headline-capturing multibillion dollar infrastructure projects that this country needs. It is also the small but no less important projects that must be put on the national agenda and understood for the economic value they create. As part of the policy this government took to the election on delivering the infrastructure for the 21st century, we also promised to invest $300 million to upgrade wooden bridges in our rural communities. Within the electorate of Page, this is badly needed infrastructure. Both the Clarence Valley and the Kyogle council areas have hundreds of these wooden bridges. This upgrade is essential to their financial survival. We are not talking here about giving the Sydney Harbour Bridge another coat of paint. We are talking about the 800-odd wooden bridges on the New South Wales north coast. There are 30,000 nationally that are in dangerous disrepair. Many of these bridges are literally falling apart and pose risks to motorists, school buses and every truck and vehicle that crosses them. All of these 30,000 wooden bridges across regional Australia are a vital link connecting our towns and rural communities to the city. They are unsafe and sometimes impassable for standard trucks, let alone B-doubles.
Earlier this year, Graham Kennett, who heads the infrastructure division of Kyogle council, which is in my electorate, called the area's deteriorating bridges a 'massive, massive problem' and a threat to their financial viability. He was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald saying it was the 'only extreme risk' the council faced. Indeed, Kyogle has seen some serious near misses. The Mills Road bridge has collapsed three times since 2004, most recently last year when the bridge failed under a loaded gravel truck. In 2008, a council water tanker transporting water to nearby homes fell through the Simes Road bridge. Luckily it was not a school bus. But a 12-tonne school bus still plies its way every school day over Grieves Crossing—one of 13 bridges in serious disrepair along Gradys Creek Road in the Kyogle Shire local government area. Grieves Crossing is rated over four on the New South Wales government's one-to-five condition scale. A rating of level five is deemed 'critical, beyond repair'. Who knows how many school buses cross similar bridges every day across the country and how many businesses and farmers have difficulty getting their products into town? What better way to raise the nation's productivity than by fully utilising the labour and natural resources we already have in abundance?
Of course, the new Infrastructure Australia will not instruct parliament what to do. But as a legally and financially separate entity it will be in the position to provide the government and the community with frank, open and honest advice. To help achieve this, the amendment allows for the appointment of a chief executive officer who is responsible to the board, rather than the current arrangement, which sees them as responsible to the minister. We saw far too many examples of where that type of governance structure was abused by the previous Labor government. With this greater level of independence comes greater transparency. What we need—and this bill will deliver it—is more robust and evidence based assessments of Australia's future needs. We need a greater understanding of the critical issues facing the nation's infrastructure and land transport system.
This amendment tasks Infrastructure Australia with four things, and it is worth going into some detail on those four issues. Firstly, it must undertake a five-yearly evidence based audit of our infrastructure assets base. That is common sense. This audit will be robust and proactive. An evidence based audit will allow the private sector to better plan its involvement in particular projects and use its knowledge to suggest innovative funding and financing initiatives. It would also allow the public sector to ensure funding capacity and project management skills are allocated to support planned projects.
Secondly, it will develop a top-down priority list at a national and state level. I have already mentioned that it is a national body that is in the best position to look at what infrastructure is needed for the national good, not the good of the states.
Thirdly, it will develop a 15-year infrastructure plan. This allows the nation's good to be put outside the three-year political cycle. It means, as a nation, we can start to develop a long-term vision for where we want to be and what infrastructure we need to get there. There are substantial benefits to delivering a clearly articulated pipeline of national infrastructure projects. It will provide the community with a higher degree of transparency about what, where and when projects will come on to the market so that we can encourage much more private sector investment in these projects.
Finally—and what a great example this is—it will evaluate infrastructure, both socially and economically, and publish the results, including a cost-benefit analysis if a project is worth more than $100 million. We are now all well aware of an example of the previous Labor government. We are made aware of this daily in question time by the now Minister for Communications, who comes in and articulates to us the debacle that was the NBN, run by the previous Labor government. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, you remember the dollar value examples that he has given us and the fact that many millions—in some cases tens of millions or hundreds of millions—of dollars was spent on this infrastructure project with no cost-benefit analysis and no analysis of what was going to happen, when it was going to happen or how many people were going to get connected. The revenue figures were completely out of tune as well.
This amendment bill means no more of Labor's pie-in-the-sky and expensive NBN. I could talk for another 15 minutes about the flawed delivery of Labor's NBN and its refusal to provide a proper cost-benefit analysis. I, like the rest of the nation, am over Labor's inability and abject refusal to put their thought bubbles through proper economic analysis, so I will simply say, 'Thank goodness our colleague Malcolm Turnbull is now in charge of rolling out an affordable and effective NBN.'
This amendment is about increasing the nation's productivity, creating common wealth and providing more jobs. This bill is good government at work.
I rise to speak against this bill, the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013. In the 21st century, those societies and communities that will prosper are those that have skilled workforces, whose industries can adapt to a carbon constrained world and that invest in modern, well-planned infrastructure. We did that when we were in government, after more than 11½ years of neglect and underinvestment under the coalition. Total expenditure, public and private, on the nation's roads, rail, electricity generators and water storage facilities was 42 per cent higher than in the final year of the former coalition government.
We restored leadership in the area of infrastructure. We created the first federal infrastructure department and established and empowered the first federal infrastructure ministry. We established Infrastructure Australia to look at infrastructure in this country, and to recommend the planning, assessment, financing and creation of infrastructure for the 21st century. Through Infrastructure Australia we commissioned the first infrastructure audit. We created a national infrastructure priority list. We established public-private partnership guidelines. We undertook a national ports strategy and a national freight strategy. We created a national prequalification scheme and we launched the National Infrastructure Construction Schedule. We invested $64 billion in infrastructure. We committed $60 billion as part of our nation-building programs, building roads, rail and ports, making sure that people's lives and lifestyles were improved, produce could get to market, kids could get to the school, people could get to hospital and business and commerce could progress.
There was not a single public transport infrastructure project in my home state of Queensland under the Howard coalition government. During the life of the former federal Labor government there was an increase in funding from $132 per person to $314 per person on roads, rail and public transport in Queensland. Two-thirds of the funding we put into infrastructure went into regional and rural communities. That was good for my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland. We also invested about $6.4 billion to help rebuild flood affected communities in South-East Queensland and Victoria and cyclone affected communities in North Queensland. Sadly, those opposite could not bring themselves to vote for the funding that was needed to undertake that rebuilding.
The former federal Labor government had a massive infrastructure program. I pay tribute to the shadow minister, the member for Grayndler, who really led this. Sitting at the feet of Tom Uren, his mentor, he saw the necessity for the world's most urbanised country to invest in major cities—in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and beyond. That is why we invested an enormous amount of money—$13.6 billion—on urban public transport infrastructure, more, combined, than all our predecessors since Federation. We established the first Major Cities Unit. We established the national planning task force. We required all state and territory governments to come up with strategic plans for infrastructure. We made sure that there were productive, sustainable and livable cities where communities could grow. That is why we invested so heavily in the major cities and provincial towns in this country
I oppose this legislation because it is a retrograde step. Having grown up in Queensland, I fear we will see a situation such as we had during Joh Bjelke-Petersen's days when sealed roads led up to the home of the local president or secretary of the National Party. If you were a prominent member of the coalition back in the 50s, 60s and 70s you could get what you wanted through regional rorts. We saw that a bit in the ANAO report that looked into the Regional Partnerships program. The report found that the previous coalition government's infrastructure scheme had '… fallen short of an acceptable standard of public administration.' The member for Grayndler outlined a number of examples where the previous coalition government had failed in that regard.
This bill uses Orwellian language. The bill will reduce transparency and potentially create a situation where we will return to the Regional Partnerships arrangements and the pork barrelling that was endemic to them. In fact, one of the things that I remember most from when I was first elected was people coming to see me as a new member of parliament and asking me to assist them in their projects. Very few of them actually had much of an evidence base or much merit to them, but they expected us to fund them under the old scheme. I told them that they needed to get an evidence base. That is why I was so pleased when we brought in Infrastructure Australia. That recommended many good projects in my home state, including the major one—probably the hallmark of the failure of the Howard government in Queensland—the Ipswich Motorway between Brisbane and Ipswich. That went out towards Toowoomba through the Warrego Highway and into the rural areas of South-East and South-West Queensland.
The flawed Regional Partnerships arrangement is, I fear, back with this government. We will see the capacity for the minister to interfere in Infrastructure Australia's evaluation process, and I think what will happen here will be a real weakening of independence and impartiality. I fear that those people who are currently on the necessary council will therefore find themselves getting the chop. I think we will see an increase in ministerial power. I think those on the Infrastructure Australia council have done an excellent job since its creation, back in 2008, when we introduced the Infrastructure Australia bill.
The bill before the House creates a board rather than a council. We will see, as I say, the previous members of that particular council likely to find that their services will no longer be required in the future. The minister has incredible powers here and is being given opportunity to do a lot of things. The minister has the power to nominate pet projects and to exclude classes of projects—for example, public transport. The coalition government have wrongly, in my view, opposed public transport as something that requires national leadership. They can block project evaluations. They can set time frames, set the scope of audits, make evaluations, list plans or advice, direct matters to be considered or not to be considered by Infrastructure Australia and direct the manner in which a function is performed. The minister can make directions that require Infrastructure Australia to refuse to publish material. Under those circumstances, how this legislation is creating independence is beyond me. It really is beyond me to think that somehow Infrastructure Australia's powers are being strengthened. In fact, as I said before, in the Orwellian phraseology that we have heard those opposite sprout in the last hour or two, we can see that Infrastructure Australia is effectively being gutted, neutered.
In 2004, in the middle of the Howard era, the Australian Council for Infrastructure Development estimated that the lack of investment in the nation's infrastructure during the Howard years had cost the economy about $6.4 billion in lost production. I fear that that is what we will see in the future—a loss of economic productivity. We will see poor and inadequate infrastructure directed by the minister for pet projects, which will see, as the Australian Council of Infrastructure Development found under the Howard coalition government, a loss of production.
I mentioned South-East Queensland before. In my home state we are powered by what happens in South-East Queensland. I know that there are many members opposite who sit up in that corner who are from North Queensland, but two-thirds of the people in Queensland live in South-East Queensland. One-in-seven Australians lives in South-East Queensland and about a fifth of the GDP is produced in South-East Queensland. So we invested about $6.3 billion in major road, rail and public transport in South-East Queensland—important projects such as the Moreton Bay Rail Link, which had been promised by coalition governments up there for a long time. In fact, it had been promised for more than 100 years by successive coalition governments. We also invested $365 million in the Gold Coast light rail project, which we delivered in partnership with the state government and the local council. So we have seen a massive investment in the Bruce Highway and the Pacific Highway to the south. We invested as much in the Warrego Highway as the Howard government invested throughout its whole duration.
The coalition refused to fix projects such as the Ipswich Motorway. They refused to do the work that was necessary in relation to it. It took the election of a federal Labor government in 2007 to finally fix the Ipswich Motorway from Dinmore to Darra at a cost of $2.8 billion. We fixed the Dinmore to Goodna section at a cost of $1.7 billion and put $200 million towards the Bruce Highway. It was finished under budget and six months ahead of schedule. I thank the alliance partners who undertook that. When it came to this infrastructure project, the coalition government repeatedly voted against the funding for it in this place. Just as they voted against the funding that was necessary for the rebuilding of Queensland after the floods and cyclones, they voted against the funding for the Ipswich Motorway.
The coalition also voted against another project, the No. 1 project on the list of South-East Queensland council of mayors, which was the Blacksoil interchange. This is the intersection between the Brisbane Valley Highway and the Warrego Highway. The council of South-East Queensland mayors is always led by the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. I recall Campbell Newman in his previous iteration as the Lord Mayor of Brisbane coming down to Canberra and meeting with both sides of politics and talking about the necessity for investment in infrastructure. But one of the first acts of the new LNP coalition government in Queensland was to rip $100 million out of road projects across the Warrego Highway and the like. It was the exact opposite of what he had previously urged us to do when he was the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. There are many, many electorates across Queensland that have taken the brunt of coalition cuts.
I mention coalition cuts because, during the last federal election, the coalition said that across South-East Queensland they would match the $279 million that we were putting in to kick-start the final section of the Ipswich Motorway—not in my electorate but mostly in the member for Moreton's electorate—from Darra to Rocklea. I tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was a bit surprised when Senator Brandis and the LNP state member for Ipswich and my political opponent said they would match our plan, after they had opposed that motorway upgrade and the $2.8 billion that we had put in previously. It did not last long. I fear that infrastructure will not last long, because a couple days before the election I saw the fiscal budget impact of coalition policies. I see the member for Groom's Toowoomba Range Crossing does not get very far in terms of funding. I also see that the Warrego Highway does not get much either. But to my surprise, although I should not have been surprised, for the Ipswich motorway, Darra to Rocklea, there was $65 million—a commitment that could not even last a couple of weeks—not $279 million. To make matters worse, their colleagues and comrades in the Queensland government would not undertake to partner in the Darra to Rocklea section of the Ipswich Motorway. If they cannot get this project right and will not support it, how will the future of Ipswich be secured in Brisbane and how will Infrastructure Australia in its new, weakened guise operate effectively? I suspect what will happen in the future is that it will be gutted, neutered and emasculated.
I will just correct the member for Blair. He was talking about funding that had been promised by what he said were 'coalition governments for more than a hundred years' in Queensland. The Liberal party was formed in 1945 and the National party, or its predecessor, was formed on 20 January 1920—a famous day for Australian politics—so I do not quite think that equates to 'coalition governments' supposedly breaking promises for 100 years. I think that is a bit of a stretch.
The member for Blair also talked about ministers interfering in the process with Infrastructure Australia, the fact that it will test impartiality, and bemoaned the fact that there would be an increase in ministerial powers. Let me just refer the member for Blair to a document I have before me, Grants for the construction of the Adelaidedesalination plant in South Australia—and, admittedly, he is from Queensland—which is from the National Audit Office. It is interesting reading. It talks about the process for the grants administration framework, saying:
… there were shortcomings in the underlying assessment work and the resulting advice did not fully inform the Minister.
It says of a second grant awarded:
… this grant was awarded through a process that was inconsistent in a number of respects with the requirements of the Government’s grants administration framework.
It is very interesting to note that the report says:
Infrastructure Australia concluded that the project had not demonstrated economic merit—
it had not demonstrated economic merit—
and, as a result, Ministers had been advised that the project was not eligible for funding from the Building Australia Fund. Nevertheless, the grant was subsequently approved … notwithstanding that—
and these three points are very interesting:
the National Urban Water and Desalination Plan—
program guidelines did not allow for funding to be awarded for ad hoc grant proposals (a major projects funding round was open, with applications to close on 30 June 2009—
we are going back a little bit, but it is important—
but with project funding capped at 10 per cent of estimated project costs to a maximum of $100 million);
It goes on:
The only advice provided to Ministers in respect to funding of the ADP expansion proposal through the NUWDP was from central agencies—
an approach that may be viewed as atypical—
given the role usually expected of portfolio agencies in advising Ministers on spending proposals being considered in relation to programs they administer.
The central agency advice did not recommend that NUWDP funding be awarded (as neither central agency had assessed the merits of the proposal in terms of the program guidelines) but, rather, supported further consideration of funding the expanded ADP under the NUWDP.
Now, that all sounds very complicated, but it goes to the very crux of the problem with Infrastructure Australia under the Labor government and how the system broke down.
The Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2013 will implement the government's election commitment to make Infrastructure Australia a more independent, transparent and expert advisory body by changing its governance structure and better clarifying its functions. The government understands that investment in nationally significant infrastructure is central to growing Australia's productivity and improving the living standards of Australians now and in the future. If you listened to those from the other side, you would think that they were the only ones who cared about productivity, they were the only ones who cared about jobs and they were the only ones who cared about growth for Australia. Certainly, that is not the case.
As a government we have clearly committed ourselves to building the infrastructure of the 21st century. We have a Prime Minister and a Deputy Prime Minister who are committed to this goal. We have already made significant commitments to a number of vital infrastructure projects across the country. But it is clear that the task does not end with the many, many projects that we have already committed to, and we intend that Infrastructure Australia will play a role in assisting governments at all levels to plan for the longer-term investment in infrastructure which will be required into the future.
In the five years since Infrastructure Australia was created, it has become evident that the current structure of the group does not provide the degree of independence and transparency needed to give the best advice to government about the infrastructure priorities which will reverse Australia's productivity slide. The Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 will strengthen Infrastructure Australia by restructuring its governance—and it is needed—clarifying the scope of its responsibilities and entrenching its role as a key adviser to government. The bill will establish Infrastructure Australia as a separate statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. For the first time, Infrastructure Australia will be both a legally and financially separate entity from the Commonwealth. So there is no question about impartiality there. The bill will also see Infrastructure Australia led by a chief executive officer responsible to their board, rather than the current structure which sees them responsible to the minister—a great improvement to their level of independence from government.
The government recognises that Australia needs improved long-term planning for infrastructure investment based on robust and evidence based assessment of our future needs—robust and evidence based, unlike the National Broadband Network, unlike so many other things that the former government foisted upon this nation. There is going to be careful, methodical planning. I see the member for Throsby shaking his head in disagreement, but he understands that you cannot keep spending more money than you earn. You cannot keep spending money that you do not have, you cannot keep borrowing, because it is not the government which is going to pay it back, it is not the opposition which—when it gets into government again, hopefully many, long years from now, if ever—is going to pay it back; it is the taxpayers of the nation. It is the businesses. It is the hardworking families. They are the ones who are paying back Labor's debt, which we inherited—Labor's legacy of debt, deficit and bad spending.
To this end, we are focused on long-term planning based on a greater understanding of the critical issues facing Australia's infrastructure and land transport system. To achieve this goal, the government has tasked Infrastructure Australia with undertaking new five-yearly evidence based audits of our infrastructure assets base, developing top-down priority lists at national and state levels; developing a 15-year infrastructure plan and evaluating both economic and social infrastructure proposals and publishing the justification for prioritisation, including cost-benefit analyses. This will be for projects worth more than $100 million seeking Commonwealth funding, excluding defence projects.
Labor talked about infrastructure while it was in government, but if it were so committed to defence—I have three bases in my home town of Wagga Wagga, with Navy and Air Force, and every Army recruit goes through Kapooka just south of Wagga Wagga. Defence is very important to Wagga Wagga. I can tell you that many people are connected with Defence. Indeed, the community was absolutely aghast at the $5½ billion which was taken from the Defence budget. They are absolutely aghast that our defence spending as a percentage of gross domestic product slipped to 1938 levels. We all know what happened the year after 1938—we had World War II. Our defence spending as a proportion of GDP slipped to levels pre-World War II. That was a disgrace. It stopped vital works from being undertaken as fast as they should have at Kapooka, which every year puts thousands upon thousands of young recruits, and some not so young, through their paces to be a part of that great Anzac tradition.
Regularly publishing cost-benefit analyses is one thing, but Labor repeatedly promised but failed to deliver while on the Treasury benches for the six years under Rudd, Gillard and then Rudd again. Together, these measures will enhance Infrastructure Australia's ability to provide the best possible advice to government on infrastructure matters.
This bill is an important part of the government's efforts to ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent. We need to spend them well. Labor surely should recognise that. We understand because many of us, as we saw in question time today when the Treasurer asked how many of us had been in private business and just about every member of the government put up their hand. The member for Farrer has been in private business. She understands the need to balance family budgets. Certainly in private business you cannot spend more money than you earn. On the other side, only two or three frontbenchers put their hands up. They do not get it because they have come up through union ranks to get their place here and they do not understand how business works. When they are in charge of the Treasury benches that is why infrastructure projects blow out, just like spending on school halls.
Nobody criticises the fact that many fine buildings were erected during the school halls program. Certainly there were a number in my electorate. At Mater Dei Catholic Primary School I have the piece de résistance of school halls. It is a wonderful facility. But with $8 billion of blow-outs in school halls, you can see out at Ungarie and other areas of my electorate tin shacks were put up for a lot of money. The joke was that it was 'the builders' early retirement fund'. And in many aspects of public schooling it was, sad to say.
There was a $2½ billion blow-out in pink bats and an $11½ billion blow-out in border protection—all money which could have gone to vital infrastructure projects. Dare I mention the Gocup Road between Gundagai and Tumut? It is still waiting for vital infrastructure spending.
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
There will be a chance because it is a vital project that needs funding. I will certainly be campaigning hard to ensure that it happens. We are committed to $100 million on improving telecommunications black spots. Certainly I get far more complaints about mobile communication black spots than I do about broadband coverage. We are committed to spending $300 million on replacing bridges, as the member for Page indicated in a fine speech. That is a good proposal because many of those wooden rickety bridges in country areas need replacing. The member for Throsby knows that.
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
The bill is important. I am disappointed that you are not getting on board with it because it is a good bill. We understand that investment in nationally significant infrastructure is vital and I am sure the member for Throsby does too. That is why he needs to get on board with us, with this bill, with this amendment, to ensure it passes and that it can pass through the Senate in time for the Christmas break. Just like repealing the carbon tax, which was what the voters of Australia wanted, they want us to get on board with governing the country in the way they voted for. They do not want us to keep going down the path that Labor was taking us—that is, projects which cost far more than they were worth, projects which did not meet the needs and expectations of the community.
We have heard that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are infrastructure builders. The New South Wales government, particularly the roads minister Duncan Gay, knows the federal coalition government is committed to building the roads of the 21st century and the infrastructure the nation so desperately needs. On 19 September, less than a fortnight after the federal election and just one day after being officially sworn in, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister joined the New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell, a good Premier, and roads minister Duncan Gay, a good state roads minister, in Sydney to announce the details of the WestConnex project. At that press conference the Prime Minister reiterated his pledge to be the infrastructure Prime Minister. Indeed, he will—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. I would like to ask the honourable member whether a cost-benefit analysis was done of the WestConnex project?
Is the member for Riverina willing to accept the intervention?
I will take the intervention. Does it mean that I have only 50 seconds to answer it? For everything we do there is going to be a cost-benefit analysis. We are going to look at the investment and to make sure that the taxpayers of this nation get value for their money. We understand business, we understand that projects need to be brought in on time and hopefully under budget. The WestConnex project is no different to any other project. It is a vital piece of infrastructure, and certainly in capital cities we need to make sure that the transport clog is not as bad as it is now, because we need to get people to regional areas such as Throsby, such as Riverina, such as Farrer, and having clogged-up urban and metropolitan areas is not helping the situation at all. (Time expired)
What Orwellian times we live in. This is just like back to the future, the bad old days when the coalition government would come into this place and put forward these absolute crackers of bills. If you had read the Work Choices bill you would think it was about more choice for workers, but if you had it applied to you it meant the take-it or leave-it contract bill; that is what it should have been called. If you went through the detail of the more jobs, better pay bill, it was not about more jobs or better pay, it was quite the opposite; again there was the take it or leave it contract style. Now we are seeing it again with the Migration Amendment (Regaining Control Over Australia's Protection Obligations) Bill 2013. This is directly related to what is before us, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure you are quizzical as to why I would draw your attention to those things.
It is very much the same with this bill, the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill, which purports to create more transparency and do a whole range of things in restructuring for the betterment of infrastructure and Australia and productivity. It is all just words thrown around like confetti and meaning absolutely nothing. That is not what this bill does at all. People, when they look at this bill, should ask what the bill does. What it does is take all of that away. Just by putting the words there does not mean it actually happens that way. You do not create a better Infrastructure Australia by restructuring it to death. In fact, it is a long-held mantra for bureaucracies or governments or even business that if you want to get rid of something but you do not want to look like you are getting rid of it or shutting it down, you restructure it—you restructure it out of existence. You restructure it to the point where the minister gets to make all the decisions. You make the council, the board or the organisation running it impotent and you take away their funding. There is a whole range of things that can be done, all of which are contained in this bill. This bill is about the destruction of Infrastructure Australia because it does not suit the agenda of this government to have independent, fearless advice that is not based on what the minister thinks. How novel would that be.
I recall in opposition and in government, particularly in opposition, speaking on infrastructure for many years because my electorate, like everyone else's, is in desperate need of some non-political funding for infrastructure based on some sort of a national interest test: whether this is good for all of us, whether it delivers for productivity. There was nothing more stark to me than the loss this country was experiencing through clogged roads, highways that would never get built, ports that were not being done, and particular railway systems that were not done for 100 years, because governments never had the gumption to move beyond the politics and get on with the job of delivering infrastructure.
I recall very clearly that during the Howard government, which I am led to believe by the Abbott government has been the model that it models itself upon, it was absolutely clear: 'We don't do infrastructure,' John Howard said as Prime Minister. 'We do not do infrastructure. That is the job of the states.' And he was true to his word: he did not do infrastructure. He said that, he promised it, he delivered it—zero, nothing for infrastructure. Right across Australia a whole heap of projects went begging. It was very clear: we do not do infrastructure, we do not do housing; there were a whole heap of things that the federal Howard government said and followed through on and delivered by not delivering.
But things got a bit heavy and a bit weighty, because after a while you look around the country and see some big infrastructure projects that really need doing and are just outside the scope of the state or there are some other issues that collide which mean that the federal government does have to step up, co-fund, partner, JV with the state and local council in some areas. We needed something new; we needed, dare I say it, a new way. We needed a way to break through. We needed a way for the federal government to once again be a partner with the states and deliver on really vital infrastructure, the sort of stuff that in Queensland in particular we have heard about. I have one that keeps popping into my mind through my electorate and a range of others, the Ipswich Motorway. I will talk on that in a moment, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It would be good if the member referred to the bill.
This is all about infrastructure and the bill in particular and how we have to have Infrastructure Australia. I recall in Queensland in Minister Macfarlane's electorate and looking at Toowoomba, particularly the range bypasses, and a whole range of things that had been promised forever and a day, and forever and a day they still are not delivered. They had nearly 12 years in government and did not deliver it then. They are back in government now and have an opportunity to deliver the Toowoomba range crossing or some new infrastructure and spend some money there. We are all waiting. You have three years so hopefully that will happen. I am always hopeful and I have always been on the record as saying, 'Every road that the coalition government build I will say thank you,' because it is in the national interest. I will not be partisan about it: build a road and I will say, 'Thanks, well done, good job. You ought to get praise for it.'
Unfortunately you are coming in here with a bill that is all about reducing all of that. What this bill actually does is seek to reduce transparency. Right now we have the transparency built in, we have the independence of Infrastructure Australia. We put that into place so that it would be at arm's length, as far away as possible from government so that you would get some sort of advice on really what were the best projects. They were not at the direction of the minister and you could actually work to some sort of formula which said, 'Here is the list of what you should do.' It is always going to be the right of a government to decide on which projects it does and does not do, but at least you had some advice, some sort of form to work to, a council, some independent people that you could really work with. And it has worked really well, if you have a look at what we did in six years.
I am happy to take criticism about a range of things that were not perfect, but the reality is that we did deliver. We not only promised the Ipswich Motorway in my electorate, we delivered the Ipswich Motorway.
The Ipswich Motorway was the biggest, most expensive road upgrade in Australian history, yet when we were in government we delivered it not only ahead of time but also under budget. It was a fantastic alliance project which was delivered by the Commonwealth with the states and which did work because we used a really good formula. We did the same thing on a whole range of other road projects, rail projects and port projects—infrastructure projects across the country. In a short six years, we did more catch-up work on infrastructure in this country than had been seen in nearly 100 years. Before we did the catch-up work, infrastructure was going backwards. That was the problem.
Those on the other side like to bleat on about how they are all great at business; they are all the doyens of business. Good on them—that is great; it is a good call—but plenty of people here have experience too. However, government is not a business in quite the same sense as a small enterprise is a business. Government is not a question of using the kitchen table at home, where you scratch around and say: 'Can we save a few pennies here or there? How is it going to go? Can we meet the budget this week?' Government is a little bit more involved than that. I am sure most of the members on the other side do to get that; I am afraid, though, that I think there are a few who do not. But that is another story.
Government is a little bit more involved than just a home budget, a going-on-a-picnic-on-the-weekend budget or a small-business budget. As complicated as all of those things might be, government is a bit more involved than they are, because it involves doing things which might not give you a return and instead give you something in the future which you cannot put a dollar value on today. When you build a national highway, it might not give you a return today; it might give you a return 25 years down the track. But you build it today—and you might build it a little bit larger than you need it to be today, because you understand the future needs of infrastructure.
All our ports, I can tell you, are already at capacity today—and we need more. So ports are pretty easy to do a cost-benefit analysis on. It is pretty hard to find commuter rail which makes money for any owner, let alone a government. But you build it because you are not a business. That is just the point. As a government, you are not a business; you are in the business of providing services: a social framework, infrastructure and rules. You do the things that other people cannot do. That is why governments exist. Otherwise, we would all just be small businesses.
I love small businesses because I think they are the backbone of this country. They are the largest employer in this country and they all do a great job. But small business relies on government not to be a business. Small business relies on government to provide support services and support-lines and tax concessions—things that do not make money. A support-line to help small businesses does not make money; no-one in the private sector sets them up, because they would go broke overnight. But we still set them up when we were in government. In fact, even this coalition government sets them up and continues to fund the ones that we put in place because it understands the benefit they deliver to small business. You are not going to make money out of such services, but you provide them anyway.
There are also some very expensive services that we started to provide—through websites, for example. There is the National Business Name Register, which the government does not make money out of. In essence, when we were in government we were trying to provide a cheaper service to small business. In the past, under the previous coalition government, if you had wanted to register your business across the country it would have cost you about 1,000 bucks, and you would have had to fill in a different form in every state and territory. It was an absolute, bureaucratic, red-tape nightmare. When we were government, we condensed it to one website and one form. It cost you 30-odd bucks, you did it once, it remembered all your details and you were done. That is how you save money for small business. It is in realising that government is not a business that you can provide really good infrastructure systems and programs such as Infrastructure Australia.
Everything that is contained in this bill does the exact opposite of what it says it does. Under this bill, Minister Truss wants to give himself, personally, very specific powers. Why would a minister want to do that? To me, it harks back to the good old days—or the bad old days—of roads of National Party interest, when a road was a great road as long as it led to your farm or your dam. That was okay; it did not matter which farm or dam, as long as it was your farm or dam. It was too bad that everybody else had to miss out and go down a particular—
I rise on a point of order, Deputy Speaker Broadbent. I believe that the honourable member is impugning improperly the motives of members on this side of the House.
There is no point of order.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are right—there is no point of order. But just in case: I was using the general rather than referring to any particular member, so, if the member took offence, I apologise to him; none was meant.
In this bill the minister gives himself a range of very specific powers over things that he decides can or cannot be done. He can order Infrastructure Australia to evaluate particular projects nominated by him and only him. Through this bill, the minister will become Infrastructure Australia—so you may as well not have Infrastructure Australia. Let us just stop the sham and the pretence of this bill, by which Infrastructure Australia will be denuded of its capacity to be able to do the job it was put in place to do.
In effect, this bill gives the government the right to sack people—to just get rid of everybody in Infrastructure Australia in one way or the other. I am not only concerned; I am deeply worried. I think it would be more honest of this government to come in and completely get rid of Infrastructure Australia, because that is in effect what this bill will do. All of the powers and all of the decision making will go to the minister, and we will go back to the old days when you only ever got infrastructure if you were in a Liberal Party or a National Party seat and too bad for the others.
This situation had to be changed, and I can remember countless talkback radio programs and people saying that enough was enough and that we needed independence to be able to get on with getting infrastructure built in the national interest and with getting roads to go somewhere—to a small business park, for example—apart from somebody's dam or farm. In other words, the idea was to get infrastructure to where it was needed the most—that is, to the productive capacity of this country. Phrases such as 'productive capacity' get thrown around this place like confetti by people who do not understand at all what they mean, and that is what worries me about what this bill will do.
I will touch, in the couple of minutes I have left, on a project of national significance: the Ipswich Motorway. As I said before, it was a very important project, yet I recall the local Liberal member fighting against it day in and day out. We used have debates on it all the time, and he promised in 2007 that, if he was elected in 2007, the Ipswich Motorway would never go ahead. He wanted to make the Ipswich Motorway a referendum issue in Queensland, but the people of Queensland decided very clearly that they wanted the motorway because they were being strangled to death.
Small businesses, mums and dads—everybody travelled on the road before the motorway was built. I will not get into the road deaths and the associated trauma and social costs before the motorway was built. Since we built the motorway—and it cost a pretty penny; it cost a couple of billion dollars, which was well worth it—there has not been a single death on the motorway. Work that out in a cost-benefit analysis, and tell me what it is worth. Tell me what your cost-benefit analysis tells you about that. Not one family has lost one of its members on the Ipswich Motorway since we built it, and the road was a horror before we built the motorway.
There has been less trauma and fewer accidents since we built the motorway. Trucks and cars no longer break down on that road and get blocked for four or five or six hours in a day.
Productivity went up, and that was a massive saving for small business. If you are trucking something from Toowoomba, Ipswich or Brisbane or to Warwick or Sydney or Melbourne when you go through that road it makes a world of difference. All of that was possible because of programs and institutions that we put into place, because we said enough was enough. We agreed with the Australian people that we had to de-politicise infrastructure and start working as a federal government that said, 'We will play the game of infrastructure.' Well, it is not just up to the states; it is up to us to lend a hand. I recall in the election campaign only a few short months ago that we promised $279 million for the final piece of the Ipswich Motorway and the other mob finally got to the table and said, 'We will put the same money forward,' and as soon as they got in we have not seen the money and I do not think we will see it in the future. This bill is an absolute disgrace.
I rise in opposition to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013. This debate does not occur in a vacuum. It is important to reflect on the steps that have led to this legislation. On 11 May 2005, Labor announced that if elected it would establish Infrastructure Australia in government. Consistent with this pledge, the Infrastructure Australia Act was enacted in 2008. The current governance arrangement for the Infrastructure Australia Council, whose remit is set out in the act, is to provide advice to the minister. Additionally, the Infrastructure Coordinator was established to assist the council in the performance of its functions. The minister makes a decision based on the advice from this independent panel, whose job it is to assess applications. The idea was to de-politicise infrastructure spending and de-couple the infrastructure cycle from the political cycle—the long term and the short term—and so establish a framework, an integrated policy approach for the provision of infrastructure in a strategic manner. This is nation building.
The context that gave rise to Labor's approach was what became known as the 'regional rorts' program, under the Howard Government. In her contribution to this debate, the member for Perth reminded me of the roads of National Party importance. In its report on the 'regional rorts' matter, the Australian National Audit Office outlined situations where former coalition ministers routinely approved funding for projects for which no application had been made and demanded that departmental officials fast-track applications without scrutiny.
In the lead-up to the 2007 election, the then Regional Partnerships program funded 32 projects, of which 28 were in coalition electorates. Some examples of these valuable projects include: the announcement of a $1.5 million grant to dredge the Tumbi Creek in NSW, days after heavy rains had set it flowing again; $5 million to fund the Beaudesert tourist railway in Queensland that went bankrupt; $1.3 million to a milk company in Queensland that went bust just days after the grant was announced; and, best of all, half a million dollars for a pub in Atherton, Queensland, that specialised in bikini babes and wacky Wednesdays. I noted yesterday in question time the Treasurer's interest in the manner in which individuals spent their stimulus money. I look forward to hearing from him on this. It was pork barrelling on a national scale that would not have occurred if there was independent oversight over applications to access these funds.
This bill performs a sleight of hand. It provides a veneer of independence, but in reality seeks to strip Infrastructure Australia of its power and, indeed, its role and gift it to the minister. So much for the contributions of many members opposite, replete with references to transparency and independence that simply do not withstand scrutiny. While the one hand gives Infrastructure Australia legal and financial separation from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, the other hand takes independence and power away, giving the minister unprecedented powers to intervene in and interfere with Infrastructure Australia's operations. This bill in effect reduces Infrastructure Australia to a slush fund for the minister.
It is worth noting briefly the contrast to the position expressed in 2008 by the now minister, the former shadow minister. While it is true to say that the then shadow minister proposed a number of amendments to the legislation put by the Labor government, it is clear that the scope of those amendments was dramatically different to what is before this parliament today. Again, we see the present government being more reactive and more negative in government than they were in opposition.
Going to the provisions of the bill in more detail, I observe that, if the bill is passed, the minister will acquire a wide range of new powers, in particular to nominate pet projects for evaluation by Infrastructure Australia, to exclude classes of projects from Infrastructure Australia's consideration—most obviously, public transport, as other speakers have noted—and to block publication of project evaluations, any reasons for decisions and evidence relied upon, unless the minister decides otherwise. So much for transparency! This reverses the current position, where material is ordinarily released and relied upon by industry and investors. New powers are also acquired to confer tax loss concessions on project proponents without reference to Infrastructure Australia; to sack board members; and, to replace the current provision preventing the minister from giving directions other than those of a general nature only, and preventing directions about the content of advice.
The minister will also acquire specific powers to set timeframes; set the scope of audits, evaluations, lists, plans or advice; direct matters to be considered or not considered by Infrastructure Australia; and, although the minister cannot specifically direct content, the minister will be able to direct the manner in which a function is performed. The current act only permits ministerial directions of a general nature and does not extend to content. The minister needs to explain why he needs this power and whether he will use this power to exclude public transport as an excluded class of project from Infrastructure Australia's consideration. It is a question most definitely worth asking, given the coalition's apparent vendetta against funding urban rail and given the proposal to jettison considerations of sustainability found in the present organising framework for Infrastructure Australia. It is a vital question for the future of Australia's cities, the cities in which 80 per cent of our population reside. This is a matter of great concern for people in the electorate of Scullin and, of course, to people elsewhere, in Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, in relation to current proposed projects, and right across the urban centres of our country.
After all, it was the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister who remarked that the federal government has 'no history of funding urban rail' and that it was important that it 'stick to our knitting, and the Commonwealth's knitting when it comes to funding infrastructure is roads'. But Infrastructure Australia took a different view and rated the vital Melbourne Metro as 'ready to proceed'. This is in stark contrast with the East-West link project, which Infrastructure Australia ranked behind Melbourne Metro and repeatedly gave it its second-lowest rating.
Yesterday, the Age, on its front page, under the headline 'Secret report on East-West link reveals traffic explosion' enlightened the Victorian community as to the real benefits to flow from this project, beloved by so many members opposite. It will in fact increase congestion at extraordinary cost. On the other hand, Infrastructure Australia independently acknowledged the nationally significant problem that Melbourne Metro sought to remedy and said:
The project addresses the constraints of the existing public transport system in Melbourne arising due to increased patronage and population growth. This is a nationally significant problem since it constrains access to high value employment in the CBD, limiting productivity increases.
Consequently, Infrastructure Australia described Melbourne Metro as:
A project that is expected to shape Melbourne's future transport network and land use patterns. The preferred option presented could achieve up to 30 per cent capacity increase in the urban passenger rail network however the project cost is approximately equal to the benefits.
Any responsible government's response to advice of this nature would be to proceed with this project, but instead the coalition's response seems very, very likely to be to simply remove urban rail from consideration and from the prospect of funding. That will deny residents in Scullin and right across Melbourne the opportunity to have the city reshaped to serve their needs—the needs of Melbourne's economy and the needs of a more productive city and society.
The East-West link, as I mentioned before, is clearly something of an article of faith amongst those opposite, so much so that the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister, agreed to $1.5 billion of federal funding for the East-West link before he had even seen the business case. Not seeing the business case would put him in good company with all Victorians, who remain in the dark about the business case. This is why it is so important to have a body like Infrastructure Australia as it currently stands and whose job it is to filter and contest applications to make sure that taxpayers get good value for money—generally a concern expressed by members opposite. A key part of this process must be public scrutiny, and, as I and many others have mentioned, this bill changes the position in relation to the publication of materials such as the evaluation of infrastructure projects. This bill seeks to reverse the current provision, stating that the publishing of this material should be a function that must only be performed when directed by the minister. This is in keeping with the coalition's approach of silencing anything or anyone that diverges from their position or presents a critical view.
We saw this with the appointment of the Business Council of Australia's president to conduct the coalition's 'commission of cuts'. And we see it with part 6 of this bill, whereby the existing members of the Board of Infrastructure Australia are virtually condemned with their positions being—and this is again an Orwellian phrase—'considered for reappointment'. If the Commission of Audit is any guide, I wonder if the Business Council of Australia is in danger of being short staffed.
There is a better, more independent and more transparent way. When the global financial crisis hit, Labor responded to this challenge and enacted the Nation-building Funds Act, whereby Infrastructure Australia became responsible for recommending projects for funding from the Building Australia Fund. In the electorate of Scullin, one of these projects was the upgrade of the M80 Ring Road. This included widening the M80 Ring Road to a minimum of three lanes, including the sections from Sydney Road to Edgars Road and Plenty Road to the Greensborough Highway, as well as the introduction of an intelligent transport system for the M80. The point I make here is that this project occurred through an open, transparent and consultative process between state and federal governments. It was also outlined in the 2013-14 federal budget.
Labor's mission has always been to invest in modern, well-planned infrastructure that will make working people's lives easier, our businesses more competitive and the national economy stronger and more productive. The M80 upgrade was the right decision. But more importantly, perhaps, it was made in the right way. It was a decision for the region's future that will stand the test of time.
And the present structure of Infrastructure Australia is clearly fit for purpose. It is the right path to nation building. It could, and should be, the best friend our 'infrastructure Prime Minister' could have, rather than what it will be if this bill is passed: simply a fig leaf purporting to cover what is effectively unfettered ministerial discretion. Australia's future infrastructure needs are best met through independent, transparent decision making with a long-term focus, such as through the present structure of Infrastructure Australia. Robust evidence-based approaches to funding infrastructure have been mentioned by members opposite. Robust evidence-based approaches to fund strategic infrastructure are at the core of the present governance and broader arrangements of Infrastructure Australia. This bill does not advance this approach and must be rejected.
I rise to oppose the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013. I follow on from excellent speeches from this side of parliament, which have drawn attention to some very significant flaws in this bill, mostly around the criteria, the granting of extraordinary powers to the minister, the politicisation of an independent process, a complete abandonment of any commitment to an evidence-based approach to infrastructure funding in this country and a clear bias against public transport funding. I would like to concentrate on three particular aspects of this bill, namely the politicisation of a very important process, the impact that this will have on private sector investment and the changes to Infrastructure Australia's role around climate change, which is a little known aspect of this bill and yet another example of the government attacking any independent authority that dares to advise on climate change.
Before I go to that, I would like to comment on the proud record that Labor has in this area compared to those opposite. When Labor came to government in 2007 the OECD had ranked Australia 20 out of 25 countries in relation to our investment in public infrastructure as a proportion of national income. I am proud that, because of Labor's record investment—particularly through the GFC, which the member for Scullin highlighted—Australia is now ranked second in the OECD in terms of investment in infrastructure as a percentage of national income. Among the advanced economies only South Korea is investing more in infrastructure.
Investment in infrastructure in Australia in 2011-12 was four per cent of GDP, which is the highest it has been in 30 years. Again in 2011-12, annual infrastructure spending was 59 per cent higher than the last full year of the Howard government when compared in real terms. This was a real achievement of the previous Labor government and something of which we should be justly proud—both the former minister responsible, the member for Grayndler; and Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard. Labor not only invested much more significantly in infrastructure; we also invested in aspects of infrastructure that were ignored and neglected by the previous coalition government—proudly so, if you believe the words of the current Prime Minister. Labor has invested more Commonwealth funding towards public transport than any other government since Federation, a great achievement that the member for Scullin was commenting on and urging an expansion of, rather than a retreat from.
Labor also appointed Australia's first ever federal infrastructure minister and created the federal infrastructure department. It is interesting to note that transport, such an integral component of infrastructure, no longer has a dedicated cabinet minister in the Abbott government. Instead, the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure has responsibility for transport. That is no reflection on that particular individual, but I think the loss of cabinet rank is a grievous move in terms of infrastructure priorities in Australia. I am proud to say that Infrastructure Australia was established by the former Labor government to ensure that the needs of the nation were put first, rather than petty political needs. Currently Infrastructure Australia has a great purpose: nation-building—not party-building, not electorate pork-barrelling but nation-building. However, this amendment yet again proves that the current government is pining for the past, when pork-barrelling was rife and politics stifled progress. There is no hiding from the fact that this government is seeking to politicise what is currently a well-functioning apolitical body that is guided by sound independent evidence and strong cost-benefit analyses. The proposed amendments will give the minister the power to redirect funds—
Order! The member will resume his seat. I call the parliamentary secretary.
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Opposition members interjecting—
There is no point of order.
I move:
That the question be put.
The question is that the motion be put.
(In division) I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just prior to your calling this division, there were two members on their feet: the member for Watson, who has not spoken in this debate, and the member for Mayo, who has.
(In division) He was moving the formal procedural motion.
(In division) How did you know that before you gave the call? You chose—
(In division) He was on his feet at the dispatch box and received the call from me.
The question now is that the bill be read a second time.
(—) (): (In division)Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am simply inquiring as to why the tellers are counting again when it was a one-minute division and you said those who had changed their minds or came in late should make themselves known to the tellers.
(In division) You have a perfectly valid point. I would remind the tellers that the whole point about a one-minute bell is to speed up the process, not to deliberately slow it down. I would suggest that, as the person who did change her vote did advise the teller and that everybody else I asked remained in their seats, I would have thought you could have speeded it up considerably. It being 9 o'clock—
(In division)Madam Speaker, I am just asking whether any action gets taken against the Leader of the House for walking around the chamber during a division?
(In division) No more than action is taken against anyone who deliberately makes the count long.
(In division) Is that a yes or a no?
(In division) You can interpret it as you wish. I am not amused by this lengthening of a process that was designed to speed up the process.
Order! It being 9 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
I require that the question be put without debate.
The House divided. [21:08]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
Question negatived.
(In division) Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The fact is that the government did not know that they were voting against this resolution. They sat on that side of the chamber.
They have now moved.
You called a one-minute division when it is appropriate when people are swapping sides that there be a four-minute division. I ask you, to stop people being excluded from this vote, to allow a recommitment of this division.
I have taken advice. Everybody was present in the chamber. It was merely a question of moving sides. I have just taken advice and have ruled that way.
Madam Speaker, on the point of order: with respect, the information you have just been provided with is categorically false. The videos will reveal that people re-entered the chamber during that time. I respect that in good faith you have advised the House that everybody was in the chamber—that was not the case.
In that case, there is no business that has transpired. Just to make it simple we will ring the bells for one more minute. I will not have it said that the advice I received was false, but I will say that the bells will ring for one more minute just to resolve any difficulty.
I seek leave of the House to move the third reading immediately.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson moving immediately:
That this House:
condemns the Government for failing to allow proper debate on legislation before the Parliament.
We are in the middle of a debate on important legislation about infrastructure—
I call the Leader of the House.
and the cowardice of the Leader of the House—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no longer heard.
Is the motion seconded?
Indeed, Madam Speaker. I second the motion and I have nothing more to say.
I call the Leader of the House.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect, Madam Speaker, now that I have concluded my speech, you need to put the resolution to the House before you give someone else the call.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Yes, well, you need to do that, Madam Speaker. The Manager of Opposition Business knows that.
Government members interjecting—
The former Leader of the House, who is now apparently the Acting Manager of Opposition Business, has given the chair advice. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Honourable members interjecting—
Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker—
Both the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House will resume their seats. If the Manager of Opposition Business is raising a point of order to resume his status, then it is acknowledged.
Let's be bipartisan! That is outrageous!
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, if you want to be an impartial chair, I ask that you withdraw.
Honourable members interjecting—
Madam Speaker, the government opposes the—
I recognise the Manager of Opposition Business and have already said that I acknowledge the Manager of Opposition Business. Now I call—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member will resume his seat.
A point of order, Madam Speaker!
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. There will be no further points of order acknowledged.
Honourable members interjecting—
Madam Speaker, I move:
That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.
You have just ruled that no other points of order will be heard. That is a ruling, and I move that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
No, Madam Speaker! There has never been an occasion when a Speaker has refused to allow a resolution for dissent to be heard. Your role and everything that is contained within Practice falls apart if you will not hear the dissent motion.
Honourable members interjecting—
The member will resume his seat.
Madam Speaker, I don't need to. I—
Both members will resume their seats. You are asked to resume your seat; you will do so.
I have asked that your ruling be dissented from!
You will resume your seat. You have said that you are dissenting from my ruling. Whether or not you consider I have made a ruling, I do not consider I made a ruling. However, I will entertain your dissent motion if you wish to pursue it.
Madam Speaker, critical to the role of Speaker in this House is the one principle that the Speaker will not engage in debate. The comments that you made with respect to me would have been reasonable interjections when you were in this House merely as the member for Mackellar—rules that were reasonable for any member to get up and try to make a half-funny, childish interjection. But you need to recognise, Madam Speaker, that you are meant to be impartial. You need to recognise, Madam Speaker, that the office you hold is greater and more important than your own political rhetoric. You need to recognise, Madam Speaker, that we have not previously—
It is time this farce were brought to an end, and I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no longer heard.
Is the motion seconded?
Yes, Madam Speaker. A high degree of impartiality in the execution of the duties of office is one of the hallmarks of good speakership. That is what House of Representatives Practice
I call the Leader of the House.
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no longer heard.
A division having been called and the bells being/having been rung—
I am wondering, Madam Speaker, whether there is any precedent for a shutting down of a dissent debate in the Speaker of the House of Representatives since 1901, ever?
I do not know whether that is a point of order.
Because there has not been in the last 17 years.
It is not a point of order. There is no point of order.
The time having expired, the question now is that the motion of dissent from the Speaker's ruling be agreed to.
The question now is that the motion for the suspension of standing and sessional orders be agreed to.
I move:
That, pursuant to contingent notice, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.
Speaking to the motion, the fact is that the opposition have amendments to this legislation that is before the parliament.
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note that the door on this side of the chamber is locked and that people on this side of the chamber cannot get in. I could not get in.
The member might recall that that door has constantly been locked and it has been commented upon often in this House.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question now is that the motion for the suspension of standing and sessional orders be agreed to.
I move:
That so much of the sessional and standing orders be suspended as would—
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I move:
That the question be now put.
In fairness, I have to give the call to the member for Grayndler. The point of order could not sustain the question being put.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Grayndler moving immediately that section 9 of this legislation be deleted.
In terms of this legislation—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no longer heard.
Is the suspension motion seconded?
The parliament tonight is in chaos. I second the motion--
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no longer heard.
This debate can continue, because you have had the mover and the seconder and now a speaker has been called, and I am speaking, because the time continues till 10.43. What we are seeing tonight is one of the greatest displays of petulance—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no longer heard.
I am grateful that the House decided not to gag my speech on this suspension motion. What we are witnessing tonight is one of the most petulant and juvenile displays I have ever seen in this House from government change deniers—
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we have a resolution before us for a suspension of standing orders. The Leader of the House is speaking to other issues and needs to refer specifically to whether or not standing orders should be suspended under the motion before the House.
I am sure the Leader of the House will refer to why standing orders should be so suspended.
The reason why the standing orders should not be suspended is that this side of the House would like to get on with the business of government. We have an infrastructure bill before the House. I have moved the contingency motion so that there will be a third reading on the bill, and I have moved that the bill be now read a third time. Unlike the government change deniers on the other side of the House, the government wants to get on with the business of the parliament. The House should have risen at 9.30, so standing orders should not be suspended, because this is a silly game—a very embarrassing, petulant display by the acting Manager of Opposition Business in the House, who is being run by the former Leader of the House.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the comments made by the Leader of the House should be withdrawn under standing order 90.
There is no point of order.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. They are not the least bit unparliamentary. I know you are showing off in front of—
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I do not see how those comments could be anything other than a reflection on members, which is what standing order 90 refers to.
If my memory serves me correctly, unless a reflection is on a specific individual member, it is in order. I call the—
It's expired.
Not quite.
Yes, it has. There's a clock. There's a clock of his time.
The minister's time has expired, so the question is that the motion to suspend standing and sessional orders be agreed to. All those in favour, please say aye. To the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The noes have it.
In speaking to the amendment, Madam Speaker—
The noes have it.
No, you said the ayes have it.
I said the noes have it. I will recommit the question so you are clear.
No, I am very clear, Madam Speaker. You called it in favour.
You'll be named if you don't sit down.
You called it in favour, and people voted in favour of it, Madam Speaker—
The noes have it, and you know it.
including both sides.
The noes have it.
Opposition members: The ayes have it.
Division required?
Madam Speaker, on a point of order—
Is a division required?
Point of order, Madam Speaker.
The member for Grayndler.
There's no point of order.
Are you in charge or her?
The member for Grayndler may speak to a point of order.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. You quite correctly put the resolution of suspension of standing orders to the parliament. We voted in favour of it. Everyone in this House voted in favour of it.
They did not.
You called it that way—that we had voted in favour of it. You then declared it carried. I then rose to my feet to speak to the amendment to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill, and I should be permitted to do so.
You lost the vote. We called no.
Madam Speaker, this is disorderly.
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. So that we are certain of the way the vote went, I will put the question again. The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion for the third reading of the bill should now take place.
The question now is that the bill be read a third time.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 23:10