Madam Deputy Speaker, I intend to raise a matter of privilege. I understand that under the current arrangements I present the matter of privilege to you and you will then convey it to the Speaker and then he will deliberate on it and you will convey his decision back to the House.
In the form of a letter to the Speaker, I write to you under the provision of the House of Representatives standing order 51 to raise a matter of privilege in relation to the member for Dobell, who, I believe, has deliberately misled the House on 21 May 2012 and request that the Speaker grant precedence to allow a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests for inquiry and report back to the House. The standing orders provide that where a breach of privilege has been committed, the Speaker may grant precedence to a privilege matter and allow a referral to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests in circumstances where a prima facie case exists and where the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity.
My complaint concerns the statement to the House by the member for Dobell on 21 May 2012, which for the following reasons was intended to mislead the House. (1) The member's version of events given to the parliament is an outright contradiction of the findings of the report of 28 March 2012 of Fair Work Australia's investigation of the national office of the Health Services Union under section 331 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, based upon its analysis of the same assertions which the member made to it and which it found not to be credible. (2) The member's key claim is that he was set up by enemies within the Health Services Union. The only piece of evidence to which he points is the alleged threat by another union official, Mr Marco Bolano, that he would 'ruin his political career by setting him up with hookers'. He did not specify when this threat was made or the context. On the basis of this single threat the House was asked to conclude: (a) that this threat was given effect to by an unspecified number of unnamed people; (b) that in order to give effect to the threat these people (i) hacked into the member's mobile phone on numerous occasions in such a manner as to conceal the fact that the phone had been hacked and to mask that in the billing of the phone calls to various Sydney brothels; (ii) took the member's driver's licence and subsequently returned it without his knowledge; (iii) impersonated the member at the Sydney brothels, where it is established that—
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Manager of Opposition Business did inform me that he was going to do this as a courtesy. I indicated that the government would facilitate it, but perhaps it is appropriate, given that this matter will be considered, that the Manager of Opposition Business reach his conclusion.
In accordance with the standing orders, the Manager of Opposition Business has the right to present the matter for privilege that will be referred to the Speaker.
I repeat: (iii) impersonated the member at the Sydney brothels where it is established that photo ID was required before the services of prostitutes could be purchased with credit cards; and (iv) ordered outcall services to be provided in hotel rooms on non-brothel private premises from escort services on a number of different occasions from a number of different hotel rooms. (3) As to the claim against Mr Bolano: (a) in a statement released on 21 May, Mr Bolano emphatically denied the member's assertions; and (b) although the member said that Mr Bolano's threat was made in the presence of others at the HSU offices, he has been able to point to nobody who corroborates his claim that the threat was made. (4) That the member's attempts to explain away each of these matters are implausible and inconsistent. Dealing with each of the matters in paragraph (2)(b)(i) the member produced no evidence whatsoever that his phone had in fact been hacked. He merely says that it was theoretically possible for that to happen. He does not dispute that the phone calls in question were in fact billed to his mobile phone number. He claims that the phone calls were made some years before he was elected a member of parliament.
Order! While I will give leave to do this, I would remind the Manager of Opposition Business, just as I reminded the Leader of the House yesterday, that you need to get to the point, as this will be referred to the Speaker for consideration.
I have been very careful to simply deal with matters on a factual basis and not make any political assertions—
Government members interjecting—
He claims that the phone calls were made some years before he was elected a member of parliament. In fact, the phone calls to Keywed Pty Ltd—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! This is a very serious matter and I think the parliament should pay it due regard.
In fact the phone calls were made to Keywed Pty Ltd on 9 April 2005 and 16 August 2007.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is going to assertions and argument. This is not a kangaroo court; this is the House of Representatives of the parliament. The member has an opportunity to present this and he should wind up his remarks, as I did yesterday, and then we can go on with question time and the business of the parliament.
The Manager of Opposition Business has the call, but I would ask him to come to a conclusion on this matter.
Every matter that I have outlined so far is a simple statement of fact. I am being very careful not to cast political aspersions but to simply to state matters of fact.
A government member: Stick to the facts then!
It certainly is a fact that the member for Dobell claims that although the phone calls were made from Bateau Bay he did not live there until 2009. However, Bateau Bay is in Dobell, where he was the member since 2007 and where he had a presence as an endorsed candidate and preselection aspirant for years before.
As to (2): he seeks to explain the endorsement of his drivers licence on the back of credit card receipts by the fact that his licence number was well known within the office. Even if that were true, it does not explain why the production of the licence was not required at the time the licence number was endorsed on the receipt. He says that the details of his drivers licence were kept on file by the HSU because they were needed for use on right-of-entry permits. However, right-of-entry permits do not require endorsement of drivers license details.
As to (3): he simply did not address the evidence that the brothels paid for by the credit cards required the production of photo ID. He did not address the fact that the credit card receipts are signed in a hand which appears to be identical to his own signature, as verified by the forensic document examiner, Dr Paul Westwood, in his report of 22 August 2011 supplied to New South Wales police with a letter from Senator Brandis of that date.
As to (4): his only explanation for the outcalls was that blocks of rooms were booked in his own name. If this were true his story only stacks up if every single instance of an outcall was from rooms booked to block in his name. There are only two such instances of block bookings recorded in the FWA report. One was with the Marriott hotel, Sydney for the national conference on 7 September 2006, and one to University House, Canberra on 28 August 2007.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While I am reluctant to intervene again because the Manager of Opposition Business is, in fact, presenting a very good case of why privileges cannot consider this sort of detail, the Manager of Opposition Business should come to the point as you have asked him to do—as you did yesterday and I complied with.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on the point of order. The Leader of the House refers to the matter he raised yesterday. As you correctly pointed out yesterday, in fact it was quite unnecessary for the Leader of the House to raise that matter in parliament in the way that he did. He simply could have written to the chairman of the Privileges Committee. In this case, this is not a complaint about a breach of the register of members' interests and therefore this is the only way in which it can be raised.
The Manager of Opposition Business has the call, and will be heard in silence. But with four pages of tightly typed notes he is probably pressing the House's indulgence at the start of question time.
As I was saying, the FWA report gives no credence to this theory.
(5): As to the allegations generally, he claims he has challenged the Victoria Police and the FWA to obtain CCTV footage from the brothels in question. This would be of no assistance, given that the majority of transactions appear to have been for outcall services.
(6): The member's statement is riddled with half-truths. For instance, he stated that the New South Wales police concluded, after considering Senator Brandis's letter, that no offence under New South Wales law had been committed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is a judgment made by the Manager of Opposition Business. I put it to you that he is not in a position to make that judgment either for or against.
The Manager of Opposition Business is raising a matter of privilege and I would ask that he continues to raise a matter of privilege.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point that I am making is that therefore the statements made by the member for Dobell were misleading, and that is why it is a matter of privilege. The Leader of the House should have heard what I was going on to say: the member for Dobell omitted to say that the New South Wales police also said that they were transferring the file for assessment by the Victorian police and that the Victorian police themselves subsequently announced a full investigation, which is ongoing.
He also omitted to say that the New South Wales police then subsequently announced their own investigation—Strike Force Carnarvon—which is ongoing. He also stated that the Fair Work Australia findings as to electoral expenditure have been debunked, when in fact the AEC made findings as to whether specific payments were under the reporting threshold or had been disclosed—not whether they had been properly authorised by the union.
(7): The claims and the explanations which the member made in his statement are either inconsistent with or were not raised by him when he was interviewed by Michael Smith on 1 August 2011. If the explanations he offered the House and to Laurie Oakes are true why did he not mention them almost a year ago? His new explanation has all the hallmarks of recent invention.
Further, if all this explanatory material exists why has the member refused to cooperate with New South Wales and Victoria police?
Government members interjecting—
I am getting to my conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member's statement concentrated almost entirely on the brothel and escort service allegations—
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the Manager of Opposition Business's previous paragraph he was talking about questions to be raised. Through you, he is putting those on the record. It is entirely inappropriate. This is an abuse of the process.
The Manager of Opposition Business is raising a matter of privilege. I would ask him to return to the issue.
I am raising a matter of privilege, and I am outlining to the House the case that I think the Speaker needs to rule on.
The Manager of Opposition Business should conclude, please.
I will. He offered no explanation to the purchase of luxury goods for himself or the use of several hundred thousand dollars of union money for his election campaign. In fact, he states that the FWA failed to give credence to the fact that cash expenditure was properly documented and accounted for. This is entirely at odds with FWA findings 26 to 28 on page 289 and the extensive evidence cited for those findings.
In summary, the member's version of events (a) is not supported by the evidence of a single witness (b) is explicitly contradicted by one person, Mr Bolano, whom he named (c) is not supported by a single piece of documentary—
The Manager of Opposition Business has made his case for privileges to be referred to the Speaker. He will conclude now and I will call on questions.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In doing so I present the annexures to my case: the Fair Work Australia report, the Marco Bolano media release, the interview with Michael Smith, the television interview with Laurie Oakes and the opinion piece published today in the Australian.
The documents and issues will be referred to the Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think it can be let go that the Manager of Opposition Business just spoke about the member for Dobell not having called witnesses. That is the point. This is not a court. This is not somewhere where witnesses are called and come forward and a case is presented. That is the entire point.
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The matter has concluded.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I remind him of over 2,000 jobs lost at BlueScope, OneSteel and Qantas, companies that face a combined carbon tax bill of over $400 million a year and rising. Will the Acting Prime Minister guarantee that not a single job has been lost or will be lost through the introduction of the world's biggest carbon tax, a bad tax based on a lie?
The last part of the question was out of order. The Acting Prime Minister has the call.
What I can say is this: after the introduction of a carbon price, our economy will continue to grow, and grow strongly. We will continue to generate income. We will grow strongly. If you look at where we have been in the last few years and where we can go, we have been in a position where we have been growing unlike any other developed economy. In the next two years we are going to outperform every other major developed economy, and everyone on this side of the House is proud of our job creation record. Over 800,000 jobs have been created in this country—in the past year something like 90,000 jobs. On the Thursday after the budget, we had the Bureau of Statistics figures, which showed that unemployment in Australia was at 4.9 per cent. That is something we are proud of as well.
But we also understand that our economy does face great structural changes and that there are people who do unfortunately lose their jobs. We should give them our full support. Those workers that have lost their jobs at Qantas should receive the full support of Qantas and should receive their entitlement to whatever benefits and support can come from the government, and we will do our utmost to help each and every one of them.
But for those on that side of the House to maintain that these job losses are somehow the result of the introduction of a carbon price shows how dishonest those opposite are—completely dishonest with their scare campaign. They have no shame, because this is the crew that would not stand up for the Australian workforce at the height of the global financial crisis, when they came into this House and the Leader of the Opposition slept through the critical vote to save Australia, to save Australian small businesses and to support our employment. The Liberal Party were missing in action.
This government provides an enormous amount of support to ensure that our economy continues to grow. We are investing in the productive side of our economy. We are doing everything we possibly can to set our economy up for the future. Putting in place carbon pricing reform is just as important a reform as bringing down the tariff wall, the introduction of national superannuation and the introduction of enterprise bargaining. We are doing this because we are all about jobs. Jobs are the No. 1 priority of every member on this side of the House, and they will continue to be our priority. We will not shirk the hard decisions. We will support the Australian workforce every day of the week.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. What role will Australia play in Afghanistan's long-term development?
I thank the member for Melbourne Ports for that very important question, because the stability and security of Afghanistan is firmly in the interests of our region and our country. As the Prime Minister has said, we are on track to complete the transition in Afghanistan by the end of 2014. After the transition, Afghanistan will have responsibility for its own security. Of course, the nature of Australia's engagement in Afghanistan will change, but our commitment to development and stability in Afghanistan will remain. That is why the Prime Minister has worked directly with world leaders—the US President and others—to make sure that we get in place a plan for the future. That is why the Prime Minister has also met with the Afghan President and signed a new partnership agreement between our two nations. This is a very clear demonstration of Australia's long-term commitment to supporting Afghanistan's security, development and governance following transition.
Of course, we are committed to lifting living standards in one of the poorest countries in the world, and we will also be in full support of efforts to combat transnational threats such as terrorism and narcotics. There will also be greater commercial engagement between our two countries. This partnership will be backed up with a commitment to see our aid increase substantially between now and 2015-16. There will be a commitment to increase our aid from $165 million a year to $250 million a year. As we are already doing, we will be building more schools, more infrastructure and more health and education services. This new partnership will provide the assistance that Afghanistan requires for its future development, and it certainly does build on the very substantial foreign aid that we are providing right across our region and across the globe. Our aid budget is a reflection of our commitment to assist with the development of the world's poorest nations, and with this new agreement we will continue to do that.
I would like to point out to the House that today we have an experiment going on: an Auslan translator is in the galleries. She will have to be at the height of her skills and ability to translate everything that is happening in the chamber today! She is with representatives from the Ballarat leadership group, and I hope they enjoy their visit to question time today.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to the letters sent by the Clean Energy Regulator to 104 councils across Australia regarding their liability to pay the carbon tax. I ask the Acting Prime Minister: will the Darwin City Council have a direct carbon tax liability as one of Australia's so-called biggest polluters?
I thank the member for her question. It follows up a question which I think we had yesterday which was factually incorrect.
Opposition members interjecting—
It certainly was—the assertion about the council in Queensland was just wrong. But I will go through the issue. The majority of landfills and the majority of councils in Australia will have no liability under the carbon price. The landfills have to be big enough to be liable. Many of them will never have to pay for emissions for waste deposited before 1 July 2012 and there will be no liability for the whole of 2012-13. The government and the regulator will engage directly with the councils to talk about these matters and to make the assessment as to whether they are liable or not.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Given that it is just 40 days till the introduction of the world's biggest carbon tax, is the Acting Prime Minister confirming that there are 104 councils around our country, including Darwin City Council, that do not know whether they will be liable for this tax or how much? What a disgrace!
The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw.
I withdraw.
It is an abuse of question time to add that to the end of any question.
It is not the issue that the Leader of the Opposition claims because there will be no liability in 2012-13.
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation. Minister, how is the government supporting Australian families and businesses through sensible tax reform to spread the benefits of the mining boom?
I thank the member for Petrie for her question. I know she is a tireless advocate for the people of north Brisbane in her electorate of Petrie. This government understands the pressures that the patchwork economy is placing on Australian families and small businesses, and that is why we are determined to manage the economy to spread the benefits of the mining boom and to ensure that we keep our economy strong. And it is a strong economy; it is an economy that has been growing strongly. It is now seven per cent larger than it was before the global financial crisis hit. We have low unemployment, at 4.9 per cent, and contained inflation. We have a record pipeline of investment coming into this country and our public finances are amongst the strongest in the world. A AAA credit rating from all three major ratings agencies is something that was achieved under this government for the first time in our nation's history.
Not only are we determined to spread the benefits of the mining boom and manage the economy in the interests of working people but we are determined to do it whilst also cutting taxes. And we have been cutting taxes. Since we came to office we have delivered $47 billion worth of personal income tax cuts. And now we are delivering a new wave of tax reforms. We are tripling the tax-free threshold from 1 July, and that will mean one million Australians will not even have to lodge a tax return. We are delivering tax cuts to over seven million Australian workers. Over six million of them will receive $300 a year in a tax cut. This is real tax reform impacting on real people.
At the same time, we are delivering tax reform for small businesses. On the one hand we have introduced our instant asset write-off. We have also introduced measures that will be coming into effect shortly that will allow for the carry-back of losses. These are measures that underpin our approach to cutting taxes. But the best evidence that this is a low-tax government is our tax to GDP ratio. It is at 22.1 per cent in the coming year. How does that compare with previous governments? When the previous government left office it was at 23.7 per cent. In fact, it hit a record high of 24.25 per cent back when they were in government.
If we were taxing at those levels today, we would be bringing in an extra $33 billion in tax every year. We are a low-taxing government and they were a high-taxing government. And then we heard last week from the shadow Treasurer that he wants to scrap the tax cuts that we are about to introduce. He wants to scrap them, he wants to claw them back. The Australian people know that we support families and businesses. The opposition want to hike up taxes— (Time expired)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has gone through what the government is doing to help people across the country. Minister, what does this mean for local communities like mine in Brisbane?
I thank the member for Petrie. I know that she is interested in all of those people in her electorate who are benefiting from our government's efforts to cut taxes. When she comes into this place she has the 49,000 people in her electorate in mind—the people who will benefit from a tripling of the tax-free threshold. I know that she has got in mind the 3,000 people in her electorate who will not even have to put a tax return in and she is thinking about the 43,000 people in her electorate who will get a tax cut of more than $300 from 1 July. I know that she is also a very strong advocate of small business in her electorate. There are 12,300 small businesses in the electorate of Petrie that will be lining up on 1 July to take advantage of the instant asset write-off, where they will get an instant deduction on assets worth up to $6½ thousand.
I know the member for Petrie is not the only member representing the Brisbane area—it is the north Brisbane area, in her case—and interested in standing up for small businesses. Or, at least, so they sometimes say. I saw a quote that stated that small business is the nucleus of the Australian economy as the single greatest generator of jobs and opportunities in our economy, and that we must reward them and we must not punish them. That is what the member for Brisbane had to say. It is a shame she came into this place and voted against tax relief for the 33,000 small businesses in her electorate. (Time expired)
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister and Treasurer. Will the Treasurer confirm that the government expects to pay $29 billion in interest alone on the government's borrowings over the next four years? Can the Treasurer advise the House how much of the $29 billion in interest is just interest on interest on existing Labor government debt?
I thank the shadow Treasurer for that question because it is a very important question. It is true that the government has a modest borrowing program. Those opposite have decided to go around the country and run a scare campaign about that as well.
The truth of the matter is we do have a modest borrowing program and net debt is 9.6 per cent of GDP in 2011-12. Let us get things into perspective because that is about one-tenth of debt elsewhere across other major developed economies, so very modest. This is why the major rating agencies have given us our AAA gold plated rating. Our credit worthiness is very high. It is the highest rating they can give. This country, led by this government, has been given that by the rating agencies for the first time in our history. It certainly was not given to this country when those opposite were in government. Net debt at about 9.6 per cent of GDP is like someone earning $100,000 a year and owing a modest $9,600 a year. Net interest payments in 2012-13 will be 0.5 per cent of GDP and that is like someone earning $100,000 a year and paying only $500 in interest. This just puts our debt into perspective. What we have here is an irresponsible scare campaign—
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order of relevance. It was a simple question. How much interest on interest is going to be paid over the next four years? It was a factual question.
The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Treasurer and Acting Prime Minister is answering the question and has the call.
I certainly am answering the question. If he wants to go into the ins and outs of every figure, he can read it in the budget papers.
My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development and relates to the Australian Employment Covenant signed in 2008. Given the successful Indigenous employment retention rates achieved by the program, could the minister update the House on the government's position on progressing the training for actual jobs methodology under the covenant and on the vocational training and employment centre proposal espoused by Mr Andrew Forrest?
I thank the member for New England for his question. I know he has shown an interest in Indigenous employment for quite some time now and I know that he, like the government, is very committed to closing the gap on Indigenous employment, and I value his interest in this very important subject.
The government signed the Australian Employment Covenant in 2008. Since 2009, through the Indigenous Employment Program, there have been more than 83,000 placements of Indigenous Australians into jobs or training. Of that 83,000, more than 38,000 of those placements have been into actual jobs. We are very committed to our target of closing the gap. When it comes to the 61,000 job commitments from the Australian Employment Covenant, the Australian government has supported the Australian Employment Covenant with more than $7 million so far for their Indigenous Employment Program.
We have been working with the Australian Employment Covenant to ensure that when these jobs come online that we actually have Indigenous Australians trained and ready to take them up. It is important to remember that not all of the jobs come online straight away. They are forward commitments of large companies across Australia. In fact, we already have more than 73 covenant employers for which we are providing direct support today of more than $132 million. These job placements currently are with companies such as Coles, Woolworths, some of the big banks, Accor Hotels and Linfox. I am in regular contact with the Australian Employment Covenant and I have also met several times with GenerationOne in relation to Indigenous employment. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate those employers that are taking their commitments very seriously indeed.
I visited the Pilbara last week. I visited the Fortescue Metals VTEC model. I also went and visited Rio Tinto, Woodside, Ngarda Civil and Mining to look at some of their Indigenous employment programs. The VTEC model is just one of those. I understand the commitment of Mr Forrest and of the other companies when it comes to Indigenous employment. What I have said is that we want to do an evaluation of the Indigenous employment programs such as VTEC before we commit any further funding. That evaluation will look at real outcomes for Indigenous Australians and it will also look at value for money for taxpayers for these programs. The Indigenous Employment Program is funded for $650 million over four years and we are very committed to ensuring that we have Indigenous Australians in jobs and that we continue to close the gap on Indigenous employment.
I would like to acknowledge in the gallery today the former member for Macarthur, Pat Farmer, who has just completed a short stroll from the North Pole to the South Pole, some 20,990 kilometres. I have been reliably informed that is two marathons a day, every day with no days off; congratulations. Sitting through this, he probably wants to run away from question time too.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister and Treasurer. What is the government doing to spread the benefits of the mining boom to help families and working people to make ends meet?
I thank the member for La Trobe for that very important question, because our economy does walk tall in the world. We have solid growth, we have low unemployment, we have contained inflation, we have rock-solid public finances and of course we have a huge investment pipeline. One of the reasons we are in such a strong position is what this government did at the height of the global financial crisis and the global recession to support employment in this country. We got the best outcomes of any developed economy in the world. Of course, those opposite, if they would have had their way, would have seen Australia go into recession, deficits and debt would have been higher, unemployment would have been higher and business closures would have been higher. But our economy is fundamentally stronger because of what we did at the height of the global financial crisis and the global recession.
Now we do expect to return to trend growth and, given the investment pipeline, we are in a position to spread the opportunities from this growth right around our country, to make sure that these opportunities go to every postcode, to make sure that these opportunities do not just go to those that are in the fast lane of the resources boom. Plenty of people out there are sitting around and saying: 'Where is this boom? Are we part of it or not?' So the important thing that we have put in place in this budget is a plan to spread the benefits of a strong economy right around our country. Of course, that is why we are delivering tax cuts to something like seven million low- and middle-income-earning Australians. This will take something like one million Australians out of the tax system.
These proposals would be ripped away by those opposite if they had their way. These very big tax reforms for people who are on some of the lowest incomes in our community would be ripped away. It is also why the budget delivers $5 billion over five years in additional support for low- and middle-income households to help with the cost of living. Here, in particular, is the schoolkids bonus, recognising how important it is to help families when the kids are back at school. Additional assistance will also be provided in additional family payments. All of these things would be ripped away by those opposite. They claim that they are concerned about the cost of living, but they are not when it comes to sending the kids to school or when it comes to actually providing some help through the family payments system.
Of course there are also the payments that are going out now in terms of the clean energy package—payments to families and payments to pensioners. All of these would be ripped away by those opposite. In addition to that, they would rip away the instant asset write-off—this fundamental tax relief for up to 2.7 million small businesses right around this country. That too would be ripped away.
What this really demonstrates is that those opposite have no plan to return our budget to surplus, no plan to provide tax relief for small businesses, no plan for the future of the country. (Time expired)
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I remind the Acting Prime Minister of the actions taken by the New Zealand Minister of Immigration, who recently introduced strong measures to deter people smuggling, by making New Zealand are less desirable target, that included a form of temporary protection visa. If the threat of a single boat caused the New Zealand government to introduce temporary protection visas, why hasn't the reality of 18,000 people arriving on 314 illegal boats caused the government to reintroduce the coalition's proven border protection policies, including temporary protection visas?
Because the coalition's policy was a complete failure. This so-called 'solution' was a complete failure.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Acting Prime Minister has the call.
They might like to pretend that Nauru was a solution; it was not. But there is a solution out there that can be put in place. It is called overseas processing, it is called the Malaysian arrangement, and they are blocking it. And why are they blocking it? Because they know it will work—because they have made the judgment that they will not support overseas processing, which is the only measure which will break the people smugglers' model. They will not support it because they think it is in their political interest to have more boats arriving in Australia. So they get up and ask questions about boats arriving in Australia, but the blame rests fairly and squarely with them and their refusal to support overseas processing.
The Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary?
Yes. Can the Acting Prime Minister confirm that under the Howard government there were less than three boats a year and under the current government there are two boats a week? What sort of failure is the Acting Prime Minister talking about?
I can certainly confirm that virtually all those people they sent to Nauru came to Australia.
My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Will the minister inform the House how the government is helping families to meet the costs of educating their children? Why is it important that the government does this and are there any obstacles?
I would like to thank the member for Capricornia for her question. This budget was important because it provided an opportunity for families to get additional support as they face cost of living pressures when they are raising their kids and sending them to school. Not only was it spreading the benefits of the mining boom, not only was it focused on the vulnerable in our community, but it was making sure that at that time of the year when parents know that they have got additional schooling costs—the start of term 1, the start of term 3—if their kids are in primary school for each kid they could get $410, and if their kids were in high school they could get $820. This was a really good, positive measure that was put forward by this government, who understands that these costs are real for working families.
Of course it came on top of record levels of investment in education by this Labor government over time. We have seen a national curriculum delivered. We have seen improvement in school facilities right around Australia. We have seen computers coming into high schools so that every kid in years 9 to 12 has the opportunity to get into the digital age. On top of all of that, we have got a budget which provides not only the tax relief that the Treasurer spoke about but also help for parents who face real cost of living pressures and know that some extra money for new school books, a uniform, some sports gear, or whatever it might be, would help them with raising their families.
The question that I was asked, about how important this help from the government is, goes right to the heart of the challenges that parents face as they are educating their kids. When a kid comes home and says to their mum or dad, 'I need a little bit extra for a school excursion,' the parents have got to find that money out of their own pocket. We understand that these are real costs for parents around Australia. But when the Leader of the Opposition chose to block the schoolkids bonus he was saying in effect that he does not trust families to make those decisions. I do not think many people understand that 1.3 million families will benefit from this schoolkids bonus. That is 1.3 million families whom the Leader of the Opposition—who wants them to trust him as a politician—was not prepared to trust to make decisions about educating their families. I think that speaks volumes about the Leader of the Opposition.
The shadow minister for education said something like, 'This is just a sugar hit.' I suspect that left a sour taste in the mouths of a few people around Australia when they heard it. It highlights the fact that those opposite do not understand that families face real cost of living pressures and that this government is providing them with support as they send their kids to school.
I recognise in the gallery the former member for Solomon, Damian Hale. I welcome him back for a visit.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Following on from the minister's answer, how will these policies help families in my electorate and others in Queensland?
I thank the member for Capricornia for that important follow-up question. In Capricornia, some 8,650 families are expected to benefit from the schoolkids bonus. That is a lot of families who know what it is like to meet those additional education costs for their kids. Now, because of the budget that has been brought down by this government, they will have the opportunity to do that. It is not only 8,600 or so families in Capricornia but also 280,000 families in Queensland who are also expected to benefit.
The government understand how important education is. We know that every young Australian student who has the opportunity to be at a school that has good facilities provided by this government, access to computers provided by this government, teachers with good quality training provided by this government, and a national curriculum delivered by this government will benefit. In the electorate of Capricornia, 13 schools have benefitted from eight trades training centres and more than $20 million from us. That is 13 schools who have benefited under national partnerships from the investment that we have made in making sure that there is teacher quality in schools, support for teachers as they teach kids, and improvements and additional effort on literacy and numeracy. All of these significant investments are happening not only in Capricornia but right around Queensland, because this government understands the importance of education.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to the statement by the Prime Minister that the member for Dobell would not represent the Labor Party in Dobell at the next election and that he would be excluded from the Labor caucus—a statement which the Prime Minister has reaffirmed in Chicago today. Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with the Prime Minister? If so, isn't it true that both he and the Prime Minister have been prepared to act as judge and jury over the member for Dobell in every respect other than refusing to accept his vote in the parliament?
No, I do not, and I would like to take some time to explain why. There is an enormous difference between the decision taken by the Prime Minister and the decision taken by the member for Dobell to go to the crossbenches and what has been put forward by the opposition in this House. There is an enormous difference. What is going on in this House today is that those opposite want this parliament to be a kangaroo court. We saw that earlier today with the reference to the Privileges Committee by the Manager of Opposition Business. He wants this parliament to be judge, jury and executioner; whereas we on this side of the House believe that people are innocent until they are proven guilty and that they should be given an opportunity to explain themselves. Those on that side of the House want to turn this parliament into a kangaroo court. They should be ashamed of the tactics that they have applied in this House both yesterday and again today.
The opposition have basically been trashing the rule of law in our country. That is what has been going on. They have been coming into this House and denying the presumption of innocence, and they have been denying the separation of power. All of this comes from the Leader of the Opposition. All of it comes from him. He wants to tear down the very pillars of our democracy. He wants to tear down the rule of law for political gain. I will tell you what: that is not leadership; that is weakness and cowardice. I can tell everybody in this House, and you can literally feel it here: there is a stench of negativity about this Leader of the Opposition and everybody over there knows it. These are the sort of 'say anything, do anything' tactics that we have had from the Leader of the Opposition that demonstrate that he is unfit for high office.
My question is to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform. How is the government's budget helping Australian families make ends meet? What would be the impact of withdrawing this support?
I thank the member for Blair very much for his question and for all the work that he does for the people in his electorate, in the Ipswich area. I was very pleased to be with him in Ipswich late last week to meet with people with disability, people providing services to those with disability and their families and carers and to especially talk to them about the government's plans to introduce a national disability insurance scheme. We certainly are getting on with that job, and I appreciate the way in which the member for Blair and the people in Ipswich were so supportive of the government's moves.
For the information of the people of Blair, from 20 June around 11,000 families will start to receive the schoolkids bonus, and of course that will mean that people who need a helping hand will get it with their education costs. One of the important things for that area is that that will mean not only that those thousands and thousands of families are going to get that extra bit of help but also that the newsagents, the clothing shops and those places that sell shoes and all the things that kids need will see a boost to the local economy. We expect around $11 million to be spent in the member for Blair's electorate, and that certainly will help those retailers as well as those families. This will be the case right around the country as we see parents get this extra help for all the things that their children need. We expect around one million families will get extra money.
I have had quite a lot of correspondence from families around the country, one parent saying that he applauds 'the new schoolkids bonus—a lot less paperwork, always a good thing.' Of course, we know that did not stop the opposition from saying no. It does not matter what the public thinks, the opposition just say no. Parents say they want this schoolkids bonus; the opposition say no. The opposition say that they do not trust parents. Parents have found this deeply insulting. I heard from another mother recently, and she knows exactly how she will be spending this money. She is going to spend it on a new school uniform for her child—'Something,' as she said to me, 'I had to put off due to struggling financially.' Of course, that is something that those opposite do not understand at all. This government is determined to do everything it can to help parents and to make sure it supports them. All those opposite can do is say no and make it plain that they intend to claw back this assistance from families.
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Does the minister have full confidence in Fair Work Australia?
I thank the member for Bradfield for his question. I do have confidence in 'full work Australia', Fair Work Australia.
Opposition members interjecting—
Sorry, I was momentarily confused with our very good unemployment numbers—4.9 per cent. But, in terms of Fair Work Australia, I do have confidence and I do have confidence in the work they do. I have confidence that when they hear the minimum wage case which started yesterday they will put the interest of low-paid workers first. I have confidence in Fair Work Australia to ensure that collective bargaining is done to accomplish the best interests of employers and employees. I have confidence in Fair Work Australia to make sure that workers have an opportunity to have a say in their workplace.
I have confidence in Fair Work Australia to be able to ensure that when unfair dismissal applications are made they are handled in the most appropriate manner possible. I have confidence in Fair Work Australia to do the right thing by employers and by workers in Australia. I have no confidence in those opposite to ever do the right thing by Australian working people.
My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Management.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The member for Cook and the minister are denying the member for Fremantle the call. The member for Fremantle will begin her question again.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Management. What is the government doing to ensure that the most vulnerable children in our society remain a key focus for the government now and into the future?
I thank the member for Fremantle for this question, and I know that she is particularly interested in the answer. In addition to all of the comments that have been made already in question time today by the minister for education and the minister for families, looking at the practical things that we can do to provide assistance to families who have children both at primary school and in secondary school, the member for Fremantle, along with a number of people on this side of the House, has been advocating for some time for the establishment of a national children's commissioner. This is an issue that we are giving attention because, as well as supporting families across the board with the costs of looking after children, we want to make sure that children, particularly those in vulnerable situations, do have an advocate absolutely dedicated to listening to their needs and making sure that the voices of children are heard, and that in our policy making—like we did when the Treasurer put together this budget—we continue to pay attention to the needs of children.
I am particularly pleased that I have been asked about this today, because tomorrow in this place we will be taking the important step of introducing legislation to establish the first National Children's Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission. The National Children's Commissioner will have the important task of promoting the rights, wellbeing and development of children and young people in Australia. This will mean that for the first time Australia will have a dedicated advocate focused on the human rights of children and young people at the national level, and it will see issues of children continue to be front and centre of the government's policy development, instead of sidelining these concerns.
Mr Katter interjecting—
I take those interjections, because the point already made by ministers who have answered a range of questions today is that we are already heavily focused on the needs of children and the needs of families with children, particularly—
You stupid, irresponsible person.
The member for Kennedy is warned!
the cost of bringing up those children but also their needs. Whether it is making sure that there is more research, whether it is making sure that they have adequate advocacy or whether it is educational programs that can be conducted, these will all unashamedly focus on the needs of the most vulnerable children in our society. Crucially, the commissioner is going to consult directly with children and young people to ensure that their voices are heard and their needs are pursued. Talking directly with kids will signal that, as adults, we think that they matter, that we value their childhood and that we will listen to their needs and their hopes. This has been a longstanding policy of the Labor Party. I am delighted that we are now able to make this a reality because of a provision set aside in this year's budget. I think it highlights that, as well as being able to bring our budget into surplus and spread the benefits of the mining boom, this budget looks after those who are most vulnerable in the community, including those whose voices are often not heard.
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Has the minister asked his department to investigate the member for Dobell's claim that the deputy president of Fair Work Australia, Mr Michael Lawler, interfered in the Fair Work Australia inquiry into the Health Services Union? If he believes the member for Dobell's claim, why not?
I thank the member for Mayo for his first question on industrial relations since he designed Work Choices. I listened carefully to the member for Dobell's speech. Let me put this on the record: there has been no evidence of misconduct provided to me about the matter which you are raising. There has been no evidence of misconduct provided to me. However, when I am asked about the statement and the matters referred to in the statement, let me also put on the record—as this government has done any number of occasions since the release of the Fair Work Australia general manager's delegates report into the HSU—that something has clearly gone very wrong in parts of the HSU. The conduct and behaviour, the subject of the findings, are unacceptable. It is disturbing.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order about relevance. The question was very specific: has he asked his department to investigate the claims made.
Order! The minister is answering the question and has the call.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. To take up where I left off, the question asked by the member for Mayo is clearly politically motivated. There is no doubt that those who are responsible for the conduct reported in parts of the Health Services Union should be held accountable. We owe it to the members, we owe it to their families. But to do so means the court processes must be upheld. I think it is time for those opposite to stop engaging in the personal destruction of people. It is time for those opposite to accept that the court processes are the best place to test the evidence. It is in fact time for those opposite to return to the matters of importance in the national debate about the future of work and workplace relations. It is time for those opposite to raise their voice not in some sort of swamp of self-righteousness. It is time for those opposite to stand up and raise—
Order! It is time for the minister to return to the question.
It is time for those opposite to stop being self-righteous and instead—why don't they ever vote for an increase in super for low-paid health workers? Why don't they ever vote for a pay rise for low-paid workers? Will they be making a submission to the minimum wage case in favour of health workers? I think not.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to ask the minister to table the documents which he was quoting from.
Was the minister quoting from a document?
No.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: you and I both from our vantage points here can see that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations was reading from a document. His answer that, no, he was not was clearly untrue.
My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Will the minister update the House on the government's response to the request from the Queensland Premier for a handover on various environmental powers?
I thank the member for Moreton for the question and the strong interest he is taking in environmental issues in Queensland. It has been the position of this government for some time, since we issued our response to the Hawke review on national environmental law reform, that if you can—without reducing the national standards of environmental law—have more of the referrals being done at a state level, then you can achieve the same environmental outcomes without increasing the burden on business. We have argued for a year that it is the right thing to do and our amendments that we will be bringing into the parliament will reflect that.
Notwithstanding that, the Queensland Premier has gone further and has been demanding that these things be done immediately. He has also been demanding that he become the enforcer of national environmental powers at the COAG meeting. Well, it only took a fortnight after that before he went from saying he wanted to enforce national environmental law to wanting to tear it down. From time to time, people will ridicule environmental protections for endangered species when it is a species no-one has ever heard of, when it is something that if you saw it in your garden you would think was a weed, when it is some sort of thrice-mutated frog. But only the Queensland National Party could say that an obscure species unworthy of protection was going by the name 'koala'. Only the Queensland National Party would be able to say, 'Well, we are just going too far if we going to protect the koala under national environmental law.'
So I say to the Queensland Premier, if he still wants to have a go at taking on and getting rid of some of the processing times, which we believe should happen—I wrote more than a week ago to my counterpart, the Queensland environment minister, as I did to the other states' environment ministers, and said there is one species where the delays have caused immense pain and annoyance for communities. Many members of parliament here on both sides of the House, notably the member for Kennedy, have complained for a long time about the impact of flying foxes when they are in urban communities, when they are in schools, when they are in hospitals, when they are in parks. There is a limited period each year when you can relocate them, and every day that you delay that with processing times makes the problem worse. It ends up with communities being saddled with these problems.
I have written to the Queensland government saying, 'If you want this power on flying foxes, let's agree, and agree quickly, through a conservation agreement'—not a word in response. It is one thing to spend all your time grandstanding, but if he actually wants these powers it is time to play, to sign the document instead of just writing media releases, and to get an outcome that the people of Queensland can benefit from.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been misrepresented.
The member for Kennedy can resume his seat. He can seek to do that after question time.
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. Does the minister have full confidence in the work of Mr Terry Nassios, the principal investigator for Fair Work Australia?
) ( ): I believe that the report prepared by the delegate for the general manager of Fair Work Australia, Terry Nassios, is a very serious report. It is a report which we have said is disturbing in its findings. I also believe that we owe it to the members of this union to see this process reach its end—which is for the matter to be tested in court. This parliament is not qualified to test and cross-examine these matters—
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The member for Dickson, the minister has the call and will be heard in silence.
This government will not be diverted from its process to make sure that the report is concluded and that the matters listed in the report are tested in the court. We owe it to the members of this union to make sure that this matter is concluded properly, not in—
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The minister has concluded his answer. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat.
My question is to the Minister for Employment Participation and Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare. Will the minister please outline how our employment services are working to make sure that more Australians benefit from our strong labour market conditions?
I take the opportunity to thank the member for Page for her question and for her long-held interest in this area. The member for Page knows well that our government has just delivered a budget which will return us to surplus, a budget that spreads the benefits of the mining boom but also, importantly, a budget that supports the most vulnerable people in Australia. Of course, we know that many of the most vulnerable people in Australia are those who are outside of the labour market—those who are unemployed and, in some cases, who have been trapped in a cycle of intergenerational welfare dependence. This Labor budget commits some $9.3 billion to our employment services over the next four years so that we can help spread the benefits of our prosperity.
With an April unemployment rate of 4.9 per cent, we know that hundreds of thousands of Australians are sharing in the benefits and the dignity of work. But statistics like this do not just happen. We worked hard to create Job Services Australia, and I can now inform the House that, less than three years after these services were established, our providers have now successfully made over one million job placements across the nation. It is significant that amongst these placements the outcomes for the most disadvantaged Australians—for those suffering mental illness, for those who are homeless and for those facing multiple disadvantage—have improved by a staggering 90 per cent.
This is the agenda that we are progressing. This is the Labor way: ensuring that individuals are not left on the sidelines, that those with the capacity to work are in work and that they are given every opportunity to participate. We know this is for their benefit but it is also for the benefit of our economy and our productivity. We are proud of the progress that we have made but we know that there is more to be done. In our budget we have announced new measures, new support, for the job seekers who need it the most, and new incentives for employers to help those job seekers to get that first foot in the door that they need.
Our government has been very clear that no-one should be left behind. We are committed to ensuring that Australians have the chance to share in our prosperity. Through this focus, through this budget, we are creating jobs. We are supporting the workers who put in the hard slog and deserve the benefit, but we are also increasing workforce participation to help spread the benefits of the strong economy, and our nation is both stronger and fairer as a result of it.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
My question is to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in regard to a response given today by the Acting Prime Minister. Given that, according to the statement by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship on 8 February 2008, some 57 per cent of the 1,637 people subject to the Pacific Solution were not resettled in Australia and were returned home or resettled in countries other than Australia, will you—
The member for Cook will resume his seat.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, that is totally out of order.
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. It is not a question of the chair. The member for Kennedy has the call.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
Please proceed.
The questions raised by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities concerning flying foxes in Queensland are of very great importance. In one town alone in North Queensland there were three deaths in one year from leptospirosis—in just one town. In the recent elections the ALP did not win one seat in North Queensland. It is one of the burning issues. The incoming government promised that there would be immediate action. What I want to ask the minister—
The member for Kennedy needs to demonstrate where he has been misrepresented.
The way I have been misrepresented relates to the fact that I have been quoted in the media as having spoken in praise of the incoming government's commitment on the flying foxes. I have been very badly misrepresented, as that was done on the basis of an undertaking that they were fair dinkum, and I found out today that they are anything but fair dinkum.
The member for Kennedy has indicated where he has been misrepresented. He cannot enter into debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented, because I am on record as saying that the incoming government should be praised for what they were doing, when in fact they were not doing anything at all, so I have clearly been misrepresented.
The member for Kennedy has demonstrated where he has been misrepresented.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the member for Indi claim to have been misrepresented?
Madam Deputy Speaker, yes, I do.
The member for Indi has the call and will be heard in silence.
In some online media reports this afternoon it was stated that I was trustee of the estate of the late Dr Colin Howard QC, that I had failed to make disclosure, and that somehow this was going to lead to tit for tat. I think it was in the online Sydney Morning Herald.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Order! The Leader of the House does not have the call. It is a personal explanation and the member for Indi will be heard in silence.
The first paragraph of the explanatory notes in the Register of Members' Interests says:
The purpose of the Register of Members' Interests is to place on the public record Members' interests which may conflict, or may be seen to conflict, with their public duty.
Firstly, as the estate remains in administration, I am executor and not trustee. Secondly, it is no secret that I was named executor of the said estate. It was, after all, on the front pages of the newspapers and easily accessible on the Supreme Court Registry. Thirdly, the rules are silent about the matters that need to be added to the register. I have been advised by the Clerk of the House of Representatives that the notes do not specify what date or event triggers the 28-day period within which notifications need to be made—that is, whether or not that would be on the granting of probate or an earlier or later date.
So the matter of when the 28 days is triggered should be clarified for all members.
The member for Indi needs to state where she has been misrepresented.
In any event, if there has been an inadvertent omission, it was obviously not a deliberate or knowing omission. The pitiable attempt by the member for Grayndler to suggest some kind of moral equivalence with Labor scandal will attract the scorn it deserves.
The member for Indi will resume her seat.
I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 33 of 2011-2012 entitled Management of ePassports.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
On indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the benefit of the House, it might be beneficial to indicate that more people than usual wish to speak on the MPI so that will be accommodated in following order: an Independent speaker, a government speaker, an opposition speaker, an Independent speaker, a government speaker, an opposition speaker and then an Independent speaker. So there will be three Independent speakers, two government speakers and two opposition speakers. That has been agreed with the Manager of Opposition Business and the Independents.
The Speaker has received letters from the honourable member for Lyne and the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), the Speaker has selected the matter which, in his opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Lyne, namely:
The importance of public confidence and public trust in the Australian Parliament, and how the Parliament should respond to matters related to the Member for Dobell.
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—
Quite obviously, there is an issue of importance before the House at present. The aim of this matter of public importance is certainly not to fan the lynch mob or be a kangaroo court. It is not to trawl through the tea leaves of events within a particular union a decade ago. It is not to add to the stress of the family of the individual member involved or to ignore the human element in dealing with the Fair Work Australia report. It is not to pass judgment or to play jury. It is to have a debate, starting with full respect for the principles of the presumption of innocence and the separation of powers. It is to have at its heart the aim of trying to kick-start a more rational debate on what next. Where do we go with the findings in a 1,100 page report from an independent statutory body of the Commonwealth and with a 59-minute initial reply from the member for Dobell? We have what I consider to be a category killer for all of us. It is causing significant damage both short and long term with regard to public confidence and public trust in the Australian parliament itself. In my view, we do therefore need to respond in some kind.
The point of this MPI is also to express my views that the member for Dobell's inactions as a member of parliament—not as a union official a decade ago—including the admission he made yesterday that he regrets putting legal advice and political party advice before getting to his feet and explaining to colleagues what an earth is going on, are issues that this parliament needs to address.
The point of the MPI is also to call for some very clear leadership from the executive and from the Prime Minister in particular on where to go from here. The vast majority of people who have contacted us, particularly in the last 24 hours, are asking that very simple question: what next? What investigations are currently underway and who is going to assure the community that these matters will actually go to court, which so many are saying is the appropriate place for these matters to be addressed? Leadership in explaining the next steps in the process is what is being sought by many. Personally, I remain, frankly, angry and let down by the member for Dobell as a fellow member of parliament for saying a year ago that he would make a speech to the House and only doing it yesterday, leading to an increased loss of public confidence and trust along the way. I as well, frankly, personally remain angry and let down by the member for Dobell in his confirmation that he had put in the public square some language with regard to defamation and just left it hanging—he did not choose to correct the record as quickly as possible, which should be part of the values that all of us as MPs hold dear. Frankly, personally, I remain angry and let down by the member for Dobell with regard to reports that continue to suggest a reluctance to fully and openly assist investigative bodies in an effort to resolve all issues, as should, again, be a basic value held by all MPs at all times.
My interest in being a member of parliament is in empowering and building community and in working on issues nationally to lift the standard of living of all of us. It is not this stuff. I would be surprised if any of us are here with the motivation of being driven by issues that have arisen over the last 24 hours with regard to a fellow member. Issues for me include the Pacific Highway, regional education, regional hospitals, and reform programs in the areas of natural resources, aged care, innovation and tax. Each MP in this place, I am sure, has their own list. As a value, I believe strongly that the best way to achieve all these reforms for the better is through this place, through our parliament, and by that I mean in the process of debate. I believe in participatory democracy and that the simple act of airing issues and engaging community through debate can assist greatly in reaching the right outcomes in public policy. It is a natural default position of what it is to be an MP.
So I feel sadness and anger that public confidence and trust has been eroded through the range of issues associated with the Fair Work Australia report, and in particular that issues have not been dealt with by the member in question in the past year when he said he would deal with them in the public domain. These are outstanding issues that go back nearly a decade and have remained outstanding for the past three parliaments. That, I think, is something that all should be pretty frustrated and angry about. As stated, my particular frustration is that it has taken so long for facts to be put on the table by both Fair Work Australia and the member for Dobell. That delay in establishing the facts has done damage to the parliament itself. The delay of four years is an unacceptable length of time by Fair Work Australia in its duties and raises policy questions of why and at what expense to the taxpayer. Likewise, the delay in the member for Dobell standing up and at least explaining the issues from his point of view has, in rugby league terms, brought the game of the parliament into disrepute and has ended up doing damage to the parliament itself. It was unacceptable that it took the member for Dobell so long to fulfil his duties as an MP and to stand up in this place, a point he himself acknowledged with regret yesterday.
So just as the Labor Party has felt it necessary to dismiss one of its own over this issue, so the parliament should find the right response to the Fair Work report. The parliament needs to play its role, in my view, and express little tolerance for further delays in resolving the many issues in question. These issues in question do go back, as I said before, nearly a decade—not to the previous Rudd majority parliament nor the last two Howard minority governments, but back to 2003. It is wrong to blame this 43rd Parliament for dealing with what should have been dealt with by various parties involved a long time ago. It is right that we tolerate no longer delays in debating this issue and to encourage any investigations that may need to proceed. It was nearly a year ago that the member for Dobell informed us, his parliamentary colleagues, that he would make a statement on all issues to the House to clarify the swirling rumours and attacks on the parliament itself on issues that none of us, if we are honest, are fully aware of in detail. It is his failure to recognise the damage his silence has been doing to our great institution, as well as the findings of the Fair Work report itself, that are the two substantive issues this House needs to consider.
The Fair Work report was a 1,150-page report with over 150 contraventions identified. It is a shocking and damning report. It has status and it has worth. The line of questioning at the end of question time today is the right way for this parliament to do its job. It is wrong to deny its status and it is wrong to deny that the work done by Fair Work Australia does not deserve the full support of government.
I accept that the member for Dobell has raised serious allegations against Fair Work Australia that involve Kathy Jackson and Tony Abbott's relationship with the deputy. On this point I do not accept an argument of interference from either Kathy Jackson or Tony Abbott, and arguments presented on websites such as VEXNEWS should be dismissed as both unhelpful and untested. In my view, the weight of evidence is with the Fair Work Australia report, and progress on those findings should be expected and encouraged. The Prime Minister this morning identified that progress in other investigations is expected from the Fair Work Australia report. I ask her—hopefully on behalf of the parliament as a majority—to be very clear on what those next steps are in the investigation processes.
As well, to complement that, I will be raising—as has been raised with me by committee members—at its next meeting the question of whether the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is willing to undertake an inquiry into Fair Work Australia itself, on the question of whether due process has been followed. It is ultimately a matter for the full committee to agree on, but it is a suggestion I will be putting to them later this week. As well, I will personally be encouraging debate on the coalition's position with regard to the 14-day suspension, even though personally I do not agree with it. Debate is important. I want to hear from the coalition on how they argue this motion is sustainable for the long term and for future parliaments, and how they answer the charge that several of their own MPs would fail the benchmark for suspension that they are trying to set for others. I will also be putting three motions to the parliament for debate and consideration by the selection committee. The first motion will be a censure motion of the member for Dobell, and it will be along the lines that this House censures the member for Dobell (1) for the length of time taken to publicly respond to issues under investigation from 2003 to 2006 and the damage this has done to public confidence and trust in the Australian parliament; and (2) the lack of full cooperation by the member for Dobell with investigatory bodies, state and federal, and the damage this has done to public confidence and trust in the Australian parliament.
The second motion is that I will also be putting on the Notice Paper a motion seeking the endorsement of the House for the draft code of conduct that has been circulated since November last year. It is related to this issue; it was agreed on by all of us and by all parties 18 months ago. It is timely that we progress that. Then if we are in the future caught in this space between issues raised by section 44 of the Australian Constitution and community sentiment wanting action, we will have a document that we can refer to and hopefully set a standard from.
The third motion deals with other related matters, and there are four points to it. The first point requests a report from a committee on the integrity commission that I know is being followed up by others. The second point requests a report from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Members' Interests on any relevant issues for members' consideration in light of all information available in relation to the Fair Work Australia report, including issues of concern relating to commentary by any MP in relation to section 28 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. Whilesoever any member has rights in this place, I would hope all of us respect, protect and defend those rights, no matter what we may think of a member personally. The third point is to encourage the Special Minister of State to act swiftly in bringing forward electoral and disclosure law changes as identified by the Australian Electoral Commission. And the fourth point seeks greater progress on Commonwealth whistleblower legislation from the relevant minister, again as agreed in September 2010, and I know it is being followed up by parliamentary colleagues.
Ultimately, it is up to the majority of the parliament—all of us and all of you—to decide what we debate. I do not want in any way to be positioned as some sort of Mr Shiny Shoes on parliamentary integrity or human failing. I accept the majority view on each of these motions. I acknowledge that, at least on the crossbench, I have few friends in censuring the member in question, but still I think it is worth pursuing. I do think it is appropriate to make a statement about what we as members of parliament should all be trying to do—that is, to seek the highest values possible. I know that does not mean that others do not share the same values, but that is where I end up with this story that we saw unfold dramatically yesterday. I do not demand it; I just seek it.
I fully recognise it is a group decision, not on party lines, but as a collective of MPs and a reflection of the community. I do not think it is asking too much. I am surprised and somewhat saddened that we are quick as individuals to go down the path of, as I called it before, 'category killing' the values of what it means to be an MP when we attack each other, but then are strangely reluctant as a group to stand up for the values we do have and do seek on behalf of all Australians. From my perspective I would hope there is good and due consideration of those motions. I do hope this is a moment of reflection where we can collectively, regardless of party lines, do a bit of work in restoring some integrity and public confidence and trust in this institution that I hope we all hold dear.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on this matter. I believe that the issue of public confidence and public trust in the Australian parliament is an issue of the utmost importance, as this place is the place where governments are formed and the shape of our nation is altered. It is imperative that the Australian public hold this place and its occupants in the highest regard and are convinced that their elected representatives carry out their obligations with judgment, with diligence, with honesty and with integrity.
Most recently, there has been a great deal of debate about the actions of the member for Dobell, particularly in the light of the report by the investigator acting as the delegate of the general manager of Fair Work Australia, which was tabled recently in the Senate and was indeed the subject of the statement made by the member for Dobell yesterday. The report, of course, made a number of findings against the member for Dobell and I would be remiss if I did not say I share the concerns of many in this place at the findings in this report. They are disturbing findings; they are distressing findings. No right thinking person could fail to be disturbed at the findings made by the investigator of misuse of the funds contributed to the union, which represents some of the lowest-paid workers in Australia. Yesterday we saw a lengthy statement by the member for Dobell, a statement in which the member for Dobell outlined very personally the impact that these events have had on his life and, of course, he maintained very strongly his claims of innocence. It is worth noting that this was a statement that the opposition had been calling for and that it was a statement he made in response to those calls. I should also say that, as I understand the position, the reason that the member for Dobell had not made the statement before now was on legal advice.
I think that the topic for this matter of public importance is well chosen. It draws attention to the tasks we have before us as members of parliament, and one of those important tasks is to maintain the integrity of this parliament. But we are not a court; parliament is not a court. Despite the baying and shouting from those opposite they have offered nothing concrete. This is why the member for Lyne has raised this matter of public importance; those opposite have raised no concrete suggestions as to how the matters raised by the report of Fair Work Australia can actually be dealt with. We are not here in some American TV crime series: we are not investigators, we are not police and we are not a court. As a democratic country we have very well developed institutions: we have police forces, we have investigators and we have different regulators for many parts of our society. And we have courts, and these matters need to be left to the courts.
We are not a body that can consider evidence in the way that a court does. Listening to the statement made yesterday in this place for nearly an hour by the member for Dobell, one of the first things that struck me was the near impossibility of sifting claim and counterclaim, sifting allegation and counterallegation and sifting the vast body of factual material which forms the subject of the Fair Work Australia investigator's report. Those matters—that process of sifting and assessing and judging—are quintessentially matters that are dealt with by courts. They are not matters that this parliament is set up, either historically or actually, to deal with.
We are not well placed to determine it, nor is it our role to determine whether the member for Dobell has correctly stated the position, or whether the findings made by the Fair Work Australia investigator are true. We are not in a position to assess the claim and counterclaim, even though—and this has been pretty clear from the public debate and clear from some of the statements made in this House—many of us may question parts of the explanation. That is why this matter is going to go to the courts.
I need to make it clear, just to put to rest the suggestion that the matters raised by this Fair Work Australia report are not presently before the courts. The general manager of Fair Work Australia has said publicly that she has instructed lawyers to prepare legal proceedings in respect of the findings arising from the investigations into the HSU national office and the HSU Victoria No. 1 branch. The general manager of Fair Work Australia has the power to apply to the Federal Court of Australia under section 336 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 and she indicated in her statement on 14 March 2012 that she would do just that—that she would instruct the Australian Government Solicitor to apply to the Federal Court for penalties and other orders in relation to contraventions of civil penalty provisions. She also indicated that she would apply to the Federal Court for declaratory relief in relation to three additional contraventions described in the Fair Work Australia investigator's report, those not being civil penalty provisions.
So, on any view, this matter is going to court. It is going to the proper forum at which these matters will be looked at and at which the claims and the counterclaims that have been made yesterday by the member for Dobell can be assessed in their proper place. One is left to wonder what it is that those opposite are wanting here. We have legislation passed, indeed, by the Howard government. These provisions—these investigation provisions, these civil penalty provisions and this referral to the Federal Court provisions—are all of them Howard government legislation, indeed, passed when the member for Warringah, the present Leader of the Opposition, was the responsible minister.
Are they saying, perhaps, that they do not wish this matter to be finalised by the courts? I hope that they are not saying that. We, on this side of the House, want this resolved for the benefit of the long-suffering members of the Health Services Union, and we want that to occur before the Federal Court, which is the appropriate place for these matters to be resolved. They cannot be resolved here. That is a key point that should not be lost. The actual matters that are the subject of this Fair Work Australia report cannot be resolved in this place.
There are a number of options that the parliament can consider in relation to the member for Dobell. But we need to think carefully in considering what actions might be taken: whether the actions that are taken actually will increase the regard that Australians hold for this House and for this parliament and whether it is the proper place for this House to act in the manner that is put forward. I will come back in a moment to the suggestion that has been raised here by the member for Lyne. But just to look at the range of options: some have suggested that the House should suspend the member for Dobell, some have suggested—completely without basis—that the House should expel the member for Dobell and some suggestions have been made of censure. I just note that it is worth reminding the House that this place no longer has the power to expel members. The power once existed but was removed by the Parliamentary Privileges Act of 1987, and for good reason.
The power of expulsion was used once before, in 1920, to expel the member for Kalgoorlie, the Hon. Hugh Mahon, for what were said to be seditious and disloyal utterances. The member had expressed publicly sympathy for the Irish republicans and opposition to the British policy in Ireland. The power was abolished on the recommendation of the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1984. This was a bipartisan committee consisting of members of the Labor Party and members of the Liberal Party—indeed, members of the Liberal Party back then in 1984, who had a great deal more respect for the institution of this parliament, for the conventions of this parliament and for the institutions of Australia than the present opposition demonstrates on a daily basis. The present opposition demonstrates on a daily basis nothing but contempt for the conventions of this parliament and for the institutions of our country. The Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege noted in 1984, in relation to the dangers inherent in a system where a partisan vote can determine whether a parliamentarian is fit to remain in office—and, one might add to that, where a partisan vote can be brought to bear on a censure or on a suspension:
Looking back to the Mahon case—
which is the only time when a member was expelled—
one is struck by these features: the speed with which the motion was brought on; the limited time for debate; the haste in which such an important matter was determined; and the vote on party lines.
They emphasise:
… the only case in federal history when the power to expel was exercised is … when … the power was demonstrably misused …
I think that the bipartisan authors of that report would be very concerned to look at what has been occurring in this parliament in recent days. We might, in fact, be seeing some evidence of something similar to what occurred at the instance of then Prime Minister Billy Hughes back in 1920, when, relying on the numbers that he commanded in the House of Representatives, he used them to expel a member of the House.
There should be no suggestion that the parliament should assume what would be a wholly inappropriate role for this parliament, that of the courts—or, even more than that, that of judge and jury—for partisan political ends. Suggestions that the member for Dobell should be censured are troubling for the same reason. Taking action to censure the member, to expel the member, which is now not open, as I have pointed out, or to suspend the member, I would suggest, will not result in an increase in the parliament's prestige—quite the opposite. That is particularly so if the purpose of the censure is to draw attention to matters which occurred before the member became a member of this House.
What I am pointing to is the fact that there have been a very small number of examples in the history of this parliament when the censure power has been used. There have been only four occasions since Federation, but the most recent occasions were both in 1995, when this House censured the member for Barker, Mr McLachlan, for misleading the House on the source of documents relating to the Hindmarsh Island Bridge matter, and when the House censured the member for Chisholm, Mr Wooldridge, in August 1995 for intentionally misleading the House during a personal explanation relating to the Penny Easton matter. What is notable is that it is in some doubt, according to House of Representatives Practice, whether or not even those censure motions were within the traditional purpose of a censure. House of Representatives Practice notes 'the parliamentary convention that the traditional purpose of a vote of censure is to question or bring to account a minister’s responsibility to the House'. The Practice goes on to note on page 322:
Furthermore, given the relative strength of the parties in the House, and the strength of party loyalties, in ordinary circumstances it could be expected that a motion or amendment expressing censure of an opposition leader or another opposition Member would be agreed to, perhaps regardless of the circumstances or the merits of the arguments or allegations.
That is, of course, what happened back in 1920, when there was an expulsion on party lines.
I note that the member for Lyne has put forward the possibility of moving a censure motion which would be directed not at the conduct of the member for Dobell before he became a member of this House but rather at, as I understood the member for Lyne, the delay by the member for Dobell in making a statement in explanation of the allegations that had been raised. That, I can say without pre-empting a decision made on this side of the House as to the way in which we would treat such a censure motion, would at least be within the past practice of this House—not totally within the conventions of this House but at least within some past practice—because it focuses on conduct in the House. That is a very important distinction which I would invite all honourable members to reflect on: that when we are thinking about what is to be the way in which this House responds, if it chooses to respond at all, it needs to be focused on parliamentary conduct. It is wrong to devalue the very special place that the legal system—the court system—has in our society, and if we are to embark to displace it then it would cut against all of the separation of powers that sits at the heart of our democracy. (Time expired)
The key point made by the member for Isaacs in relation to this matter of public importance is that it is outrageous for the parliament to be considering the matters to do with the member for Dobell. I would point the member for Isaacs to one of his own very respected and senior colleagues in past parliaments, Senator Robert Ray, from his own state of Victoria, who, when matters were being raised in 1997 to do with another person in another place, wrote to Peter Reith, at that stage the Leader of the House. He said in that letter:
… your intervention is an affront to the principle that there is no authority superior to Parliament in the determination of its own procedures and actions. Indeed, an earlier Speaker of the House of Representatives has relevantly observed that there is no authority superior to Parliament which could arrogate to itself the power to appoint any commission or other tribunal to invade the sphere of Parliamentary jurisdiction in the conduct and direction of its own business.
In other words, the parliament had every right in 1997, as it does today, to consider, vote upon and deal with the matters to do with the member for Dobell. It is simply a convenience put forward by the member for Isaacs in this debate today to try to continue the racket that has surrounded the member for Dobell for a very long time in this place to stop him from being held to account for bringing the parliament into disrepute.
On 9 September last year, the member for Dobell told the Australian, 'I will make a comprehensive statement in the near future.' Eight months ago the member for Dobell indicated that he would make a statement to the parliament in relation to what at that stage were allegations—now findings of fact by Fair Work Australia that have engulfed him. After many attempts to get him to do so—all opposed by the Prime Minister, the Labor caucus and, until two weeks ago, the members for Lyne, Melbourne and New England, voting again and again in this place—he gave a statement yesterday. He was given one hour to justify himself. The opposition was not given even one minute to test his claims. But he did not give a comprehensive statement. He gave a statement that was an exercise in self-justification, blame-shifting and heaping of conspiracy upon conspiracy. His statement, to many, sounded like pure fantasy, an alibi for the Prime Minister, a fig leaf for what we all know to be true—that the Prime Minister failed to act until too late. By rejecting his vote in the caucus but accepting it in the parliament, she has exposed her own hypocrisy. While she is prepared to be judge and jury when it does not affect her, she will cling to her vote in this place because her No. 1 priority is in fact to hang onto power.
The member for Dobell's claim was that he was set up by a tormentor in the Health Services Union. For his story to be believed, the following must be true: his tormentor was able to break into his hotel room and use the hotel room, leaving undetected, on numerous occasions; his tormentor knew the code to his mobile phone and was able to use it moments after the member for Dobell made legitimate business calls and get it back to him moments before other legitimate business calls, without being detected; his tormentor stole his credit card and drivers licence from his home on the Central Coast, drove to Sydney, passed himself off as the member for Dobell, forged his signature, drove back to the Central Coast, broke back into the member for Dobell's home and put his credit card and drivers licence back into his wallet, and left undetected—
Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I am genuinely reluctant to interrupt—I mean that very, very genuinely—but I ask you to reflect on whether the Manager of Opposition Business is going well beyond any allegations made in the Fair Work Australia report and, if he is going to make such substantial allegations, whether he should do so by a substantive motion rather than abuse the MPI.
The MPI before us is about how the parliament should respond to matters related to the member for Dobell rather than an examination of the actions of the member. I hope the Manager of Opposition Business will bear that in mind in his remarks.
I am, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. In order to be able to debate the MPI, in order to debate the importance of public confidence and public trust in the Australian parliament, we need to examine the believability of the statement the member for Dobell made yesterday. If it is found to be unbelievable, it goes to the second part of the MPI, which is about how the parliament should respond to the matters that are related to the member for Dobell. I thank the member for Lyne for putting the matter of public importance into debate today to give the opposition the first opportunity it has had to do so.
I continue. His tormentor was able to pull this off not just to purchase the services of escort agencies but also to purchase personal items such as running shoes; to dine at restaurants such as 41 in Sydney's CBD; to travel interstate and overseas; to hire staff to work on the Dobell election campaign in 2007; to pay for printing for the election campaign; to make $100,000 of cash withdrawals from ATMs; and otherwise to live the high life—all without the member for Dobell suspecting that there was something going on.
But if that is not enough to strain credulity, we need to suspend reality to believe that, in spite of the member for Dobell suspecting he was being set up, when each of the credit card statements was presented to him for payment he ignored the suspicions in the back of his mind that he was being set up and simply signed off on them being paid. That is odd, really. You would think that, if most people received their credit card statements and names like Miss Behaving escort agency appeared on them, it would cause them to pause before they signed off on the payment of such credit card invoices—not so the member for Dobell. It reminds me of the words of Jack Palance, from Ripley's Believe It or Not'believe it or not'. And the opposition does not believe it.
In the statement the member for Dobell made yesterday, which he claims to be a comprehensive statement, he left out some of the very key issues that this House has been questioning the government about for some time and that were clearly needing to be dealt with yesterday in his statement. He failed to explain to the House the finding of Fair Work Australia that he misused $457,000 of funds on all the other matters besides the escort agencies, that he dealt with yesterday. How does he account for the finding of Fair Work Australia that he advanced false and misleading evidence to the authority in that investigation? Did he receive a credit card from the printing firm employed by the Health Services Union for his own personal use that would amount to receiving a secret commission if true?
When did he receive the benefit of the payment of his legal fees from the New South Wales Labor Party and loans from the New South Wales Labor Party, and why were they not declared on the Register of Members' Interests until media inquiries were made about them? Why until recently has he declined to assist both the New South Wales and Victorian police with their inquiries into his own actions and the operations of the Health Services Union when he was its national secretary? On what basis did he claim to Mike Smith last year that $15,000 was repaid by a third party to the Health Services Union for unauthorised expenditure on escort services, a claim specifically refuted in the Fair Work Australia report?
These are the key issues that the member for Dobell failed to address in his statement yesterday. I and the opposition believe, as do the member for Lyne and other independents in this House, that these key issues need to be explained by the member for Dobell in a further statement to the House—a statement to the House that is genuinely comprehensive. He needs to not only cover the matters that he covered yesterday but deal explicitly with the questions that I have placed on the Hansard today in this matter of public importance. Until he does, this matter cannot be resolved. Until he does, the parliament still has a right, as outlined by Senator Robert Ray in 1997, to protect its own interests, its own integrity and the reputation of every member in this House.
I thank the member for Lyne for introducing this matter of public importance and I appreciate the degree of civility around the chamber in terms of trying to address what is a very substantive issue and troubling a lot of members of this House. I also thank the member for Sturt for his contribution a moment ago because he highlighted the absolute need for due process. He raised a whole range of questions. I have no doubt that some of those questions, for students of the law, probably do need to be answered, but they cannot be dealt with in a kangaroo court situation. They can be dealt with in a court. Now a little bit of heat has gone out of the day on this issue, we are addressing how the parliament can deal with this issue and how we as individuals or as members of various committees can play a constructive role not only in the present issues before the House but also in potential issues in the future. It does highlight the need for clear minds, concise legal interpretation of people's rights, due process and, obviously, the separation of powers. I have said to the media in the past I would rather not be in this building if we start to use the numbers within this parliament—the delicate numbers of a hung parliament particularly—to start to adjudicate the law for individuals who have not been charged or convicted of anything. They may well be convicted by a court and, if they are, they should face the full force of the law. I will talk in a moment about maybe an extension of the current legislative arrangements for disqualification.
I went through a very similar situation to this back in the early nineties in another hung parliament where a very good Premier, in my view, a man called Nick Greiner, was found to be corrupt by the ICAC, the corruption body of New South Wales. There were calls then, as there is now, by the then state Leader of the Opposition—the attack dog in those days, the Tony Abbott of his day—Bob Carr, who is now in the Senate, for the removal of Nick Greiner. The federal leader of the Liberal Party, John Hewson, was also calling for the removal of Nick Greiner because it was doing damage to the party. Members of the Liberal Party in New South Wales themselves were calling for his removal.
There was talk of a no confidence motion being moved against the Premier on a Tuesday of whatever month it was. It was my vote that put the Liberals in power in that particular parliament. I can remember talking to Nick Greiner on the Sunday night and I told him that if a no confidence motion was moved by the other crossbenchers or by Bob Carr then I would not be supportive of it. I made the point that the reason for that, even though I was upset over the corruption charge as I am upset over the Fair Work Australia findings, was he had not exhausted due process. He said to me, and I remember his words quite clearly: 'It is too late. They want me to go.' He resigned the next day as Premier. Some students of politics might be interested in this point that he made to me after his Liberal Party people deserted him. He said: 'You'll be interested in this, Tony. The National Party were the only ones who've stuck with me.' He resigned and about a week later, or it might have been only four or five days later, he was found not guilty on appeal. After the subsequent election, with a majority of one, Bob Carr became the Premier and changed the corruption legislation so that what happened to Nick Greiner could never happen again. Therein lies a story too of a code of conduct.
Codes of conduct tend to come before parliaments when the numbers are very tight or in a hung parliament. Both major parties tend to run from them. There was talk of a code of conduct in those days, and I think one was actually passed. I was not madly in love with the code of conduct because I knew quite well what would happen—and what did happen—as soon as a majority government came along: the code of conduct was dictated by numbers. That is one of the issues of a code of conduct. That is one of the reasons why I have postulated that maybe one of the things this parliament has to look at—if both sides are very concerned about the current issues before the parliament—and that may be worth considering is should there be other areas that qualify for automatic disqualification of a member?
We have two areas that automatically disqualify a member as I understand it. One is bankruptcy. You are out. There is no reference to your friends, your mates, your numbers, the marginality of your seat or the colour of your hair. The other is if you are convicted of a criminal offence with a jail term of more than a year. You are also out. There is nothing about civil offence and nothing about the standards that I believe the community are requesting and in some cases are demanding. I think we should consider, if there are standards that this House is not meeting or that some of the members are not meeting, putting it into a legislative arrangement so that there is automatic disqualification for a breach, rather than just recommendations for a code of conduct. A previous parliament did decide that bankruptcy and a jail term over a year were grounds for disqualification. Maybe there are other grounds that we should be looking at. I have said for some time that I would support references to the Privileges Committee for determination on activities, not the civil and criminal ones because they are dealt with by the courts, such as misleading the House or for internal procedures and processes of the House. I would be interested to see when that reference is finally made and the terms in which it is made. The member for Lyne made comment today about the possibility of introducing a censure motion. I have spoken to him about this personally and I fully respect his right to move that motion. I will not be supportive of it, because I believe it prejudges, in this case the member for Dobell, prior to due process. When I look at this issue—and I am as angry as anybody about the findings of Fair Work Australia—I think if we start to go down the slippery slope of prejudgment before the appropriate criminal or civil action is taken we do start to put ourselves out there as the judge and jury. I do not think that is what any of us have been elected to do. I might be an excellent bush lawyer but I would be pretty hopeless in a court. I think people need to reflect on that.
I know there is a lot of hostility and feeling in the room. I have been in a hung parliament before. I was in another one with a majority of one, which was virtually the same, where one number is tantamount—is very, very important. And that can be built up by redneck radio and a whole range of other people to a crescendo, where the hounds call for blood. But I think of our parliament and our democracy—the fact that our fathers and grandfathers and others have fought for this country not just to keep us in a free state but also to preserve the rights of the individual, the rights of the democratic process, the right to separate the powers of the judiciary from the parliament. Those rights should be at the forefront of all our minds, irrespective of the numbers of the day. To start playing a game with the numbers of the day for a short-term agenda could do enormous long-term damage in terms of the integrity of this institution. I make a plea to people: be careful that you do not walk down a road that you regret later on just for short-term advantage. Thank you.
I thank the member for Lyne for proposing this matter of public importance and I thank those that have contributed to the debate from the crossbenches and Minister Gray at the table, because I think they have taken the discussion in the spirit that it was meant. Regrettably, the issues surrounding matters related to the member for Dobell have sunk to a very low point in politics. There has been an inability of the parliament to come to grips with the way that we should react to these matters.
Of course all parliamentarians are politicians but not all politicians are parliamentarians. There are plenty of other venues where we can practice our politics. I see some from the press gallery grinning, because they know that they participate in that contest of personalities that goes with politics. It is regrettable that, when given the opportunity, not all the chamber can take the opportunity to have a real contest of ideas, even when it is over such controversial matters that surround the actions of the member for Dobell before he entered this place.
Today we witnessed one of the great problems. There has been urging—and I appreciate that the member for Lyne is of this view—that the member for Dobell perhaps should have come into this chamber and made a statement earlier. But in the world of politics what have we seen since yesterday? The statement becomes the issue. In some way we conjure up that the statement, because in some eyes it misled this House, is the issue. Yet the member for Sturt can come in here and ask for another statement, but that is by the by. The privileges matter can be dealt with through the procedures and consideration of the Speaker, which will be reported back here and then the House will make its decision.
But what I really find regretful is that this controversial flashpoint has focused those that think about these issues to think about the way in which we can actually tackle it, so we have discussion of a code of conduct. I had hoped that earlier in this parliament, given that it was part of very learned pieces of paper that are very important for this parliament, we would have got to the code of conduct much quicker. But all we have is the discussion document: the draft code of conduct. At least we have got it and it will be easy to implement it. But once we have implemented it let us really think about how we are going to use it. Hopefully, if we get over the hard part, which was creating a code of conduct, how we use it will be easy. I might be so bold—and it is not necessarily those that I now hunt and run with on this side's view yet—as to say that an integrity commissioner, an ethics commissioner is pretty easy. There are plenty of models around the world, and they sure take the sting out of the politics if people transgress.
I happened to be in Ottawa last month. It was a very important issue—I will take that up with those that I am facing from the gallery later on. We have headlines: 'Raitt did no wrong in upgrading airline seat'. The 'Raitt' that they are talking about is the labour minister, Lisa Raitt. What was her crime? She got on Air Canada and Air Canada upgraded her to business. The next week the Canadian government intervened in an industrial dispute on the side of Air Canada. A bit embarrassing for poor old Lisa, because she is the labour minister. Where did it go? It went to the ethics commissioner. The heat was taken out of it. The ethics commissioner decided, given that it was just the poor bod at the gate who decided to upgrade, that there was nothing sinister. Another headline was, 'Fantino denies offshore accounts: ethics commissioner examining documents'. The article said that some documents of unknown origin had been handed in to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that indicated that Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino had some offshore accounts. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were investigating it; but, because Mr Fantino is a member and a minister, it has gone to the ethics commissioner. In several column inches of discussion in the Ottawa Citizen,not one member of parliament or politician is mentioned—because there is a process. You will love the headline that really attracted my attention, given my state of mind at the moment: 'Oda repays limo service charges'. Bev Oda is the international cooperation minister, and she was being asked to pay $3,000 that she charged taxpayers for limousine services while staying 'at a posh hotel in London'. Regrettably, this poor minister decided that the digs that she had been put in—where a conference she was attending was being held—were not good enough and she had to be sent to the Savoy. So she had to get a limo to the place where the conference was, and the ethics commissioner decided that she could pay the $3,000. The other incidental thing is that she is going to live to regret that she paid Can$5 for an orange juice at the Savoy, because she is being well and truly ridiculed.
I give those examples to show that matters that could be blown out of all proportion can be handled in a sensible way. The fact is that before the member for Herbert was a member here we had failed to put in a code of conduct or an ethics commissioner, where you could have sent—if you had wanted to—the member for Dobell, and you could have had the politics taken out and had it decided as a parliamentary discussion. That is the point that I make—besides the fact that we have a problem as a parliament because the matters pertain to actions of a member of this place before he became a member of this place.
We have a matter of public importance that stresses 'the importance of public confidence and public trust in the Australian parliament'. That is not only about the statement that Craig Thomson made as the member for Dobell; it is the reaction of this House about the statement. We had people jumping up, after a 59-minute statement, with a prepared speech going to matters that they thought would be in the statement. It had to be rehashed and rehashed. Emotive terms were used by members of this place—who use those emotive terms all the time—saying that the member for Dobell's vote is tainted. If it is tainted, it ain't the first taint. There have been plenty of occasions when we have had people who have faced more serious matters. We have had a person who left the caucus and sat on the crossbenches because he had criminal charges hanging over him that led, after he left this place, to him going to prison. So it is not the first time. Why was there not a big kerfuffle then? There was a majority government. Suddenly the rules have to change, because we find ourselves—as a result of the will of the people at the last election—with a minority government that has been very effective in the way that it has legislated and very effective in the way that it has pursued policy matters through its committees. That is the only reason. And we have outside people saying, 'Oh, if it were a majority parliament he would have been out of here already.' I do not think he would have been. We would have been going through due process and, until the due process found that, for some reason, he was not qualified to stay here, that would have been the end of it. It is not only the actions of individual members that give this place an image problem; it is the way we react to them. I think that is the spirit in which the member for Lyne proposed this, and I am disappointed that the opposition has not— (Time expired)
I thank the member for Lyne for proposing this matter of public importance. The member for Dobell owed this parliament an explanation in the form of a statement. He acknowledged as much, and he gave one. Having offered to do so, he owed this parliament a statement of the truth: the simple, unadorned truth—not elaborately constructed plots, not fanciful alternative explanations and not highly implausible, highly dubious, unbelievable conspiracy theories naming people under parliamentary privilege. Just the truth, plain and simple.
The government argues that the parliament has no role to play in dealing with the serious findings of Fair Work Australia against the member for Dobell. These matters are not mere accusations, nor are they rumour from the world of the union movement. They are official findings by an independent investigator of a quasi-judicial government agency. There was an investigation of more than three years, resulting in a voluminous 1,100-page report that included 156 specific findings against the member for Dobell. Included in that report is a finding that the member for Dobell, at a time when he was a member of this place, provided 'information that is false or misleading' to the investigator of this quasi-judicial government agency. The findings go to the heart of the member for Dobell's legitimacy in this parliament, as the investigation found that he misused $270,000 of union funds to support his election to this parliament. His very presence in this House is based upon what the investigator found to be acts of dishonesty.
The member for Dobell must now address the further serious questions arising from his statement to the House yesterday and the discrepancies between it and his previous statements at various times. This matter of public importance asks how the parliament should respond. The member for Dobell must now clear up these questions which go to the heart of whether he misled the parliament yesterday. Given that the independent investigator found that the member for Dobell provided him with information that is false or misleading, the member for Dobell must explain why there are serious discrepancies in the version of events in the evidence he gave to Fair Work Australia and with his statement to the parliament and with some of his previous public statements, including radio interviews.
One of the key planks of the member for Dobell's statement yesterday—and I will use this as an example—was that the video surveillance footage from the brothels that put charges on his credit card would fail to show him attending the premises. He demanded, 'Get the video surveillance footage,' and therefore we were invited to conclude that it could not possibly have been him. Note: at no time did the member for Dobell deny using prostitutes paid for with union money. What the member for Dobell did not answer was the finding that the majority of credit card charges related to escort services provided off site—not at the premises of prostitutes, not at the brothel.
His statement failed to address the crux of the Fair Work Australia findings against him that he used the Health Services Union credit card to pay for prostitutes. Yes or no? He has still not denied it. If the member for Dobell is innocent, as he claims, he should make a clear, unambiguous statement that at no time has he used the Health Services Union credit card to pay for prostitutes, whether at a brothel, at his hotel or under any other circumstances. He has not done that.
The member for Dobell must also explain the findings that payments for prostitutes were transferred between credit cards in his possession and why he authorised the payments and the transfers between the cards, despite claiming to know at the time of a longstanding conspiracy underway to frame him by fixing him up with prostitutes. His claim of a grand conspiracy—this elaborate sting operation—to set him up with prostitutes also directly contradicts his previous claim in August last year:
The union reached a settlement with another gentleman who paid back $15,000 in relation to use of credit cards at an escort agency.
That claim was flatly denied by the alleged gentleman and later proven to be false after an audit of the union's finances. It was revealed that the $15,000 repaid by the gentleman in question related to an unauthorised pay rise.
The member for Dobell's statement to the House reeks of recent invention, for he made no mention of this grand conspiracy against him during his statements at the time. He made no mention of Mr Marco Bolano, whom he identified yesterday as the leader of what had to be a 'Mission: Impossible' team that undertook this most mysterious of conspiracy plots. The member for Dobell must explain why he can claim Mr Bolano began his alleged covert vendetta against him even though Mr Bolano claims not to have started work at the Health Services Union until many months after the first charges for prostitutes appeared on the credit card accounts of the member for Dobell. The member for Dobell's allegation that Mr Bolano has been complicit in a conspiracy that has included what must have been illegal conduct—if the member for Dobell is to be believed—is a very serious allegation indeed. The member for Dobell has raised these allegations of alleged dishonest and criminal conduct by Mr Bolano, and he has a responsibility to substantiate these claims with at least a shred of evidence. None was provided.
Another key plank of the member for Dobell's statement yesterday was that these alleged conspirators must have cloned his mobile phone to spoof calls to the escort agencies. The member for Dobell cannot stand in the parliament and make such outlandish claims without providing any evidence to support them. According to security experts consulted by various media organisations overnight, this cloning requires highly sophisticated techniques, equipment that is illegal in the hands of the public and would require a very high level of technical knowledge—like a government surveillance agency—as well as access to the member for Dobell's mobile phone and use of that mobile phone at the same place as the member for Dobell used it before and after the alleged cloned calls, because the records show that he was making calls at about that time. Not one shred of evidence was provided by the member for Dobell to support this allegation that somehow the members of the HSU are operating a high-tech illegal surveillance operation—the likes of which the CIA would be hard pressed to do. The member for Dobell may as well declare that aliens hacked his phone and then challenge others to disprove his hypothesis.
Another claim in his statement yesterday, relating to the reporting of the saga, was that Fairfax journalists published 12 articles without seeking his response. Yet Sydney Morning Herald investigative reporter Kate McClymont has rejected this claim and last night detailed extensive attempts to contact the member for Dobell and also revealed that he has sent her text messages on occasion complimenting her articles. Ms McClymont described his claim that Fairfax made no attempt to contact him as crazy—yet this is what he said to the parliament. The parliament deserves an honest explanation.
The parliament is not becoming judge and jury on this matter. Indeed, what the parliament deserves is a statement that is neither false nor misleading. And I find it hypocritical beyond description for the government to accuse the opposition of abandoning the presumption of innocence when the only judgments made against the member for Dobell have been by the Prime Minister and her government. The Prime Minister said in late April that 'a line has been crossed', and then she acted to suspend the member for Dobell from the Labor Party. Clearly, the Prime Minister passed judgment upon the member for Dobell and, on her version of events, concluded that he was no longer a fit or proper person to sit in the Labor Party parliamentary caucus. If he is entitled to the presumption of innocence, why not invite him back into the Labor Party until he has had his day in court?
After the member for Dobell's statement yesterday, the Prime Minister said overnight: 'I made a decision and I explained at the time about respect for the parliament and there was accumulation of issues here'—so much for the embrace of the presumption of innocence. The Prime Minister passed judgment upon the member for Dobell as being unfit to sit within the federal Labor caucus. She has found him unfit to be preselected for Dobell as the Labor Party's candidate at the next election. If he is entitled to the presumption of innocence and entitled to his day in court, invite him back into the Labor Party caucus and preselect him as the member for Dobell for the next election.
This is hypocrisy on a grand scale. The Prime Minister passed judgment on the member for Dobell and found him unfit to remain in the Labor Party; yet Labor simultaneously argues that the parliament cannot examine or scrutinise his statement in debates. Four times Labor voted to gag debate on the member for Dobell's statement and conduct. This parliament deserves an explanation. (Time expired)
This place matters. This place has the power to make decisions that will see people live or die. This has place has the power to make decisions that will allow people to prosper or to go broke. We should be leaders in the community. The behaviour in this place by all of the members should be absolutely beyond reproach. How sorry is it, then, that so many Australians are currently appalled at the behaviour in this parliament of politicians and of politics? I suppose this is not new.
In fact, some analysis done by the Australian National University between 1993 and 2010 of the public's perception of the qualities of politicians shows the quality of knowledgeability falling from 36 to 21 per cent. The quality of strong leadership falls from 30 to 15 per cent, halving. The quality of honesty more than halves, from 19 to nine per cent. The quality of trustworthiness falls from 16 to nine per cent and the quality of inspiration falls from 13 to nine per cent. Those figures that I have quoted are from 2010. I would hate to think what the public's view is of this place and those in it right now.
There are obviously many reasons for this. Some people believe the problem is that we have a hung parliament, a power-sharing parliament. But power-sharing parliaments are in place in many countries where they work very well and they are not seen as the source of all of the country's problems. In fact, this power-sharing parliament has proven—despite all of the predictions and all of the commentary—to be remarkably stable, productive and reformist. No, the problem is the behaviour of people, not the numbers in this place. Neither side of the chamber is beyond guilt in this regard. There is no doubt that some of the decisions of this government have mightily disappointed people and in part account for the poor showing of the government in the polls. Dear to my heart, of course, is the reneging on the deal for meaningful poker machine reform back in January. But the opposition is also guilty of bringing this place into disrepute. I think the behaviour of the opposition has been overly negative and destructive and regrettably short on policy details.
Now we have the behaviour of the Speaker and of the member for Dobell. So what should we do about the alleged behaviour of the Speaker and the member for Dobell? I think that dealing with those two is the easiest problem this parliament has because, at the end of the day, we must let proper process run its course. That is all we need to do. Let proper process run its course. This is a time for cool heads. This is the time for the members of the parliament to show true leadership and cool heads and let proper process run its true course.
Let us not forget that both the Speaker and the member for Dobell should be accorded the principles of natural justice. They are genuinely innocent until proven guilty and they remain that way unless and until they are able to stand in a properly constituted court where they can defend themselves and where they may or may not be found guilty of an offence. Let us not forget that, according to the Constitution, the Speaker and the member for Dobell are eligible to sit and work in this place, and that remains the case in law by the Constitution of this land, until they are found guilty of a criminal offence punishable by 12 months or more in prison or unless they become an undischarged bankrupt or face some other matter such as a pecuniary interest with the Commonwealth Public Service. The point I am pursuing is that, according to natural justice and the Constitution, the member for Dobell has a right to sit in this place and to go about his work. Let us not forget that under the Crimes Act it is actually a serious criminal offence for anyone to intimidate to the extent of interfering with someone's political liberty. I go so far as to say that some members in the community, and even in this place, could stand accused of intimidating to that degree.
More broadly, a number of parliamentary mechanisms might be brought to bear to help us through this difficult period. The obvious one is that we should be having a parliamentary debate about the findings against the member for Dobell by Fair Work Australia. I condemn the government for at every opportunity delaying the member for Dobell making a statement and, more recently, doing whatever it can to prevent a parliamentary debate about the findings against the member for Dobell. It is wrong and it is lousy politics. This whole matter could have been addressed long ago if the member for Dobell had been allowed to stand up and have his say. We could put a lot of the issues currently on the boil to bed if the government allowed a parliamentary debate about it. I think it is to the credit of the opposition and to the crossbenchers that we have done what we can to bring on such a debate.
Yes, there may be a case for references to the Privileges Committee and, on the face of it, there are charges to answer. The Privileges Committee would be an appropriate place to look into some of those accusations. I am pleased to have seconded the member for Lyne's motion that seeks to censure the member for Dobell. I note that the member for Lyne has done entirely the right thing, focusing the censure not on the allegations or the findings against the member for Dobell before he entered the parliament but on things that he has done since entering the parliament which this parliament should find unacceptable, in particular the time it has taken him to publicly respond to the allegations against him and the allegation that he has not cooperated fully with Fair Work Australia since he has been a member of this place. I do not agree with suspension and I will not support any move by the opposition to suspend the member for Dobell. While we might censure him for specific behaviour during his time as a member of this place, I believe that to suspend a member is ultimately to pass judgement on and to sit as judge and jury of him. That is not our role.
Hopefully, as a result of this kerfuffle over the member for Dobell and perhaps with regard to the Speaker, we could look more broadly at other things that we could do. Some people say that the constitutional threshold that you are not eligible to sit in this place if you have been found guilty of any offence punishable by one or more years of imprisonment is too high. I do not know, but why not have a debate about it? Why not have a discussion about it? Twelve months might be good. Maybe it should be two years. Maybe it should be three months. But we should not be afraid to have a discussion about it. If after a discussion we think it is set at the wrong place then the government should consider trying to bring about changes to it.
What about other indiscretions that might be added to the list? The member for New England quite rightly explored in his speech this afternoon that perhaps there are other things a member might do that should mean he or she is ineligible to sit in this place. I think there should be a code of conduct, and for the life of me I cannot see why, after all of the attempts to have such a code, there is not one. What are we afraid of in this place? The member for Isaacs has identified some problems and difficulties with some of these mechanisms, but surely we have the goodwill and the nous to solve those problems. There is no logical reason why we cannot have a code of conduct. And what on earth has happened to the integrity commissioner? This is a rather historic document now that I have: it is my eight-page written agreement with the Prime Minister over the establishment of a parliamentary integrity commissioner. It still has not been done and it should be done.
In closing, most of the people I am mixing with on the street are sick to death of this issue. They are sick to death of the fight and the argy-bargy that is going on in this place at the moment. They want us to just sort it out and move on. They want the government to get on and run the country and they want the opposition to get on and prove it is a credible alternative government. I think that is what we should now be focusing on.
I welcome this matter of public importance that has been brought to us today by the member for Lyne. I think, in an unusual precedent, it is supported by all members of this place. It is a measured and principled approach to matters of current public controversy and it enables members of this place to set out the proper role of parliament when questions are raised about another member of parliament, particularly when those questions go to potential criminal proceedings.
I start at the outset by stating that I am deeply distressed, as I am sure every member of this place is, by the findings that were recently handed down in a report by Fair Work Australia into the affairs of the Health Services Union of Australia. I am deeply concerned as an Australian and I am deeply concerned as a member of this place, but I am also deeply concerned as somebody who has dedicated over 15 years of his life to the trade union movement of this country, a movement whose values and principles I love and whose best traditions I seek to uphold. Anybody who holds those values and who has that deep affection for those traditions cannot look on with anything but deep concern about the misuse of members' money and the abuse of processes such as have been alleged to have been found in the Fair Work Australia report.
But the issue not whether or not we condone the behaviour that has been found by Fair Work Australia. Of course that is not the issue before us today. I do not think there is one member of this House that would condone that alleged behaviour. The question is not even whether we are convinced by the statement that has been recently given in this place by the member for Dobell. I am sure there are many people in this place who were convinced by the statement that was given by the member for Dobell and many people who were not convinced by it. But that is not the question for us in this House today. The question that we must consider is what the role of parliament is, and that takes us straight to the Constitution.
Make no bones about it, the matters that are being debated in this matter of public importance and the matters that have been strewn all over the pages of every newspaper in this country for the last few months and have been raised in just about every motion for suspension of standing orders and other motions before this House by the member for Sturt go straight to the heart of the Constitution. There is a great danger in the strategy that has been proposed by those opposite. It goes to who gets to decide who sits in parliament. Make no bones about it, the whole strategy that is being directed by those opposite is about who gets to decide who sits in parliament. We should be under no illusion about what is driving those opposite.
What is driving those opposite is an attempt to force the resignation of the member for Dobell. That is what is driving the opposition's every breath, their every strategy, their every tactic in this place—to try and force the resignation of the member for Dobell. This has been admitted quite recently by the member for North Sydney in a Press Club address. It has in fact been admitted by the member for Sturt, with his numerous attempts to have the member for Dobell excluded from this House. That is what is at the heart of their every strategy, and we should be careful about that.
I have always adopted the principle, as a law student, a practising lawyer and a trade unionist, that what we permit to be done to the least of us is what we condone for those we revere. At this point in time it might be allegations made against the member for Dobell, but this parliament has had before it a great number of controversies, whether controversies about race, about gender, about sexual orientation or about political values. They are the proper debates that should be had in this place but, if we as a collective of men and women representing different electorates and different political persuasions are able to come in here and form a majority, the effect of that majority being to subvert the electors of a particular electorate by excluding their member of parliament from sitting in and voting in this place, we are tearing up the Constitution. That is what we are doing. We are subverting the democratic right of electors to determine who they choose as their elected member of parliament to sit in this place and participate in debates and votes of this House, which determine the laws of this land. Have no doubt about it, and I say this to all of those in this House: what we permit to be done to the least of us is what we condone for those we revere. There is a grave danger in the strategy that is being adopted by the opposition in relation to this matter.
Upholding the Constitution is normally the role of conservatives, who stand in this place and say they uphold the Constitution. I stand here today as one of the few members in this debate who have said, 'It is our role as parliamentarians to uphold the Constitution.' I will go to some of the suggestions which have been made by the member for Denison. There may be some value in some of the suggestions that he has made. The framers of our Constitution ensured that there was a separation of powers which distributed power within the Commonwealth and between the various arms of parliament. They framed a Constitution which ensured that parliament was elected by the people, to make the laws; that the executive was elected by the parliament to administer those laws; that the courts were established by the Constitution to ensure that this parliament operates within its constitutional powers; that the laws that are subsequently made by this parliament are upheld and do not infringe citizens' rights vis-a-vis the Constitution; and that when citizens have objections or concerns about their rights they have a place to go to to have those rights determined by an independent court of law.
Courts themselves have expertise governed by the rules of evidence, which do not apply in this place. Those rules of evidence and rules of precedent have evolved over many centuries to ensure that both the defendant and the prosecutor are accorded every fairness that should be accorded to them. There are rules and precedents that do not apply in this place, and that is why we have established courts, to adjudicate upon the sorts of allegations that have been made against the member for Dobell. Let us be frank: those allegations of one sort or another could be made against any one of us. Allegations were made against a member of the Liberal Party only yesterday concerning his affairs before he became a member of parliament. It is not the role of this parliament to adjudicate upon those. Although we might all have our opinions, it is the role of a properly constituted court under our Constitution to determine and adjudicate upon those disputes.
It is important that parliament stays within its constitutional confines, it is important that courts stay within their constitutional confines and it is important that we as members of parliament stay within our constitutional confines. It maintains not only a balance between this parliament and other parliaments within the Federation but also the liberties of each and every Australian citizen.
Some suggestions have been made during the debate that we should alter the rules around which a member of parliament can be ejected because of their behaviour—whether the current two sanctions are sufficient and whether bankruptcy and certain criminal convictions are sufficient. I agree that a debate on these issues is a worthy one for us to have but, ultimately, it is not for members in this place to adjudicate on whether the current constitutional provisions are sufficient. It is for the people of Australia, through a properly constituted referendum, to determine whether or not we should alter our Constitution. If members of this place believe that that is a worthy matter to take to the people of Australia, then so be it. We can have a debate about that. But it is not for us solely to determine that. That role lies with the people of Australia.
These are important matters but, as the member for Denison has observed just now, there are many who do not live and breathe the affairs of this place and who must scratch their heads and wonder about the amount of time that these matters have occupied in this place. They may say they are important, but they may wonder whether they are the most important things that we should be occupying our parliamentary time with. I for one believe we should be spending a lot more time debating the economy, the future of our industries, the future for our young people, skills and education, and our place in the region. That is not to diminish this matter of public importance, but I think we have spent enough time talking about it today.
Order! The discussion on this matter has concluded.
I present corrections to the explanatory memorandum to this bill.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2012 was introduced on 10 May. It is a bill that is introduced every year following the budget. It is entirely non-controversial, unless my friend on the other side has a different view. It is a bill that merely indexes the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge low-income thresholds for individuals, families and pensioners. Every year this legislation is necessary to ensure that those thresholds are maintained in real dollar terms—that is, so they are not eroded by the CPI. The Assistant Treasurer introduced this bill, as I said, just a couple of weeks ago. The explanatory memorandum outlines the increases in those thresholds that are CPI linked. I will run through them very briefly. For individuals the threshold will be increased from $18,839 to $19,404. For families, the threshold will be increased from $31,789 to $32,743 and from $2,919 to $3,007 for each dependent child or student. In a similar vein, for pensioners the increase is from $30,439 to $30,451.
As I said, this is a non-controversial piece of legislation. It is required with every budget. I have had the pleasure of carrying this bill on behalf of the opposition every year we have been in opposition, I think. It is normally my friend from the other side, the member for Blair, who speaks on behalf of the government but on this occasion I notice it is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer. I commend this bill to the House.
It is a pleasure to be also speaking on the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2012. As we heard from the member for Casey, this is a bill that comes to the House every year after the budget. It is a procedural bill in the sense that it just moves the low-income thresholds for the calculation of the Medicare levy surcharge for low-income earners in line with movements of the consumer price index. Of course it needs to be done every year to adjust those thresholds to ensure that people are not unfairly charged a higher levy in the case where their incomes would just creep over that threshold bracket. So in line with those movements we are adjusting those, and data on this has been adjusted every year since 1996.
It does receive bipartisan support. It is good to see in this House, particularly in this area, that bipartisan support is given. Some financial impacts are carried with the bill, but they are ones which are obviously good in terms of adjusting people's costs of living, making sure that we do not contribute to people's extra costs of living through any surcharge that they might receive.
The Medicare system and the Medicare levy surcharge have operated very well in this country for a very long time, and they are based on the ability of people to pay. It is a fair and equitable system reflecting that people contribute either directly through the Medicare levy or through the Medicare levy surcharge if they are high-income earners. We also take into consideration household incomes. People who have the ability to pay also contribute privately through the private health insurance system. There is a very generous rebate for people who fall in those categories. It is part of a broader scope of work that this Labor government has done in the area of health, which as a particular portfolio area covers a wide scope of things, whether it is ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, whether it is the long-term sustainability of the Medicare system, whether it is the long-term sustainability of our hospital systems or whether it is—also very important to note in this opportunity provided by this bill—the long-term sustainability of the private health insurance system. So all of those systems combine to make sure that we actually have and maintain in this country a health system that is first-class, employs best practice and is best in the world by any measure—a health system that is all-encompassing and really does give people here in Australia access to a standard of health care that is the envy of every other economy.
I think it fits in well with all of the debates that we are having in this place at this particular time, when there is global turbulence around global economic matters and when there are pressure points being applied in so many different economies. You will see those pressure points being reflected back onto the health system, back on people's capacity to pay and back on the levies and surcharges that they might pay in other countries and other jurisdictions. But the good news here is that at home, locally, for people's budgets when they sit around the kitchen table, we have made sure—and we are thankful that we have the support of the opposition—that there is no bracket creep in this area and that people pay only the levies that they rightfully ought in terms of making sure they are covered for their medical expenses. I commend the bill to the House and commend the minister for the work that he has done.
I would like to thank the members who have taken part in the debate on Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2012. This bill increases the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for individuals and families in line with increases in the consumer price index. The individual threshold amount is to be increased from $18,839 to $19,404. The level of the family income threshold is to be increased from $31,789 to $32,743. The Medicare levy low-income threshold for pensioners below age pension age will also increase from $30,439 to $30,451 so that individuals in this cohort do not pay the Medicare levy when they do not have a tax liability. The low-income threshold in the Medicare levy surcharge provisions is similarly increased. This change ensures that a low-income member of a family will continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy and the Medicare levy surcharge. The increases apply to the 2011-12 year of income. I commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise today to speak on the Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012. This is a bill that seeks to establish the workforce and productivity agency in accordance with an announcement made by the government in their 2011-12 budget. This agency will take over from Skills Australia and will expand the mandate of Skills Australia.
By way of background, as I said, the agency was announced in the 2011-12 budget, and the budget indicated that the new agency would develop sectoral workforce development plans, undertake research, consult industry and disseminate information on workforce planning issues. The agency would also have responsibility for administering the national workforce development fund, a fund worth a total of $558 million over four years and incorporating the $200 million critical skills investment fund announced in the budget. So this bill is giving effect to a budget announcement, but the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations announced in September last year that the government would bring forward the work of the agency. An interim board was appointed and it commenced on 1 October 2011, nine months ahead of schedule.
In a speech to the National Press Club the minister attributed the urgency of the new arrangements to 'rapid change in key industry sectors and workforce pressures exerted by the 'patchwork economy'. I am trying to give the House a sense of the patchwork nature of the introduction of this bill and these measures. A minister made an announcement. Like a lot of the government's announcements, it was designed to give the impression that, No. 1, the government cares about you and your future, and, No. 2, it is doing something to make that future more pleasurable and productive—in this case, in the area of skills.
But the coalition's concern about this bill is that, while there is a lot of fluff and activity around the edges, when you drill down, what is really going to change in this area? In any case, how can the government create the productivity and jobs that it talks about so often? The Prime Minister rattles off skills, job creation, productivity et cetera as if these things are happening in the Australian economy with a wave of her magic wand; but those who understand economics know that it is a productive, confident small business sector that enables people and organisations to invest, to look to the future and to have the courage and the faith—two things they do not really have when it comes to this government.
To go back to Skills Australia: it was, as we know, a creation of the Rudd Labor government. Just four years on, Labor looks like it believes it has already passed its use-by date. Skills Australia was a core component of the government's Skilling for the Future policy, which had a total price tag of $1.9 billion, with Skills Australia costing $19.6 million to set up. I think it costs about $5 million a year to run. This bill appropriates $25 million over three years. You can already see with this succession of ad hoc announcements and the way things are being cobbled together that there is some empire building going on. Clearly the government is indicating with this bill, this initiative, the speech by the minister in the Press Club last year and bringing the whole agenda forward nine months that nothing is really quite working and that Skills Australia has not achieved what it was set up to do.
Its mission in its own words on the Skills Australia website is:
To provide independent and high quality advice to ensure the government's investment in education and training promotes the development of a highly skilled workforce, increases workforce participation (especially among less advantaged groups), meets the needs of industry and increases Australia's productivity.
That is an enormous, sweeping scope. I am not particularly critical of Skills Australia. I have met with them on several occasions, and they have produced some good documents. They have produced some good research and have highlighted the challenges facing a diverse and changing economy in terms of its productivity, its future and its employment participation. They have been a good small organisation dedicated to this research and with the level of expertise to do these things.
So it has done a very good job and has provided comprehensive advice to government. The failure does not really lie with Skills Australia; it rests with the government—a government perhaps unwilling to heed the advice provided by Skills Australia in publications such as Australian workforce futures: a national workforce development strategyand Skills for prosperity—a roadmap for vocational education and training. Both of these are highly comprehensive documents making practical and achievable suggestions to boost skills and, ultimately, employment; yet the government prefers to focus on what makes for the best media grab as opposed to what makes a sound platform for our nation's future economic development.
This is a government that will be remembered for its training debacles. There was the highly vaunted Productivity Places Program where 31.8 per cent of job seekers dropped out prior to completing their courses. I would like to know whether the government has any expectations for improved completion rates for these courses. I could speak all day regarding the failings of the Productivity Places Program. However, I will keep it short and restrict myself to reminding the House about the rorting of the program by some providers and the fact that there was no consideration given to just how many security guards and certificate II qualified retail assistants the economy needed at that time. Let us face it: this government has let down job seekers—and not just with foolhardy programs such as the Productivity Places Program. Thousands of job seekers have found themselves forced onto a training treadmill at the behest of this government. With the virtual abolition of Work for the Dole, job seekers are being pushed into training for their mutual obligation activity. Yet these courses are not leading to real employment outcomes. The point has been reiterated by Andrew Forrest, in particular, regarding Indigenous Australians, some of whom have multiple certificates yet have failed to find real jobs. We need a training system that provides Australians with real job prospects.
This new agency sees another three members added to the existing board of Skills Australia—or formally added, because they were actually added in September last year—and of course additional funding. But I turn to the membership of the board to note that the unions are represented with two members. There is no representative from the training sector, and this point was remarked upon by training providers in their submission to the Senate inquiry. Where this new agency really differs from Skills Australia is that it will have responsibility for the administration of a $558 million Workforce Development Fund plus a $20 million fund to allocate to unions and employer organisations. So, again, the government has managed to find a slush fund for their union friends. Given the recent and highly publicised mismanagement of union funds, I find it outrageous that they would be so blatant about funding their union cronies.
I turn now to the National Workforce Development Fund. This $558 million fund is intended to provide a co-contribution for training. The government intends that this fund will train 130,000 people, with an estimated allocation of $4,292 per person. The National Workforce and Productivity Agency will supposedly identify the key areas of skills shortage for the direction of these training dollars. I am concerned, however, that for some employers the required contribution may still put training out of reach. If you are a small business and you are asked to make a 30 per cent contribution—I think that is the requested contribution under these rules—to the training effort, it just might be too much for you as a small business. It might not be too much for a much larger business to put in their required contribution of 50 per cent, but I do not see this as being particularly small business friendly.
Given that there is a forecast training shortfall of more than 250,000 skilled employees over the next five years, it will be an increased challenge to ensure a match between skills expansion and work opportunities. It is vital that training produce the skills that industry is prepared to pay for. This will not happen if the agenda is warped by the government having to keep its favourite stakeholders happy.
On the topic of training, I raise something that many business owners have raised with me as I have travelled the country. Many do not see the need for their staff to spend months undertaking entire certificate-level qualifications. Instead, their preference would be for the employee to undertake certain skills sets—modules or components of various courses. We do need to give far greater consideration to flexibility in training, and employers should be able to tailor the training needs of their organisation as best suits them. This may also grant us a greater capacity to improve productivity and go some way towards meeting the forecast shortfall of 250,000 skilled employees by focussing instead on the particular skills sets they need to undertake their work. So, while I recognise that the OECD measurements are made on the basis of qualifications completed, there does need to be a recognition within the measurement and within the datasets which are looked at and which feed into government policy that there is not always a need for a complete qualification and that in up-skilling or simply getting the required skills for a job you may not need a completed qualification. When the government demands entire qualifications, I have some sympathy because that, as I said, is the OECD measurement request. But they need to do better; they need to be able to demonstrate what is really going on in the training market.
The Senate inquiry submission from the Queensland government highlighted that there is evidence that the purchasing of training by both the states and the Commonwealth is fragmenting skills investment and duplicating effort and that this government could even consider specifically earmarking funds for the states. Again the Labor government's current arrangements show just how cosy the Labor government is with the union movement and how well it is looking after them with the proceeds of the funds allocated under this bill and the Skills Australia mandate. The Queensland government made a very good point, because if a Commonwealth government and a state government both allocate taxpayer dollars for the training effort—the qualifications task—the absolute No. 1 requirement that we as the custodians of those dollars should have is that the training task not be fragmented and that taxpayers get good value for money.
I have heard examples as I have travelled around and talked to state training authorities—and I pay tribute to them. While I recognise the need for a federal body of this type, state training authorities and training and skills organisations know what is going on in their own states, and they provide valuable information—and, of course, they provide it to the Commonwealth as well. But I have heard stories of these organisations saying, 'We turned around and saw that, under one of these Commonwealth federal programs, money had been allocated to something we knew nothing about and we, unaware that federal dollars were flowing also, might have been sending money in that direction.' On the ground, that does not work. It does not work for the employer or the training provider, it does not particularly work for the consumer who is going and doing the studying and it certainly does not work as value for money for taxpayers.
Much of the funding from the Workforce Development Fund that will be administered under the legislation is old funding in a new guise. There was, for example, the $200 million from the Critical Skills Investment Fund. The fund was short-lived, but the money has been folded into this fund. Of course, when a government has such abysmal economic credentials, it has to find money somewhere to make new announcements and grab that feel-good media opportunity. What could be better than rolling over a newly created fund and making it look like new money? This government does seem to hope that the electorate has limited memories of this sort of thing and does not realise that it is not all new. With the Workforce Development Fund, the government is attempting merely to reuse and recycle.
I certainly hope that this agency will help boost our national productivity and create real employment opportunities. Unemployment is tipped to increase to 5.5 per cent in the 2012-13 budget outlook. Regrettably, as with its misunderstanding of the needs of the vocational, education and training sector, the government has done the dodgy on employment services providers and the newly unemployed by slashing almost $200 million from Job Services Australia. The majority of this $200 million consists of savings from slashing assistance to the newly unemployed, or those classified in the jargon as stream 1. In August 2011, 24,718 stream 1 job seekers had been unemployed for 12 months or more. This figure will only worsen if Labor cuts the funding to those job seekers. Everybody recognises that, while the government may describe the unemployment figure as 'notionally lower than some others', the figures are quite resistant and it is quite difficult if you are unemployed to get a job. Therefore if you have been out of work and you are a stream 1 client of a job services provider you have already been out of work for at least 13 weeks, and so to pull back on the resources to get stream 1 clients back and engaged in the workforce quickly could well work out to be a disastrous mistake.
I am concerned that Labor are condemning Australians to languish on welfare unnecessarily. Their failure to support a system of early intervention is to the detriment of those who need assistance in finding a job. I also believe that this government's track record in overspending and under-delivering is a real concern. I am also concerned by the language and the announcements surrounding this particular bill.
We cannot let this government get away with talking up its own unemployment figures when we consider the disastrous figures for youth unemployment. There are areas in my electorate in western New South Wales where youth unemployment—that is, unemployment among 15- to 19-year-olds—is about 25 per cent. There are areas in the northern suburbs of Melbourne where youth unemployment is closer to 41 per cent. No government can ignore those figures, yet in the last budget we never saw youth unemployment announced, mentioned or tackled—not once. The rate is, I think, 40.8 per cent in Broadmeadows, and there are areas of Western Sydney where it is up towards 30 per cent. I will take this government seriously on its economic credentials on jobs when it takes seriously the shocking level of youth unemployment in this country.
To go back to the bill itself and make a few remarks, I did mention that Skills Australia is transitioning to the new agency. It has announced in its business plan how it will do that—it will include having consultations with stakeholders, developing operational procedures and setting up systems to support the administration of the fund. Let us just hope that there is not too much bureaucratic staffing to no particular end or too many announcements et cetera around that particular part of the transition to the new fund. It is only a matter of adding some members to the board, changing the name and changing some of the tasks.
The Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills described the rationale for the proposed new agency in her speech to parliament. She said that it consisted of two points: industry and union partners had called for an increased focus on workplace productivity and better linkages between skills funding and industry needs, and Skills Australia had recommended a new partnership approach to workforce development involving government, industry and enterprises. They are fairly innocent statements. I wonder why the entire program had to be brought forward by nine months because of some urgent productivity agenda, which was not particularly well identified by the minister at the time.
When the Senate committee considered this bill they received nine submissions. Overall, some of those submissions were quite welcoming of the amendments, but I think we should drill down and look in a bit more detail at what those submissions and the committee's then considerations tell us about this bill. They noted that there was a shift in focus from training to workforce development. I think that is just a question of language, as is the change of name of the particular body and the expanded membership of the body. A nine-member board is quite large and could in some circumstances be considered unwieldy—but maybe not in this case. There is a new role in providing research and analysis and a new role in the provision of advice on Commonwealth funding.
I note that the Australian Chamber of Commerce as well as Industry and Restaurant Catering Australia argued in their submissions that the new requirement for employee representation should be matched by a requirement for employer representation. That is really quite important because the bill says that, in making up the new board of the Workforce and Productivity Agency, the membership has to have certain qualifications and characteristics. The members of the board must have between them experience in academia, the provision of educational training, economics, industry—and critically but not unsurprisingly—the representation of employees. The ACCI submission, while not particularly arguing with that, did wonder why this final requirement for the representation of employees was not matched with a similar requirement for the representation of employers.
The bill requires, I acknowledge, that there be industry representation. But industry representation is not defined. I think that unions would describe themselves as representative of industry, and, if we have those who represent employees on the board, we should also have those who represent employers. The recommendations from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and from Restaurant and Catering Australia were that this proposed paragraph be changed from specifying the representation of industry to specifying the representation of employers so as to add clarity and resolve to an apparent inconsistency. I am not holding my breath that that will happen, so I simply ask the government that, when they move ahead, they bear that statement in mind and that, accordingly, the industry representation on the board be very much focused on the needs of and the environment facing employers, particularly today.
In its submission, the Australian Council for Private Education and Training called for a training sector representative in the membership of the agency. One of the things specified was that the board member was required to have experience in educational training, but that does not amount to specifying a training provider—someone who is at the cutting edge of providing training in the real world. I think that is a huge missing level of expertise that we are not demanding as a requirement of a member of the board of this new body. The proposed new agency will continue to have the same functions as Skills Australia in providing advice to the minister on Australia's current, emerging and future workforce development and workforce skills needs. The bill proposes two additional primary functions. These are: to provide advice to the minister on improving the productivity of the Australian workforce; and to provide advice to the minister on the allocation of Commonwealth funding, including through the National Workforce Development Fund, to address Australia's workforce development and skill needs and improve its productivity. So this board and this agency will have quite widespread powers if they are recommending how to allocate the funding in the National Workforce Development Fund.
The New South Wales Department of Education and Communities, in noting that, also noted the potential for duplication and overlap in this function, given that the Australian Productivity Commission also undertakes research on productivity. So if this body is required to advise the minister on productivity needs in the Australian economy, or how best to maximise those, why would it not make use of the Productivity Commission? Is there duplication? Is there overlap? I do hope not.
In advising on allocation of funding, which was the second task that I mentioned, the agency will provide 'advice on the allocation of Commonwealth … funding including the National Workforce Development Fund'. But the 2012 budget papers state that the agency will be responsible for administering the National Workforce Development Fund, which is a very direct role in allocating funding—much more direct than the wording of the bill suggests. It is worth noting that the government needs to correct that inconsistency. General advice on the allocation of Commonwealth funding, as this bill says, is incredibly broad and general, and we have to remember that there are other agencies and institutions that are well equipped to do this; we have to be careful about giving any particular agency powers that are too widespread. The submission from the New South Wales Department of Education and Communities points out that the use of the word 'including' leaves scope for the agency to provide advice on Commonwealth funding more broadly, and it is not limited to providing advice on this fund. That is an inconsistency that should be corrected.
There is a new, additional function, which is to 'assess research relating to improving the productivity of the Australian workforce'. The wording of this function again differs from what is in the budget papers because, while the budget papers stated that the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency would undertake research, the bill refers only to the assessment of research. So we need to be careful. We have increased the funding to this organisation, we have changed its name, we have widened its scope, we have increased the board membership and we have given it, it seems, quite widespread powers, and the empire is beginning to build. We need to be careful that we did not continue to allocate scarce government dollars and scarce government resources to functions that could well be performed by other agencies. In fact, I make the point that these functions should be being performed within the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
To have the Skills Australia body, soon to change its name, sitting to one side—why are we not confident in our Public Service that we would not task some of the smart graduates that joined the Public Service with some of this research and some of this assessing of research and with coming up with some ideas? It would make for a public service that has good career pathways, is an interesting place to be, and attracts the best and brightest graduates. But if we take all of those sorts of tasks away from the rank and file public service and put them out in statutory bodies or authorities to one side, it is not giving a very good message about the quality of our Public Service. I have a great deal of faith in the quality of our Public Service, having been a member of it years and years ago, and I know we have some really smart people there.
I talked about the financial implications and the need to be very cautious about those costs increasing. In conclusion, I say that the bill seeks to formalise arrangements that have been in place since late 2011. The coalition does not seek to oppose this bill—from 1 July the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency will replace Skills Australia—but I say, on behalf of the coalition, that we will be watching very closely to see that this does not become yet another clumsy, inflexible organisation that is dishing out money to favourite people in favourite circumstances while ignoring sound, sensible advice from state and local agencies that really understand what the skilling and the workforce needs are of the people they represent in their varying and diverse parts of Australia. I thank the House.
Before commencing my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker Rishworth, can I say it is an honour to be speaking in front of you in the chair. I do not think I have done that before.
I rise to voice my strong support, like the previous speaker, for the Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012. This is a bill that will improve long-term national workforce planning and development with the creation of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, and by doing so it will help address skills shortages across the country. As anyone who looks around the country knows, there are tough times in some patches of Australia. Some parts of Australia—particularly those focused on tourism, like North Queensland, and other parts—are doing it a bit tough, while obviously other parts are experiencing boom times, particularly those connected with the resources sector or servicing the resources sector.
This legislation is a plan of action that builds on the strengths of Skills Australia and ensures that government, industry associations, industry skills councils, unions—who have a proud role to play in this—and employers all work together to achieve the best outcome for industry. This bill recognises the vital significance of skilled workers in our country by taking action to give industry a stronger voice, and making sure our investment in training is going where it is needed most.
I now address a different Deputy Speaker, Mr Mitchell, whom I am appearing before for the first time as well. He looks a little bit different to the previous deputy speaker, but it is an honour, nevertheless, to be appearing before him.
I cannot overstate the importance of skilled workers. Despite the efforts of the rump of a few Work Choices warriors opposite, the reality is that Australia will never ever compete with Asia, Africa, South America and even some Eastern European nations when it comes to low wages. Skilled workers have built Australia and they are desperately needed as we take advantage of a booming resources sector. This has been a proud part of Australian culture. In fact, some might say that what makes Australians who we are is that, arguably since the Harvester case of 1907, we have always given priority to every worker receiving a decent wage. It is funny that when you travel around other parts of the world where productivity is nowhere near as high as ours, you see a lot of half jobs. When I was in the United States last year, I saw jobs we do not have in Australia, half jobs or even three-quarter jobs. That is why they have so many people who are employed yet living in poverty. I guess the United States never had its own Harvester case.
We know we need more workers for the new jobs expected to be created over the next five years. Modelling commissioned by Skills Australia shows that from now to 2015 Queensland will need an additional 156,000 people with qualifications at the trade level—that is, certificate III or IV. It also shows that Queensland will need an additional 104,000 people with diploma qualifications by 2015. Despite it being a tough time to draw up a balanced budget and deliver a surplus, the Gillard Labor government is facing this challenge head-on with strong investment in skilling workers for tomorrow's jobs. Over five years this government will commit $15.6 billion to drive training and skills development across Australia. Compare that to the last five years of the Howard government when only $9 billion was spent. When you compare those amounts you clearly see the difference in the commitment to workers by a Labor government and a coalition government.
The Gillard Labor government has offered Premier Newman more than $1.8 billion to help reform and improve the training system. We are also helping thousands of workers across the Sunshine State—the state that used to be known as the Smart State, but has now gone back to being the Sunshine State—to undertake further training to meet the skills required by industry through the National Workforce Development Fund. In addition to this, the MySkills website will be expanded, allowing people to get the information they need concerning training and employment opportunities. Like the MySchools website that has been accessed by millions and millions and millions of Australians, and the MyHealth website that is starting to be accepted as a way to access and assess information given to government, we will have the MySkills website. We are also giving $18.3 million to establish three Australian skills centres of excellence.
This government is doing what is necessary to break down the barriers so all Australians can obtain the qualifications they need to create a better future for themselves. Obviously the Labor Party is proud of this. We are the party of opportunity. That is why we value education for all, not education just for the privileged. We believe in education for all.
I need not look any further than my own electorate to see the benefits of a strong vocational education and training system. I am proud to say that located in Moreton are the Salisbury and Acacia Ridge campuses of SkillsTech Australia. I was recently at SkillsTech Australia in Acacia Ridge with Minister Evans. This is Queensland's largest TAFE institute dedicated to trade and technician training in automotive, building and construction, manufacturing and engineering, electrotechnology and sustainable technologies. The automotive workshop is fantastic. They even let me drive a big truck, even though it was on rollers so it did not leave the workshop. They have also done some incredible things in powering the workshops and training facilities through lots of solar panels on the roof.
The institute offers more than 120 training programs for people of all ages including traineeships and apprenticeships, school based programs, pre- and postapprenticeship programs, diplomas, advanced diplomas and licensing programs. Delivery models include face-to-face teaching, workplace based learning, videoconferencing and e-learning—all the new ways in which we engage with people and educate them. SkillsTech Australia provides six training centres, with the largest at Morton and Acacia Ridge, now training more than 10,000 students annually. In 2010-11, SkillsTech Australia recorded 170,058 enrolments across all programs, including 377 onshore international students and more than 1,000 offshore in Papua New Guinea.
SkillsTech Australia achieves consistently high completion rates. In 2010-11, the overall completion rate across all training modules was 95.82 per cent with 165,739 completions recorded, a completion rate to be proud of. Earlier this month, SkillsTech Australia was named the 2012 registered training organisation of the year at the Manufacturing Skills Queensland awards. SkillsTech Australia also took home the manufacturing vocational education and training teacher of the year and manufacturing Indigenous student of the year awards. On top of this direct recognition, the Aluminium Boats Australia director was awarded the industry champion award on the night and SkillsTech Australia delivers all training for ABA in their workplace.
The high-skills approach to training people is coming out of two sites in my electorate, and I have another great vocational education facility in my electorate, the Yeronga campus of the Metropolitan South Institute of TAFE. Recently the Metropolitan South Institute of TAFE announced that it would be the first TAFE provider in Queensland to deliver bachelor degrees. This demonstrates Metropolitan South's continued determination to offer innovative training solutions for Queensland students in Moreton. Yeronga TAFE has had a few hiccups because of the emissions from its smokestacks, but it still has a bright future.
Skilled workers are good for Australia and gaining skills is also good for Australians. Having the chance to develop skills makes it easier to find work at any stage of life. The more skills people have, the more likely they are to be employed and work in higher-paying jobs. On average, wages for those without a certificate III qualification are at least around $180 per week lower than those for workers with a certificate III or above qualification. Some workers are missing out on nearly $10,000 in extra wages a year. So these Australians could be earning an extra $400,000, on average, over their working lives if they improved their skills to a certificate III qualification or higher.
Australia is taking steps to give many Australians a better job, a better pay packet and better job security—and job security is emerging as a particular concern. Nevertheless, Australia will need more skilled health and community workers, engineers, IT specialists and construction workers. I am hoping that many of them will be trained at facilities in my electorate. It is imperative that we have the training in place now to deliver these workers in the future. This bill follows calls from industry and union partners for an increased focus on workplace productivity and improved links between skills funding and industry needs. That is what this bill is aimed at doing, and thus I commend it to the House.
I rise today to speak on the Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012. The coalition will support this bill and I understand that the general premise of the bill is supported very broadly across the training and skills sector. However, this piece of legislation is not perfect, and I would like to take this opportunity to discuss some of the problems with that is particular bill.
Firstly, I note that this bill will create the new Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, which will replace and take over the previous work of an organisation set up by the Rudd government in 2008, Skills Australia. Based on the fact that they are replacing Skills Australia so soon after its implementation, clearly there were issues from the outset with that organisation and they have been recognised by the Gillard government. However, this government is notorious for coming up with short-term, bandaid solutions that do not address the substance of issues affecting this country. If this legislation is passed, the government will be successful in 'vanishing' the name Skills Australia, but not in dealing with the problems and inefficiencies that surrounded that organisation.
The agency was budgeted for $25 million in the 2011-12 budget, which will enable them to oversee the administration of the $558 million Workforce Development Fund. This is to pay for up to half of training costs in the form of a co-contribution for the upskilling of existing workers. The other half is to be paid for by businesses themselves. In order to facilitate this process, enterprises will identify areas where there are specific workplace redevelopment needs and apply for funding to train new workers and retrain existing workers. The role of the new agency is to identify areas of importance and, as such, areas worthy of funding under a competitive application process.
The current round of funding, which will be worth $50 million dollars, involves three key priorities: (1) $15 million for the resources sector and other areas where the effects of the current resources boom are impacting training and skilling; (2) $15 million in support for regions where there are significant structural reform challenges, with two priorities being the manufacturing and tourism sectors; and (3) an additional $20 million for upskilling and skills augmentation across the general economy where the agency sees fit.
Anyone who has been studying the Australian economy over the last decade knows that there have been significant issues in training and the procurement of skilled Australian workers, such that companies have often looked to bring overseas workers into the country on temporary business 457 visas. This is particularly true for the mining and resources sector. Many constituents in Ryan have raised with me their concerns that it is unfair to Australian workers, that this sector—which does employ so many Australians—with the ongoing resources boom, is not investing enough in upskilling Australian workers first. I understand their concerns and the concerns of many thousands of workers across Australia.
I appreciate that by bringing in workers on 457 visas we are adding to the skill base of Australians. These foreign workers are bringing in their skills and, indeed, are adding quite significantly to the future of the Australian economy. However, they are only doing so in a bandaid capacity, and many will depart this country, never to return. I lament this situation because things could have been done better, both by the Australian government and by the mining industry.
The $30 million dollars provided could go a long way in ensuring that funds are directed to those areas where a monetary incentive is required to encourage a business to invest. There is expected to be a training shortfall of more than 250,000 skilled employees during the next five years, so it will be a very large challenge for the board and the agency to match skills expansion with work opportunities appropriately. For example, just under 130,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since mid-2008, and many workers will require retraining. This will be a huge task for industry and the agency.
However, there are two elements of this bill that make me worry about the board's representation and consequent effectiveness. Firstly, in addition to the $558 million funding figure, there is also $20 million which can be allocated to unions and employer groups. Again, this current, union-controlled, Labor government cannot devise legislation without including a significant carrot to its union mates.
The agency also sees an expansion in the number of people on its board from seven members to 10 members, but still does not ensure appropriate representation on that board. I ask the government: why have they still not created a specific position for a representative of training organisations? These groups will no doubt be working very closely with the agency's board—yet, according to this Labor government, those people out on the ground actually doing the training do not merit representation.
In their submission to the Senate committee, the Australian Council for Private Education and Training queried the government and noted that they would be:
… pleased to work with Government to nominate a representative that has an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the training sector.
Given that ACPET is an organisation with over 1,100 members—a national organisation delivering many programs in vocational and educational training—I look forward to the government working with ACPET to resolve their concerns.
Another very significant issue this legislation creates is the continued overlap of bureaucracy and funding levels among multiple and varied training organisations and skills councils at the state level. The coalition is very concerned that this government, rather than providing workable solutions to the skills shortage, is simply directing funds to initiatives which have seen poor results to date, and, at the same time, redirecting funds from one training initiative to another. At one point, this Labor government redirected funds from the Critical Skills Investment Fund to the Workforce Development Fund, after which Senator Evans announced the amalgamation of the funds in 2011. Ultimately, this government pretends that there are large increases in funding in the aggregate, when really all they have delivered is a redirection of the funds.
It is quite confusing for the industry. For this fund, there is $558 million in funding, $101 million for a national apprentice mentoring program and a further $223 million for other support programs and wage-subsidy policies. There are other federal government programs, like funding for 30,000 new places in the Language, Literacy and Numeracy Program. This not only creates many layers of bureaucracy to deal with; it also confuses those in the industry, who have to work out where to apply—and what to apply for—at the myriad government agencies and offices. As the Queensland government noted in its submission to the Senate committee, states and territories are the predominant drivers in skills and training investment. This is particularly through the technical and further education departments, a segment of the vocational, education and tertiary sector and which are run primarily by each state government. The Queensland government noted that there is evidence that the duplication of skills training funding is 'fragmenting skills investment' and such duplication results in 'misalignment of training with local skill needs and industry requirements'. While there is scope for a national agency to have a more economy-wide perspective on what skills may be required as the economy evolves, there is a concern that this agency will be too far removed from the coalface to provide an accurate assessment of the workforce needs. Practically speaking, we must ensure that the agency will be producing value for money with their investments in skills training. It is certainly true that states in Australia have a much greater capability to cooperate with their local communities to ensure that skills requirements are being met. I hope at the very least that this agency will collaborate with state skills councils to gain access to the most accurate, on-the-ground knowledge.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the two taxes proposed by this Labor government which go a long way to discounting any possible benefits of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency. Every member of this House knows what I am talking about—the Labor government's minerals resource rent tax and the carbon tax. The first priority of the Workforce and Productivity Agency will be workers in the mining industry. I mentioned that the mining and resources sector has had difficulty in up-skilling enough Australian workers for their industry due to the significant cost of retraining. Taxing the so-called super profits of the mining industry and imposing a devastating carbon tax serves as a double whammy to that industry—thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment in mines and related businesses are at risk. They combine to serve as massive disincentives to international investment in the industry in the first place, lowering the general demand in the employment market of Australian workers. And if that is not bad enough, taxing their profits means mining companies effectively have less available funds to retrain employees and other Australians. This is yet another negative unintended consequence of the mining and carbon taxes, a consequence this government still does not understand.
The second priority of the $50 million funding round is for industries with significant structural reform challenges, with the two priorities being manufacturing and tourism sectors. The two main industries that will be affected by the Gillard government's disastrous carbon tax will be those exact industries—manufacturing and tourism. I echo the words of the American President's top manufacturing adviser and Chief Executive Officer of Dow Chemical Company, Mr Andrew Liveris, who said in March:
Carbon pricing in isolation puts the country on its own rising prices on energy-intensive industries such that it creates a disincentive for investment.
Mr Liveris knows that the carbon tax will damage an energy-intensive industry like manufacturing and puts this industry on the back foot in terms of international competitiveness. The $30 million for the mining, manufacturing and tourism industries is merely a bandaid attempt to cover up the hardship that they will have to face in the future. If the government truly supports these industries, they will rescind the mining and carbon taxes. The coalition has made that promise to the Australian people, and the Prime Minister and her government must do the same.
To conclude, there are clear issues with this bill, issues which this government has pretended to fix by merely rebranding Skills Australia. The $558 million available is significant funding for the upskilling and retraining of Australian workers, but the creation of a new Workforce and Productivity Agency creates a new layer of bureaucracy for businesses and skills training organisations. I agree very broadly with supporting Australian workers, but, again and again, this Labor government devises legislation that could and should be better.
I am very pleased to rise today in support of the Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012 to establish the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency to improve national, long-term workforce planning and development to address the skills and labour shortages, and contribute to improved labour market participation and industry and workplace productivity.
I find it odd hearing the opposition's issues with this bill, one being that, heaven forbid, employees should have a seat at the table. It is important that the vast majority of employees out there who require upskilling and who will benefit from this training should not have a seat at the table. That is the criticism from the opposition. I find it an odd situation but I will leave the opposition to nitpick on the sidelines, while this government gets on with the job of pursuing a skills agenda.
I am very proud of what this government has done with our skills agenda, because skills are critical to our future prosperity. Skills are central to ensuring that we have the workforce needed to deliver innovative, high quality services and products that will power our economy in the Asian century. In a changing economy, skills also build resilience. We heard the member for Farrer talking earlier about the Work for the Dole program and other schemes of the previous Howard government, but I have to say that our government has been focused on many different avenues to ensure that people get skills. We do not see a one-size-fits-all solution such as Work for the Dole. We want to see a variety of solutions, a variety of opportunities, to provide skills for many, many people.
Skills do provide and build resilience so that workers do have the flexibility to change jobs, to apply skills in different contexts and continue to learn. For individuals, higher skills means more opportunity. I heard the member for Farrer scoffing at people getting skills, but higher skills do mean more opportunity, more choice and higher wages, leading to a better life for those people and their families. To businesses, a skilled nation means that they can get workers with the right skills to ensure that their business remains competitive and that they can take advantage of new opportunities. Indeed, 1.4 working Australians do not have the necessary skills for entry into the key growth sectors of our economy. The ABS estimates that these workers earn up to $10,000 less than their skilled peers.
Skills Australia estimates that in the five years up to 2015 Australia will need an additional 2.1 million people in the workforce with VET qualifications. In my state of South Australia alone the ABS data estimates that 300,000 people are missing out on the opportunities that come with higher skills. It also shows that South Australia will need an additional 30,000 people with diploma qualifications by 2015.
It is incredibly important that this government respond to the need for skills in our economy. Certainly it has done this. The key areas of growth are going to be in the technical and service areas. Information released by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations has pointed to a variety of occupations that are needed specifically for South Australia. These include various types of managers, professionals and technicians across construction, engineering, automotive, food trades, mining, electrotechnology, telecommunications trades, skilled animal and horticultural workers and health professionals. The department points out that there have been various shortages and difficulties in recruiting to these professions.
Since the day this Labor government was elected we have been committed to skilling up Australia—and not just in giving it a bit of window dressing, like the previous government did, when lot of the traineeships were used to subsidise wages rather than to ensure that Australians had the skills that would give them better opportunities. The previous government masked and window dressed, but we do not want to do that. We want to ensure that individuals are able to create a better life for themselves—a better job, a better pay packet and better job security.
The government's most recent package, Skills for all Australians, will further turbocharge training in this country. It aims for an additional 375,000 students to complete qualifications over the next five years. To achieve this we need to ensure that vocational education is accessible to more Australians. That is why I am very proud to be part of the government that has committed $1.75 billion over five years for new skills reforms through the national partnerships agreement with the states. This is in addition to the money that has already been committed by the Commonwealth and delivered to the states.
I am very proud that this package will give all Australians access to a government-subsidised training place at least to certificate III level. Prerequisite courses will also be covered, including the training to provide help with literacy and numeracy, so ensuring those who have been previously cut out of education and upskilling can get access.
This package will mean that there will be more providers and more places offering subsidised opportunities to skill up more Australians. The package will be critical in opening the doors to many who have not had these opportunities before. The national training entitlement will be available to Australians from post school to the point where people enter into the aged pension, ensuring that no Australian is left behind when it comes to the opportunity to learn skills. For the first time, working-age Australians will be guaranteed access to a government-subsidised training place
Ensuring that upfront fees are not a barrier to entering training is also critical to equitable access. As I mentioned previously, South Australia is in desperate need of people with diploma-level qualifications. Therefore I was incredibly pleased—and this is something I have been talking about since I attended university—that a deferred loan scheme will now be available not only to university students but also to VET students who are studying diploma and advanced diploma courses. As with university fees, VET students will not be required to pay income-contingent loans upfront; they will be able to defer until they are earning a decent income. This was, unfortunately, missed when it was announced after the last COAG meeting, but it is a serious reform that will once again open the doors to many young people in my electorate.
But it is not just young people in my electorate who will benefit from this; I meet many older people who have decided to change what career they pursue. They do want to upskill but have not had the money. I have heard from many people who have said: 'If only I could defer this payment and if only I could get access. When I get a job I will be able to pay it back'. Now, this government is delivering the opportunity for these people to skill up.
The skills reform National Partnership Agreement with the states comes, as I said, in addition to the $7.2 billion that this government has made available to the states and territories over the next five years for the VET system. In total, therefore, the federal government will be injecting close to $9 billion dollars over the next five years to improve the training opportunities and so allow Australians to get the skills they need.
It is vital not only that training is easier for people from all walks of life to access and afford but also that the quality of the training provided is of high quality. I think this is a very important point. We need to make sure that the skills training that is being delivered is delivered in a high-quality way. That is why the government is working very closely with industry and employers to develop training solutions that get real results for Australians.
Employers must be able to trust that they will be hiring trained graduates with the skills that meet the highest industry standards and requirements. The government has already established the Australian Skills Quality Authority to promote high standards for our VET providers. As part of the new national partnership agreement reforms announced at the recent COAG, the government has pushed for further improvement in quality and will require all states and territories to implement independent assessments over the next two years. Strict criteria will be set to ensure that only quality providers with an established record can access public funding, and the states will be required to implement strategies to improve the quality of vocational education and teaching. The federal government also plans to implement the My Skills website, which will also improve access to information and support informed choice. All these reforms are critical to the quality of education provided.
I have seen in my own electorate some of the investments into skills that are really making a difference. One of the real concerns in my electorate under the previous government was that so few young people could access skills at school. We know that the previous government brought in their Australian technical colleges. There were 25 around the country, but they were not really easily accessible by the thousands of students who want to attain a VET qualification or a vocational education while at high school. So I was very proud to stand at the 2007 election and say that we were not going to make vocational training an exclusive right for only a few people in this country; we were going to roll out trades training centres to schools where the students were and where they could take an alternative path. I am so pleased now to see those rolling out in my electorate. We currently have six in operation, and a number of others have been announced.
Willunga High School, Reynella East High School, Southern Vales Christian College's Aldinga campus, Wirreanda High School, Seaford 6-12 School and Hallett Cove R-12 School all have training centres, and all are cooperating together as part of the Southern Adelaide and Fleurieu Trade School. They are exchanging students and specialising in trades and really networking up. I think it is a great model that gives students from my local electorate an opportunity while at school. The academic side of school with your normal subjects may not be the path they want to go down. I have seen some wonderful, engaged students who have chosen to finish year 12 but have done it while also doing vocational education. I was pleased to recently open the Hallett Cove trades training centre. This is a really exciting initiative that now provides an opportunity to gain qualifications in plumbing and electrotechnology. It is working with industry to deliver its program, so it is a great example of industry, school education and federal government assistance that is really delivering, once again, some great opportunities for young Australians in my electorate.
The amendment bill in the House today seeks to replace Skills Australia from 1 July 2012 with the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency and improve long-term workforce planning and development to further address skill and labour shortages and contribute to improvements in industry and workplace productivity. I think it is important to note while you are listening to the opposition speakers—they did not quite make this clear—that the move does have the backing of industry and employee representatives, who have been urging an integrated approach to tackling the skills shortage and productivity challenges. The agency will have broader scope than Skills Australia through the bill, enabling it to provide government with advice on allocation of Commonwealth funding. Further, the functions of the agency will be broadened to providing government with advice on improving productivity. It will assess research on improving productivity and analyse funding available to address workforce skills, workforce development and workforce productivity.
In conclusion I say that I think this is an important bill. It is part of a massive package that this government is delivering in skills. In moving around my electorate, I found it clear that the previous government fell asleep at the wheel when it came to skills, and it has taken the election of this government to really turbocharge skilling up Australia. I think there are so many exciting opportunities, including the deferral of loans in a HECS-style system for people studying for diplomas and advanced diplomas. This is a critical reform, as are our many others. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise today to speak on the Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012, which is set to replace Skills Australia with the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency. Skills Australia currently provides the government with advice on Australia's workforce shortages and demands. The new Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency will assume most of the work being done by Skills Australia but will have an expanded mandate. This expanded mandate will mean that the new organisation will be responsible for the administration of the National Workforce Development Fund as well as provide the relevant minister with advice on how to improve productivity in the Australian workforce and where to allocate Commonwealth funding. The new organisation will also have access to a $20 million pool of funds that can be distributed to unions and employer groups, but at this stage the accountability regarding the distribution of these funds is unclear.
Although the primary task of both Skills Australia and its new successor is to provide evidence as to where shortfalls exist, these shortfalls are already being identified by industry and the department, as well as a variety of other stakeholders, so there appears to be some duplication in responsibility for the work undertaken by the agency and the department. What is further concerning is that Skills Australia and various industry skills councils should have been in a position to make determinations as to current and future skills needs but, because the AWPA has now been granted responsibility for this task, these changes only indicate that these organisations were not given the opportunity to do so.
This bill before the House increases the ever-expanding bureaucracy that the Labor government is creating. The bill also increases the number of board members that will sit on the AWPA to 10, including the chair—three up from the seven currently prescribed for Skills Australia. Whilst unions, employers and skills councils are represented on the board, there is minimal direct training expertise. I would see it as critical that there be a board member or members with significant direct training experience. Training is vital to the success of the next generation of Australia's workforce as well as to our current generations. Although representation by industry groups and union organisations provides an insight into the current demands of businesses as well as the interests of employees, it does not provide government with information on how we go about providing workers with the vital skills needed to get the work done and the processes and the measures that can be utilised to do so.
Considering the central role that training plays in developing and maintaining workforce productivity, I am surprised that there is no direct training representation on the board. This view is also supported by the Australian Council for Private Education and Training, which said in its submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill:
ACPET believes that it is appropriate that the training sector also be represented as part of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency membership. … Such an appointment would add valuable expertise to the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency as it develops advice for the government.
Nonetheless, the government has not seen fit to make such an appointment to date. However, I do hope that this will be rectified as a priority. There is also a possibility that the functions of the new organisation may in fact overlap with others. The New South Wales Department of Education and Communities, in its submission to the inquiry, said:
There may be value in avoiding the potential for duplication and overlap between the work of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency and other bodies that include the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission is required by legislation to undertake on its own initiative research about matters relating to industry, industry development and productivity. Thus productivity achieved through workforce development could be seen to be part of the Productivity Commission's role.
Further, the Queensland Department of Education and Training, in its submission, states:
Having significant training delivery administered nationally risks duplication of training effort on the ground and potential misalignment of training with skills needs and industry requirements. Put simply, there is already evidence that the purchasing of training by states and state industry bodies, the Commonwealth and Commonwealth industry bodies is fragmenting skills investment.
There are two concerns here. Firstly, duplicating the work done by specifically designed organisations such as the Productivity Commission can only lead to poor productivity, wasted time and potentially much less action. Secondly, if there is already fragmentation of skills investment why doesn't the government address this issue rather than pressing forward with what amounts to merely window dressing?
The importance of training in the workforce cannot be expressed enough. Providing our workforce with the tools of the trade has a twofold benefit. The first is personal growth and higher skill training and the second is increasing productivity in the workplace. Training provides individual workers with the ability to supplement their skills and to grow professionally. It gives them the ability to complete their work in a more productive fashion as well as increasing their employability. Further, productivity is a major benefit that arises from training the workforce and it ultimately benefits business and the community as a whole. It is clearly essential that measures are taken to increase productivity across this country. By increasing the ease of access to training and the opportunities for training our workforce we can consequentially assist in increasing productivity in industry and therefore increase our wealth as a nation.
The VET sector, which contributes heavily to the training of our workforce, is a vital part of our national economy. I have spoken many times in this place about its importance to Australia and noted the significant contribution many institutions make in their local communities. On the Gold Coast alone there are over 160 registered training organisations providing training in a variety of forms—from hospitality courses to apprenticeships in construction related fields. These training organisations are vital to ensuring the health of the VET dependent industries which the Gold Coast has traditionally relied on. They include tourism, construction, manufacturing and, more recently, mining and resources.
The number of students in the Gold Coast VET sector rose by over 4,000 between 2006 and 2010, and that clearly demonstrates the health of this industry on the Gold Coast. However, we do need to make sure that the training that is being provided and that is being undertaken now is relevant to industry's future needs. There is no point in students undertaking training if there are likely to be limited or no job opportunities for them in their discipline in the future. So we have to be quite structured and quite focused about the training that we are developing and offering now to our students so that at the end of their training they do have a reasonable prospect of gaining employment in their chosen area.
Unemployment is an issue on the Gold Coast. Unemployment statistics for March 2012 show that the Gold Coast as a whole had a 6.7 per cent unemployment rate compared to 2.9 per cent in March 2008. The southern Gold Coast, where my electorate of McPherson is located, had a 6.7 per cent unemployment rate compared to its March 2008 rate of 2.8 per cent. Based on these numbers, unemployment on the Gold Coast under the Labor government has risen by 3.9 per cent, or 12,600 people.
But it is not only unemployment that needs to be addressed. We also need to address the issue of underemployment in Australia. In February 2011, out of the 11.4 million people employed 916,400 were identified as being underemployed, which is a representation of about eight per cent. There are many workers who are available to work additional hours. They may be additional part-time hours, casual hours or overtime hours. They would be accessing those hours but, at this point in time, there are no opportunities for them to pick up those additional hours and access that work. There are also women who would be employed on a part-time, casual or a full-time basis if there were opportunities available for them. But it also seems to be somewhat limited. That is a statistic that is not necessarily borne out by a lot of the ABS unemployment data at the moment because it represents the underemployment figure.
Many of Gold Coast locals are indicating to me that they believe that the underemployment rate could be as high as twice the unemployment rate I mentioned before. To address this issue we really need to strengthen the local economy on the southern Gold Coast and to provide businesses with incentives and opportunities to grow so that they in turn provide more opportunities for their existing employees and for potential employees.
Identifying these workforce shortages and areas in which productivity can be raised will help to ensure the strength of many industries and the national economy. But the risk of duplicating the functions of current agencies present some reasons for concern. Duplicating efforts will only lead to waste and they will not see any real results. Real action needs to be taken to reduce workforce skill shortages; real action needs to be taken in training not only today's workforce but also the workforce of tomorrow.
I rise to speak on the Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012. In the 2011 budget, the Australian government announced the creation of an industry-led workforce and productivity agency as part of its Building Australia's Future Workforce initiatives. This package is about providing greater opportunities for Australians to develop their skills, train and get into the workforce. It rewards work through improved tax incentives and provides new opportunities to get people into work with education, improved childcare and employment services. The Building Australia's Future Workforce initiatives also introduce new requirements for the long-term unemployed, disability support pensioners, young parents, jobless families and young people.
A key focus of the package is to improve education and skill levels across the labour market to ensure Australians are equipped with the skills required to thrive in an innovative and sustainable economy. These initiatives invest over $3 billion in a new approach towards delivering the skilled workers the economy needs and ensuring that more Australian have the opportunity to share in our nation's prosperity.
The Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012 implements a critical aspect of these reforms, establishing the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, which will replace Skills Australia from 1 July this year. The new agency will work closely with industry to ensure the National Workforce Development Fund delivers training outcomes that meet the needs of industry, workers and the economy. The AWPA will work to place industry at the centre of the national training system, giving them a strong voice in the development of policy and industry skills funding. The agency will be an authority on workforce development policy. The agency will have a central role in advising the Australian government on the allocation of funding for the new National Workforce Development Fund, which will contribute some $558 million to the upskilling of Australia's workforce and will create some 130,000 industry focused training places.
The Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012 will make several important changes to the Skills Australia Act 2008. These include: changing the name of the existing Skills Australia body to the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency; broadening the object of the act to include the provision of advice on the allocation of Commonwealth industry skills and workforce development funding; broadening the functions of the body to allow for a stronger research, analysis and advisory role, and to specifically address improvements in Australian workforce productivity; expanding the size of the body from a total of seven to 10 members, including an independent chair; and expanding on the current membership criteria to reflect the transition to a union and industry-led body.
The main aims of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency will be to ensure that skills and labour shortages are addressed, to improve long-term workforce planning and contribute to improved industry and workplace productivity. The establishment of the AWPA is a demonstration of the Gillard Labor government's continued commitment to its workforce. We are determined to increase the number of skilled Australians in the workforce and create a more responsive training system that produces workers who have the skills to meet the challenges of a changing economy.
Thanks to the responsible fiscal management of the Labor government, Australia emerged from the uncertainty of the global financial crisis and the recent natural disasters with one of the world's strongest economies. The government's stimulus package helped support growth and protect jobs and businesses. Of course, Australia's economy is undergoing something of a transformation. Structural changes in the economy mean that we must act now to train the workers who will take on the jobs of the future, and this is exactly what the AWPA will do.
Jobs for more highly skilled workers are growing at 2.5 times the rate of other jobs. Indeed, 83 per cent of all Australians with a certificate III qualification or higher have a job as compared to only 57 per cent of those who left school early. This demand for skills cannot be met by the current workforce. The Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012 takes a big step in addressing this problem by ensuring that there is an organisation in place whose role is to meet the training needs of both workers and industry. Within this role, the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency will have several important tasks. The agency will not only advise the government on expenditure priorities for the National Workforce Development Fund but also drive engagement between industry, training providers and government on workforce development, apprenticeships and VET reform. They will act to promote workforce productivity by leading initiatives for the improvement of productivity, management innovation and skills utilisation within Australian workplaces. The AWPA will conduct skills and workforce research, including into the future of work and working life in Australia. This will be achieved through collaboration with industry associations, industry skills councils, unions and employers and will see a practical approach to training that will meet the needs of sectors, regions and small businesses in our changing economy. There is absolutely no doubt of the value of a skilled workforce to a transforming economy like Australia's. An educated, productive workforce is an essential part of the government's plan to meet the challenges of the future.
Skills also make a huge difference on an individual scale. They provide the opportunity for a new start, a better job and a higher pay packet at the end of the week. Labor believes every Australian should be supported to reach their potential through education and training. The fact is that 4.1 million workers do not have a postschool qualification. The establishment of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency will increase the opportunities available to them to gain the higher skills they need to ensure they do not miss out on the higher skilled, higher paying jobs of the future.
The Gillard Labor government recognises the difference that education and training make not only to the economy but to individuals and their families. Between the 2008 and 2010 financial years we have invested more than $11.1 billion in skills funding, significantly more than the $7.2 billion invested in the last three years of the Howard government. This investment in skills funding works side-by-side with the government's high reform agenda, which has seen an additional 150,000 students enrolled in universities throughout Australia.
There has also been an increase in the number of apprenticeships, with a 14 per cent rise in the numbers in the 3½ years to June 2011. In total, that is 462,000 trainees and apprentices in training—almost 60,000 additional people getting a trade for the future and the highest figure ever recorded.
Labor has also committed $2.5 billion dollars over 10 years for Trade Training Centres in Schools to boost year 12 attainment and address skills shortages. Indeed, I have seen the benefits of these firsthand in my electorate of Bass, with trade training centres up and running in both George Town and Scottsdale and a third on the way at St Patricks College in Launceston. I am thrilled that students in Bass will benefit from the next instalment of $986,500 in the Australian government's $2.5 billion program to help schools build and upgrade trade training facilities. The investment in the trades training centres is giving students in Northern Tasmania and all over Australia more choice to find a career that suits them and also ensuring local businesses can access a workforce with the latest skills. These figures prove that the government is working to meet the challenges of the 21st century by building an educated and skilled workforce and ensuring that there are opportunities for all Australians to experience the benefits of work.
It was fantastic to hear in the budget that the federal government is helping 260 workers across Tasmania undertake further training to meet the skills of industry. Labor is negotiating with the Tasmanian government to provide HECS-style loans for local students studying for a diploma or advanced diploma, allowing TAFE students to study now and pay later. Federal Labor is also negotiating with the Tasmanian government to provide a subsidised training place for local people wanting to gain new skills up to certificate III, which will also roll out from July.
The strong economic position of the Australian economy provides the opportunity for more individuals to participate in the workforce. These opportunities ensure that the benefits of work can be enjoyed and shared by all. The establishment of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency through the Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012 is an essential element in the government's plan to create a highly skilled workforce that is ready to take on the jobs of our future economy. I am confident that the AWPA will be a driving force in the development of policy and industry skills funding, as well as providing training outcomes that meet the needs of industry, workers and the economy.
This bill makes a number of changes that will ensure the agency can fulfil its role in improving long-term workforce planning and development to address labour shortages and to deliver practical, industry-led workforce strategies. I look forward to seeing the positive outcomes and benefits that the training and upskilling provided by the AWPA will create for Australian workers and their families. In a time of a transforming economy the Labor government is providing for the future of all Australians by providing access to the training and education they will need in a highly skilled future. I commend this bill to the House.
I too wish to talk about the Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012. It was announced in the 2011-12 budget just the other night that the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency will be a new agency subsuming and replacing the existing work undertaken by Skills Australia. Skills Australia was set up by the Rudd Labor government in 2008. So just four years later we have to wonder why it has found itself under the spotlight, being substantially changed in terms of its mandate. I guess it is because we did not have much action and there was not much to show for those first four years.
There is a substantial injection of funds into this new agency—$25 million was budgeted for the 2011-12 financial year. What we have to hope is that this new agency is not simply another training for training's sake exercise. Too often in Australia we have seen the unemployed, especially the Indigenous unemployed or others with a disability perhaps, put in front of course after course with no prospect of a job ever at the end of the training period.
Too often we are told that there are massive skills in demand in Australia and that there are thousands of jobs not being filled. In rural and regional Australia in particular, we have a crisis in farm succession and in finding enough agribusiness workers. We are told that there are more than 2.5 jobs for every graduate from a college which trains individuals in agricultural science or agribusiness related courses, yet the industry cannot find those 2.5 graduates for every job. So there is a real problem in Australia in that there are not enough trained individuals to meet the real opportunities in our economy; and, indeed, there are not enough individuals who are given a chance to retrain, given that they are locked into parts of Australia where there are few jobs or they are locked into areas of work which will not have much of a future after the carbon tax commences on 1 July. I have already seen in my electorate, for example, hundreds of food manufacturing jobs disappear. Individuals have been made redundant because of the additional costs to be imposed in the food manufacturing sector come 1 July. I am referring in particular to the most recent job losses from the Murray Goulburn Co-operative. Recently Coca-Cola Amatil announced job losses, and the workers at Heinz at Girgarre were told to go elsewhere when the company decided to shift offshore to New Zealand—which, of course, has only a tiny carbon tax compared to that which is to be imposed in Australia. There will be a lot of new job losses coming through the system when our economy is made less competitive after 1 July, so we are very much anticipating that an enormous training effort will be required in this country—perhaps one of the biggest new training efforts that the country has ever seen.
We know that there are a lot of disengaged youth, particularly in rural and regional Australia. In my area, up to 30 per cent of our young people are not employed. I wonder, though, how simply increasing the size of the board of Skills Australia from seven to 10 members is going to make a huge difference. There is a new emphasis on these members coming out of the trade union movement. The trade union movement has done a lot of things in the past, but one of the things it is not renowned for is retraining. We have a requirement for 250,000 skilled employees over the next five years, yet we know that the membership of the union movement is contracting across all sectors. So it is interesting that the Skills Australia board is to be boosted by more membership from the trade union movement, and it is interesting that a substantial part of the funding is to be allocated to the unions themselves.
I want to see the funding go to agencies or organisations such as those that Andrew Forrest has identified in Western Australia. He understands that unless there is the prospect of a job at the end of the training experience, the individual is not going to be quite so well engaged. The individual who perhaps has never worked before, or who has faced a lot of discrimination because of race or because of poor Australian standard English-speaking skills, is best engaged when he or she knows that there is a real job at the end of a training period—a job they want to do and a job that is accessible to them geographically.
When I was Minister for Workforce Participation, I was very proud to launch Goal 100. This was in Whyalla and it was very much the brainchild of OneSteel. They had a massive problem with local skills retention and in finding new skilled workers for their expanding mining tasks in that region. There were 79 graduates who received five months of training. This program was one of the first of its kind in Australia. It took some quite long-term unemployed men and women—some Indigenous men and women among the group—and gave them real work-related skills so they could enter various mining sector jobs in the region. It also gave them a great deal of personal development support. Some of these individuals had very difficult lives where they had to, for example, spend a lot of time caring for sick family members or had experienced family dislocation. Some had experienced alcohol and drug issues in the past. One of the conditions of the training was that the graduates be drug-free during their training period, and this was very successfully achieved by the 79 who graduated after five months of training. Those graduates knew that they were not going to march around to the Centrelink to see what was possible for them to apply for; they knew that they had an excellent job waiting for them. In fact, most of them had already had some experience in the jobs which they were to step into, having graduated from the training program. The night of their graduation was electric with anticipation, expectation and pride. Families were there, cheering on their graduates, some of whom had not completed their secondary education and some of whom had never before succeeded in completing any qualification or even had one offered to them before.
Not only was I at the graduation of the Goal 100; I was also at the launch of the program in the same TAFE facility—the South Australian TAFE facility in Whyalla. There was some nervousness and apprehension at the launch of the program. I was there with the local mayor and councillors as well as the Whyalla Economic Development Board Chief Executive Officer and OneSteel executives. There was a quite rugged mix of workers sitting there, aiming to train and get a job. For many of them it was very exciting, but they were also apprehensive. The fact that the 79 graduated and walked into work was living proof of the effectiveness of what Andrew Forrest aims to do with his programs targeting Indigenous workers in Western Australia. Andrew Forrest has said that for every job filled, two go unfilled due to the lack of job-ready Indigenous applicants for the work that is out there in the more remote parts of Western Australia. He knows the importance of training which includes theoretical and hands-on experience—real work experience—and a job offer at the end.
Too often in Australia we simply reach for a 457 visa to bring in skilled workers from overseas. We think that it is a quicker, easier and cheaper way to fill the gaps in our skilled workforce. It is not a clever way to go, because, as I mentioned before at the beginning of my remarks, more than 30 per cent of our youth are unemployed in parts of regional Australia. In parts of Indigenous Australia, where most of the population is in rural and remote areas and the people are our first Australians, unemployment is over 80 per cent.
So we have to make sure that someone such as Andrew Forrest, who has established four vocational training and employment centres—or VTECs, as he calls them—in Western Australia, is given every support from this federal government. He has called on the government to set up another 25 of these VTECs across the country. I strongly support what he sees as an essential way to go—where your training is in relationship to a real job and your training outcome, if you graduate, is real employment. I found this was the case when I was congratulating those graduates in 2006 and 2007 in Whyalla.
We have to be serious in Australia about the fact that a lot of our regional training organisations are not very adequate. Many of them are now supervising students and offering courses which are not at all rigorous so that people who do not have sufficient skill graduate. I made a comment on this in parliament just yesterday. I mentioned the fact that apprentices are paid only some $6 an hour and they are not receiving the TAFE sector training that was once expected to be very much a part of their apprenticeship. They are allowed to be fast tracked. Instead of spending four years in an apprenticeship, they can finish now in some two years via what is often called competency based accreditation, where someone from a registered training organisation simply observes them on the job—perhaps standing at a building site where they are able to point to some scaffolding or some piece of plumbing or tiling work or concreting. A photograph is taken of the outcome and a box is ticked, and that apprentice is then told that they have competency in that particular aspect of the trade.
This is not good enough for Australia, which has to have not only people with certificates or qualifications like diplomas or degrees but also the knowledge and skills behind those diplomas, degrees or certificates. There has to be confidence that, through the training that they have been given, the individual will be able to work competently in an industry sector and be able to rise to be a master tradesperson or a self-employed person employing others and in turn offering training themselves.
At the moment many people have real concerns, which was expressed through the Senate inquiry submission from the Queensland government. It was highlighted that training purchased by the states and Commonwealth is often fragmented, that there is duplication of effort and that there is poor quality in outcomes for those who undertake training. Even the ACTU have been critical of the government's approach to addressing the skills shortages, where, too often, you simply have an offshore recruitment drive rather than address the unemployed queuing for an opportunity to gain an income and get off welfare.
The new agency that is now to be funded is the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency. Let us hope that the co-contribution arrangement, with business paying making according to their size contributions up to 50 per cent, will mean that those businesses demand a better outcome from this agency than they got with Skills Australia. Let us hope that, if someone receives a certificate III level or a certificate IV level in aged care, for example, that they do come out of that training genuinely skilled and with work waiting for them.
One function of this agency is the identification of skills needed in the future. We are told the resources sector will be a priority 1, with $15 million to support skills development in that area. I would argue that equally important to the resources sector is food manufacturing. We pay a lot of lip service to manufacturing, but food manufacturing is the biggest employer in Australia when it comes to value adding from plough to plate. There is $15 million to support organisations and regions that are facing structural adjustment and reform challenges, particularly in the manufacturing and tourism sectors. I would hope that those funds go into the regions. Finally, there is a catch-all of $20 million to support upskilling and skills deepening across all sectors of the economy. Twenty million dollars is not very much. Let us hope that the money gets spent appropriately and wisely and that it is targeted properly and that behind the training there are real jobs.
Debate adjourned.
The Speaker has agreed to the following statement which I make to the House in relation to the matter of privilege raised by the honourable member for Sturt.
Earlier today the honourable member for Sturt raised as a matter of privilege that, in his statement to the House on 21 May 2012, the honourable member for Dobell deliberately misled the House.
The honourable member for Sturt provided detailed information in relation to the statement by the honourable member for Dobell and the reasons that he believed the honourable member had intended to mislead the House in making the statement.
Deliberately misleading the House is one of the matters that can be found to be a contempt. While claims that members have deliberately misled the House have been raised as matters of privilege or contempt on a number of occasions, no Speaker has ever given precedence to allow such a matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.
To establish that contempt has been committed it would need to be shown that: (1) a statement had in fact been misleading; (2) the member knew at the time the statement was incorrect; and (3) the misleading had been deliberate. There needs to be prima facie evidence of these matters to establish a case for precedence to be given to a motion.
The Speaker has considered the principal information provided by the honourable member for Sturt. He understands that this matter is surrounded by conflicting views. However, the matter of deliberately misleading the House is a very serious one and rightly there should be prima facie evidence that the House has been misled and that the misleading has been deliberate.
While it does not seem that a prima facie case has been made out in terms of the detail that Speakers have always required in relation to such allegations, the Speaker understands the concerns many members have about the matters raised by the honourable member for Sturt.
While in accordance with the practice of the House, precedence as of right to a motion for this matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests cannot be given, it is still open to the House itself to determine a course of action in relation to this matter.
by leave—I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests: Whether, in the course of his statement of 21 May 2012, the Honourable Member for Dobell deliberately misled the House.
I wish to speak briefly to the motion. I do not think I need to canvass the issues that were canvassed at two o'clock this afternoon. I think they are all on the record in the Hansard and in the general public firmament, and the documents that I tabled have obviously been considered by the Speaker. I accept the Speaker's ruling that no matter of this kind has ever been referred before or given precedence. I am grateful to the Speaker that he has indicated in the statement that it is a matter of great concern to the parliament and that, therefore, if it was possible for this to be referred to the Privileges Committee by leave, then such a motion should be moved and, if supported, it would go to the Privileges Committee. I am grateful to the Leader of the House that he has indicated to me that he has given leave and is prepared to allow this matter to go to the Privileges Committee without division.
Obviously the argument that the opposition has put on this matter time and again, but particularly today, is that it is uniquely in the power of parliament to determine its own actions and whether its privileges have been breached. Charging a member with misleading the House is one of the most serious charges that anyone can make of either opposition or government. I do not do it lightly. I do believe that the Privileges Committee is the correct forum to determine this matter and, therefore, I commend this motion to the House.
The government will not be opposing this motion. I think that the Speaker's statement before the House with regard to this matter is pertinent indeed. The Manager of Opposition Business raised the issue of misleading the House. Of course, that is not the charge. The charge is whether the House has been deliberately misled. To establish that that contempt has been committed, three things need to be shown: (1) that a statement had been misleading; (2) that the member knew at the time the statement was incorrect; and (3) that the misleading had been deliberate.
I note that no Speaker has ever given precedence to this matter and therefore that precedent is not being established by this ruling and I think that is very important. I think it is critical that, whilst we debate these issues surrounding allegations against the member for Dobell, we are very careful that we do not establish precedents that would change the nature of the way that this parliament operates and change the nature of the way that the separation of powers operates. It is my view, however, that the Manager of Opposition Business's motion, were it to be not supported—and the government could have, of course, not supported this motion even being brought on. I indicated earlier today that the government would allow leave because I did not want it argued that the government was somehow seeking to block a proper consideration of these matters by the Privileges Committee.
The statement says, in accordance with the practice of the House, that precedence as of a right to a motion for this matter would normally be granted by the Speaker. It is open to this House to refer the matter, and if the motion of the Manager of Opposition Business is carried of course that will occur. But I do note the Speaker's statement that a prima facie case has not been granted. I do note that no Speaker has ever granted precedence. In this fine Westminster House there are quite often disagreements as to statements, as to economic policy, as to whether there is a $70 billion black hole or not in the opposition's funding, whether climate change is anthropogenic or not. A whole range of statements are made that are contradicted by the two sides of the House. That occurs every single day.
What the government wants to indicate here is this: the fact that we are permitting this motion to be moved, by leave, by the Manager of Opposition Business should not establish a precedent whereby we say that, when disagreements arise as to what facts are, they should be the subject for a reference to the Committee of Privileges. That indeed would be abuse of that process and would undermine the very functioning of this parliament. We go further and say that—when it comes to matters which are quite rightly, because of the seriousness of their nature, subject to potential legal action, either criminal or civil—the idea that this parliament should sit in judgment undermines the rule of law, undermines the separation of powers and indeed, under other circumstances whereby the convention that these matters would only be considered if the Speaker were to grant precedence, is of some concern indeed. It is of some concern because in the future a majority government should not use the fact that it is a majority government of whatever political persuasion to determine that matters should be referred to the Privileges Committee or to determine outcomes of these matters. That is why we have these conventions. We have these conventions so that the Speaker determines these things separately from partisan politics. I am confident that the Committee of Privileges will also consider these matters separately from partisan politics, and I would certainly encourage the members to do so.
I wish to speak to this motion and note that I am the formal seconder of the motion. I am very pleased that the Leader of the House has agreed that the motion as moved by the opposition will proceed to the Privileges Committee. I think everybody in this House knows how serious a matter of privilege is. It is not something that is taken lightly or in a frivolous manner, and I think that the material that was outlined by the Manager of Opposition Business earlier today, when he moved his original motion, did place on the record many of the questions that need to be investigated and dealt with. But the question, in the terms of this motion, of whether, in the course of his statement of 21 May 2012, the honourable member for Dobell deliberately misled the House, is one that certainly must be addressed by the Privileges Committee.
Question agreed to.
I have long advocated in this place and elsewhere that education is the key to opportunity and opening the door to prosperity for so many people, particularly from the electorate I am proud to represent—prosperity for individuals as well as prosperity for the nation as a whole. Labor understands that skilling Australians provides a crucial boost to productivity. That is why we have invested so heavily in school education as well as vocational education.
The bill we are debating today, the Skills Australia Amendment (Australia Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012, seeks to amend legislation, making the agency Skills Australia more responsive to industry needs through a new partnership approach to workforce development. Skills Australia is an independent statutory body, providing advice to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research on Australia's current, emerging and future workforce skills needs and workforce development needs. Skills Australia was established by the Skills Australia Act in 2008, which specifies that members be appointed by the minister and must have experience in academia, the provision of education and training, economics and industry.
Skills Australia was intended to be the body that had its finger on the pulse of industry to better inform the government on national skills priorities, areas of workforce shortage and reforms to the national training system. However, industry groups and unions felt that Skills Australia was not ideally positioned to fulfil its mission and requested the government improve the link between the funding we provide for skills and the needs of industry as well as workplace productivity.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Industry Group all argued for a more integrated approach to tackling the country's skills and productivity challenges. Skills Australia also recognised that, more than any other education sector, the training sector connects learning with the labour market, the workplace and community development, so in this context the government is seeking to replace Skills Australia from 1 July 2012 with the new Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency.
The aim of the agency will be to improve long-term workforce planning and development, to address the skills and labour shortages facing the country and to contribute to improving workplace productivity. In May 2011 a new $558 million National Workforce Development Fund, designed to upskill Australia's workforce over the next four years, was announced in the budget. The new agency will work closely with industry to ensure the fund delivers training outcomes that meet the needs of industry, workers and the economy.
The bill proposes broadened functions that will give the agency a stronger research, analysis and advisory role and specifically provides for it to address improvements in Australian workforce productivity. The revised functions will also ensure the agency can advise the government on the allocation of the Commonwealth industry skills funding, including the National Workforce Development Fund. It will have the ability to advise the government to direct funding to areas of critical industry need. This is an issue I would like to come back to later in my contribution to this debate.
The bill provides for an expansion in the size of the agency compared with the current size of the Skills Australia membership and a revision and expansion of the current membership criteria. The new agency will be a fully representative body that represents industry, employees and employers and will allow the agency to meet its significant skills and workforce development agenda from July this year.
It will build on the strengths of Skills Australia. It will collaborate with industry associations, industry skills councils, unions and employers to achieve its new functions. Rather than establish this agency from scratch, the government has rightly recognised that Skills Australia possessed a range of strengths, and what it has sought to do in this bill is to retain those and to ensure the effective governance structure and the legislative framework of that body remain. Stakeholders are quite right to expect industry and unions to play a bigger role in setting the skills agenda. This will increase the likelihood of us training young Australians to perform jobs where there are known shortages and to a standard that industry requires. A perfect example of where industry has played a key role in determining where skills funding should be spent is in my electorate of Chifley at the Loyola Trade Training Centre in Mount Druitt, for which this government contributed $9 million.
From the very beginning of the planning for this centre Loyola Senior High School was engaged with local industry to determine where the greatest skills shortages were and how industry could best support the skilling of young people. For example, it had close negotiation and consultation with the National Electrical Contractors Association to help determine how to fast-track or attract more students into electrical apprenticeships. It has also worked with the Motor Traders Association and others to ensure that, when students do go on and pursue further training within the trade training set-up, there will be jobs locally to support them when they leave.
From this industry engagement, Loyola Senior High School chose to develop courses and build facilities to train students in automotive, carpentry, commercial cookery, hairdressing, electrotechnology, shopfitting and metal fabrication. Having toured through the facility itself, I was impressed to see what has been achieved by the school in a short space of time. It was exceptional. Students at the Loyola Trade Training Centre are building skills that are in high demand in Western Sydney.
One industry which has impacted enormously and positively on the skills education of young people right across Australia is commercial cookery. Students have been learning to cook in schools for a great number of years and most schools would have had limited kitchen facilities for those purposes. When vocational education first ventured into the schools sector, commercial cookery made the easy transition. However, the industry had concerns about the skill level of teachers and the currency of those skills, as well as the suitability of facilities where this cookery was being taught. This resulted in a significant overhaul of these facilities, in which this government has invested some $1.2 billion.
Again, I have been fortunate to see firsthand some of those amazing commercial kitchens at the trade training centres in the Chifley electorate. Loyola, Evanside and Tyndale trade training centres all boast fantastic kitchens, with equipment that could be found in any restaurant in Australia.
In March the Deputy Prime Minister visited Doonside Technology High School to officially open the Evanside Trade Training Centre and I had the pleasure of inspecting the new and refurbished facilities, including their commercial kitchen. We all enjoyed the fruits of their labour, which was equal to catering that I have experienced anywhere else.
In the past, students who had completed a school based apprenticeship, which accounted for the first year of a commercial cookery apprenticeship, often required significant upskilling because they had had no prior exposure to much of the equipment found in restaurants. The restaurant and catering industry has significantly greater confidence in the skills that students build at schools because of their involvement in both course delivery and industry placement.
Mr Jack Joyce, Principal of Tyndale Christian School in Blacktown, has proudly told me of the achievements of some of those students. Chantelle Bills earned second place in the High Flyers Program, run by Kenvale Hospitality College and Radisson Hotel Sydney. From her studies at Tyndale she gained a scholarship to study at Kenvale while working at the Radisson Hotel. Another student, John Victor Suwa, was announced Hospitality Student of the Year in the Western Sydney area by BREED Local Community Partnership, the organisation which facilitates work placement of these students. The students have gained employment in some of Sydney’s best restaurants. Aleu Kuek now works in the kitchen of 360 Restaurant, Sydney Tower and received a promotion within three months. James Milazzo got an apprenticeship with Tetsuya’s world-famous five-hat restaurant. There have been some tremendous achievements as a result of the investment in trade training centres in my area. I am delighted that students will have the opportunity to progress and continue in their careers as a result of this very important reform.
I mentioned earlier that, as part of the reforms we are talking about today, the agency—the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency—that we set up will have the ability to advise the government to direct funding to areas of critical industry needs.
I want to take a few moments to talk about ICT skills in this country. We have an enormous opportunity based on two things to drive further growth of ICT. Principally through the roll-out of the National Broadband Network we are completely renewing this nation's technological infrastructure. On top of this we have an economy that is growing, that is strong and that is well ahead of most advanced economies at this point, given the state of economic conditions across the globe. We need to use this time to invest and strengthen the economy into the years ahead. While we certainly gain a lot from our resources sector, it is worth noting that in this country the internet generates almost as many jobs as mining. So ICT will be very important to this country in the years ahead.
I note that Skills Australia has been looking at a number of areas—particularly the resources sector, the defence industry, and the green skills and energy efficiency sectors—and has developed sector-specific skills needs plans. However, it is worth pointing out that the Australian Computer Society have released in the last few months details about skills needs in the ICT area. They have been warning that we are facing shortages in ICT industry professionals. They note, in particular, declining ICT university enrolments, a drop in skilled migration, an ageing workforce and community misconceptions about the opportunities and rewards associated with ICT careers. Alan Patterson, of the Australian Computer Society, said:
We should be very concerned about sustaining the momentum of our vital $100bn digital economy. Australia’s digital economy is an undeniable force for productivity and value-add for every other industry sector, providing communications, social media platforms, data management and transaction processing capabilities that drive our economic performance.
And further:
The critical role of ICT professionals in enabling our digital economy means that the highest policy priority must be directed at education and workforce planning …
He has highlighted some important statistics that I think are worth bringing to the House. At least 14,000 new ICT jobs will be created this year alone, and at least an additional 21,000 through next year, but we do need to find skilled people to fill these positions. Australian Computer Society's statistical research shows that university enrolments in ICT are currently less than half of what they were a decade ago, and that is despite a small recovery last year. As a percentage of the total student body, ICT students are continuing to decline. That pronounced decline is also evidenced in the VET sector, where a decade ago 75,000 people received an ICT qualification. By 2010 this had declined to 46,000.
We certainly need—and the ACS calls for this—greater recognition of Australia's ICT community as an industry sector and more research to understand why, despite the ever more compelling nature of ICT, there are not enough students choosing ICT as a career. We need improved coordination between business, government and research, particularly in the small- to medium-sized enterprise area, the SME area, where the majority of ICT professionals work. Obviously the other area that they have picked up on is improved ICT governance to support business capacity to capture the ever-increasing number of people using the internet. They have put some very important points forward that would compel further work and give further impetus for greater support in this area. I certainly back their calls there.
I had the opportunity to speak at the graduating ceremony of the University of Western Sydney's School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics in late April. In my contribution to those students that would be going out into a growing digital economy in Australia I highlighted, too, that one of the ambitions we should have, particularly for Western Sydney, is opening up ICT corridors where companies can be able to research, develop products and potentially drive growth in export earnings for Australia right out of Western Sydney, to be able to work with the University of Western Sydney to be able to open up those corridors. But to do so we obviously need the skills and the talent of people to be there. Given the concerns raised by ACS, given that demand exists but we are not meeting that demand as quickly as we can, we do need to accelerate work in this area. I certainly am looking forward to working with UWS in this particular area of trying to open up further ICT corridors in Western Sydney. In the meantime I support the changes contained in this bill. I am confident they will produce a better skilled, more productive workforce. I commend this bill to the House.
The Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012 is very important legislation. It is not controversial legislation, but it is legislation that is about Australia's future and Australia's place in the world. This legislation establishes the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, which will replace Skills Australia, and that will be from 1 July this year. The creation of the AWPA was announced as part of the government's 2011 Building Australia's Future Workforce package. The bill contains eight proposed amendments to the act to establish AWPA and broaden the objectives and function of the act. The name 'Skills Australia' was removed from the act and replaced with 'Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency'. It establishes Skills Australia as continuing in existence as the AWPA, and the act is broadened to allow AWPA to provide government with advice on the allocation of Commonwealth funding. The functions of the body are broadened, with the addition of new functions to allow the AWPA to provide advice in relation to improving the productivity of the Australian workforce; the allocation of Commonwealth funding, including the National Workforce Development Fund, which is about addressing Australia's workforce skills—and I will be talking a little bit more about that as I move further into my speech; workforce development; and workforce productivity needs. It is also about assessment of research relating to improving the productivity of the Australian workforce and analysis of funding available to address Australia's workforce skills shortage, workforce development and workforce productivity needs.
Skills Australia was first established in 2008 and commenced operation in April that year. It was one of the Rudd government's initiatives to address the skills shortage. The agency also has the responsibility for administering the National Workforce Development Fund. The fund is worth $558 million over four years and incorporates a $200 million Critical Skills Investment Fund, which was announced in the 2010-11 budget. I note that the Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills is in the House. She has made some very strong comments on the role, the function and the need for the change. In her second reading speech, she highlighted the fact that industry union partners had called for an increased focus on workplace productivity and better linkage between skills funding and industry needs. I think that is also supported by employers, businesses and industries. I speak very frequently with businesses within my electorate as well as workers and unions, and I know that that is something that they really believe is needed. Skills Australia, in its national workforce development strategy, recommended 'a new partnership approach to workforce development at the government, industry and enterprise level', and I see that that is what will be happening once this legislation is enacted. I thought it was worth taking a little look at the skills agenda and I thought I would look at the skills agenda for New South Wales. The figures that I will put to the House tonight are based on ABS data. It is estimated that 1.2 million people in New South Wales alone are missing out on the opportunity that comes from having higher skills. Research shows that in New South Wales there is a strong demand for motor mechanics. When I first started working in the employment area some 20-odd years ago there was a skills shortage for motor mechanics then and, no matter what has happened over the ensuing period, that workforce shortage has never been addressed. I see that the legislation that we have before the House will put in place proper research mechanisms, create the partnerships that are needed and will help address that long-term shortage of motor mechanics. Chefs and cooks I notice are also on the list, and that has been another area in which there has been a long-term shortage. Other occupations that appear on the list are: sheetmetal trade workers, metal fabricators, building associates, construction estimators, automotive electricians, fitters, metal machinists first class, plumbers—and we all know how difficult it is to find a plumber if one is needed—panel beaters, electricians, air-conditioning and refrigeration mechanics, and cabinet-makers. For some of those areas, such as panel beating, there has been a very long-term shortage and some of those areas have new shortages.
Modelling commissioned by Skills Australia showed that from now to 2015 New South Wales will need an additional 180,000 people with qualifications at trade level or certificate III or certificate IV level. It also shows that New South Wales will need an additional 144,000 people with diploma qualifications by 2015. There is a $180 difference per week in the mean average wage when you compare a person with a year 12 qualification and those holding a certificate III qualification, according to the ABS data, meaning that some workers are missing out on nearly $10,000 in extra wages a year. One of the main objectives of the Gillard government is to address those shortages. The parliamentary secretary and the minister responsible have been working on this, and this is one of the tools to address the shortage.
I would like to step sideways and pick up on an issue that the member for Chifley was talking about—that is, trade training centres. He highlighted some of the activities of those centres in his electorate. I would like to report to the House that the previous Howard government set up a system of Australian technical colleges. One was set up in the Hunter. It was poorly resourced; it did not have the necessary linkages and partnerships that this government is so committed to with the local community. Many of the students who attended that Hunter ATC found out that what they had been promised was not delivered and so left. The ATC in the Hunter struggled along in that period.
On the Central Coast the situation was even worse. There, money was allocated to set up an Australian technical college, but unfortunately it never came to fruition. When the Rudd and Gillard governments were elected they set about resolving that issue. Rather than duplicating an existing state system or setting up something that really did not fit in with the needs of industry or young people seeking to undertake training and really did not cover all the skills that were needed, they adopted a very innovative approach. They chose to locate the ATC in the schools of the Central Coast. They combined that with setting up trade training centres in those schools. Three of the schools in the Shortland electorate on the Central Coast benefited from that—Gorokan High School, North Lakes High School and Lake Munmorah High School. Those three high schools now have state-of-the-art training facilities, because of the innovative approach that was adopted by this government. Along with the location of those trade training centres and ATCs within the schools there has been a concerted effort to build partnerships with local employers in an area with very, very high youth unemployment. It has adopted a very lateral approach to addressing: firstly, skill shortages; secondly, the ability for young people in particular to train; and, thirdly, putting those people who attain the skills in a position where they can find employment.
The whole approach of this government has been to put in place the right sort of training opportunities for young people and for people seeking to move from one occupation to another; putting in place programs and courses that will connect people with the types of jobs that are needed. This will help them to develop skills and help to address the skills shortages that I highlighted—and by no means was that a complete list of skills shortages.
This legislation builds on the strengths of Skills Australia which, as I mentioned, started in 2008. It works in collaboration with industry associations, industry skills councils, unions and employers. It works that way to ensure that a practical approach is adopted—an approach that really looks at business needs, regional needs and the needs of those people who are looking at getting the skills.
The AWPA will advise the government on expenditure priorities for the new NWDF. It will drive engagement between training providers and government on workforce development issues, apprenticeships and VET reforms. I see that as one of the most important roles that the new body will perform. It is imperative that we do have engagement between all these bodies because it is only by engagement, planning and research that we will end up with the results that are needed to provide us with the skilled workforce that we must have in Australia. It will provide those people who are seeking employment in the future and those people who are looking to change occupations with the opportunities to develop the new skills that they will need to be successful in the future. The fact that workforce research will be undertaken by the AWPA is a very important element of this new body and an important element included in this legislation.
I commend the legislation to the parliament. It is good legislation; it is legislation that is for the future and it is legislation that is about putting Australia in a very competitive position globally so that we have a workforce which has the skills that are needed for us to have a strong economy.
I take the opportunity firstly to thank all the members who spoke on the Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012.
A skilled, educated and productive workforce is at the heart of the government's plan to build a new economy to meet the challenges of the future. Skills are the lifeblood of a modern economy—especially an economy such as ours, which is undergoing significant transformation. Skills allow for adaptation to new technologies, for more efficient work practices and for greater innovation. A highly skilled workforce also means higher quality, more profitable goods and services and the ability to remain globally competitive as a nation.
The number of jobs requiring higher skills is growing rapidly, but the number of available workers with the skills to fill these jobs is not keeping pace. As we drive growth in the system we need to ensure that we target our skills training effort to areas of industry demand. This is about training to meet the needs of industry. With these goals in mind and with this bill, the Commonwealth is establishing the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency with an industry-led board. For the first time this will give industry the capacity to engage directly and constructively with Commonwealth and state governments on current and future skills demands and how best to meet them.
This new board will play a central role in directing substantial Australian government investment in skills and workforce development under the National Workforce Development Fund. This funding, matched by co-funding from employers, will be directed to areas of training that are critical for meeting industry needs and will provide more than 130,000 training opportunities for job seekers and people who are employed but who need to learn new skills.
This agency represents the government and industry working together. Taxpayers' dollars are being leveraged to deliver more training, and for their investment employers are able to demand the skills and training they need for their workforces. In addition, the new agency board will improve Australia's long-term workforce planning and development to address skills and labour shortages and to contribute to improvements in industry and workplace productivity. It will collaborate with industry associations, industry skills councils, unions and employers to ensure that workforce planning is based on a shared, practical approach that meets sectoral, regional and small business industry needs. This is critical if as a nation we are to plan effectively for the future and the transformation of our economy.
I note the strong support for this new agency among industry leaders as well as governments, as all have an interest in its success. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise today to speak on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Bill 2012. This bill seeks to enable the Australian Skills Quality Authority, which I shall now refer to as ASQA, the national VET regulator, to impose a cost recovery model on registered training organisations for compliance audits and substantiated complaint investigations conducted by the regulator. The national VET regulator commenced from 1 January 2011, with responsibility for registering and monitoring national VET regulator registered training organisations. The regulator is established under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, which the coalition supported, and it has the power to examine quality concerns in all areas of the VET sector. National VET regulator registered training organisations must comply with the registration standards at all times. So that is the main act, and this is a subsequent proposed act. We in the coalition will not be supporting this proposed act.
The national VET regulator was established on a cost-recovery basis, and the main act entitles it to charge fees for registration. This act has moved away from the language of fees, which is a bit mysterious, and just talks about charges, particularly the ability of the regulator to charge for compliance audits and investigation of complaints about registered training organisations. Some fees apply from 1 July 2011; others will progressively apply in line with the regulators' implementation path to full cost recovery by 2014-15. So this bill is to authorise charges for services that are not application based—that is, the fees for registration—but which are instead for additional monitoring activities. This bill talks about these additional monitoring activities.
The regulator is financed by parliamentary appropriations of approximately $95 million between 2011 and 2015, but it is funded on a progressively cost-neutral basis. Charges for the additional monitoring activities are part of the regulator's cost-recovery arrangements. Current estimates anticipate that these charges will amount to $2.1 million in 2012-13, rising to $5.4 million in 2013-14. That is a considerable amount of money that will be raised by these additional monitoring activities, and it will be raised from the registered training organisations themselves.
We in the coalition have serious concerns about this. Before I get to some of the specifics, I say generally that we have already established a VET regulator. It does not work very well because not every state has signed up to it. This bill does not say exactly what the fees charged will be; only that they will be made by legislative instrument. It does not say to what extent they can be recovered, but it acknowledges that they will be quite high—an hourly rate, I believe, of at least $110, and that is just as a basis. If a complaint is substantiated, then an organisation has to pay. My question, just off the top of my head, is: what if it is only partly substantiated—who pays, and how much?
This is the government saying, 'We're here to help. We've set up a regulator because that's what we really like doing: regulating, controlling, saying that one size fits all and determining how you in the small business sector run your business and your lives. We've set up a regulator. We're not going to tell you exactly how much it charges, but we want the parliament to approve a bill that says it can charge pretty much what it likes, because we've had a consultation.' I have not seen the details of this consultation, but I know that small businesses, if asked to say how much they are prepared to let the government recover from them from compliance activities that they are being monitored under, are hardly going to put up their hands and say, 'Yes, we're happy with anything, including if we have an overseas partner in our organisation'—and we know the importance of overseas education; everyone in this place knows that—'and the national VET regulator wants to go overseas.' The bill before us talks about 'reasonable costs'—meaningless reasonable costs. Before we know it, members of an organisation are going to be travelling overseas to check out the veracity and the bona fides of education partners that domestic organisations wish to partner with. In a hugely competitive international education market, imagine the disadvantage it is going to put Australian RTOs—registered training organisations—under. That is just one aspect.
I know that the government is going to say that they are happy for the registered training organisation sector to proceed unregulated and unencumbered by any constraints on its activity and let loose to provide dodgy training. That is an old argument. We recognise the need for a regulator; we support the regulator; it is coalition policy that there be a national regulator. But I will in my further remarks alert the House to some alarming increases of costs, which really should not surprise anybody. You put a national regulator in place, allow it to recover fees and give it carte blanche. I mean no disrespect to the good public officers who work for compliance and regulatory organisations, but have we ever heard any of them say, 'I don't really need to be here, because everyone's doing a really good job'? No, they will tell you all of the problems in the sector and how, if they had enough resources, they would be out there checking and maintaining quality in a much more rigorous fashion. They tend to come from the perspective that people are doing the wrong thing. The coalition comes from the perspective that people generally do not do the wrong thing, but small business is struggling under the weight of the added cost burdens being imposed by this government, not least the carbon tax. We have no intention of supporting a bill that will impose an additional regulatory burden—no intention at all. The coalition supports the concept, as I said, of a VET regulator—no question. There are about 4,500 registered training organisations in Australia. Particularly where they operate in multiple states and territories, a national regulatory body makes perfect sense. Regrettably the system that we now have is not exactly what was intended, as two states, Victoria and Western Australia, have decided to retain responsibility for the regulation of their domestic VET sector, and Queensland is yet to pass legislation referring their powers and no date for the transition has been set. So ultimately ASQA has not got off to the best start.
In addition to this, COAG agreed that ASQA would be established on a cost recovery basis, initially funded by partial cost recovery. But, as I outlined to the House, that is ramping up pretty quickly to full cost recovery. Previously the cost burden was borne by the states. So, at a time when business is already struggling under economic uncertainty and the threat of increased operational costs, they are going to have to dig deeper to fund their own audits.
Section 7 of this bill states:
If the National VET Regulator conducts a compliance audit of an NVR registered training organisation’s operations, a charge is payable for:
(a) the costs and expenses incurred by the Regulator in conducting the audit; and
(b) if the audit is conducted outside Australia in whole or in part—any reasonable expenses incurred by the Regulator relating to the audit or part of the audit.
ASQA themselves acknowledged in their submission to the Senate committee that reported on this bill that, for most RTOs, the proposed fees and charges will be an increase on what they have paid in the past. This is because most state and territory governments have subsidised the cost of regulation. Okay, I acknowledge it was a COAG agreement that organisations will pick up the tab. But there was a submission from the National Meat Industry Training Advisory Council which talked about the rapid increase in the costs of establishing as an RTO. This council sought advice from its RTOs as to their response to this legislation. One of them stated that moving to ASQA had already seen their audit costs increase from $3,000 to $17,000, and full cost recovery based on earlier modelling would push that up to $32,000. So it has gone from $3,000 to $32,000 under this fabulous piece of legislation.
So the reality for many providers is a far cry from this vague acknowledgement of additional costs in ASQA's own submission to the Senate inquiry. Drilling down into their proposed fees we discover the following. Based on the average salary for a compliance officer, and making allowances for costs and overheads, ASQA indicates that the hourly rate would be in the vicinity of $111 an hour. You can see that for yourself in ASQA's submission to the Senate inquiry. Additional cost would be incurred where various subtasks were completed by other employees within ASQA. For a small business, $111 an hour is a very costly audit. Tradesmen charge a lower call-out fee. Couple this with travel costs and many RTOs, particularly those in rural and regional Australia, could really struggle to afford these charges. I note from a media article in yesterday's Fairfax press that the cost of a domestic airfare from Sydney to Mount Isa exceeds the cost of an airfare to Los Angeles. If costs like these are going to be passed on, then there would be providers forced out of business.
We understand that large training organisations can to some degree absorb costs or manage certain efficiencies. But this is not just about the effect on small business, difficult though that is. This is about recognising that not every RTO is big, multipronged and across all states. There are some specific niche skills that one or two people do very well, and if they want to, or have to, set themselves up as an RTO, with all the wealth of experience they may have—I am just thinking from my aviation background of people who consult on human factors in aviation accidents or certain aspects of air crash investigations outside the main body or who build the capacity of airlines to cope with the regulatory environment that they face; a lot of these organisations are small and nimble and light on their feet and light in terms of their staff—under this regime, they are just going to say, 'We won't bother.'
At the heart of our concerns is the impact that this cost recovery model will have on small business—the ones who have been given a very raw deal by this government. The high cost of doing business under Labor is breaking them—and passing on the cost of compliance audits might be the final straw.
As I looked through the submissions to the Senate inquiry in depth, there was a constant theme from providers and their stakeholders. The submissions received by the inquiry reiterate the concern within the sector as to the lack of transparency with potential fees and charges and the impact that could be felt by, in particular, the smaller rural and regional providers. I gave also the example of an overseas provider, or a domestic provider who partners with an overseas provider, because that is a really good way to attract international students to Australia.
In their submission to the Senate inquiry, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry pointed out that a cost recovery model could lead to two outcomes—insufficient monitoring of the quality of training delivery and/or fees, including fees for audit that are so high as to limit the participation in the training market of small business training companies. These increased costs further evidence the red tape that is stifling productivity and development in this country. The coalition acknowledges, as I said, that the intergovernmental agreement makes provision for states to continue to assist in meeting these costs. However, if they are not required to help reduce the end cost to the provider, it is my guess that they will not do so.
The Queensland government made a rather useful, short, sharp and very much to the point submission to the inquiry, noting certain aspects of the bill. But it did say that, as an observation only, it adds complexity to the VET legislative framework to introduce an entirely new bill to provide for these charges. What was the reason that they could not be provided for under the original bill? Or are they just sort of being slipped in behind it because they would not have looked acceptable? That is my own observation, not the Queensland government's, but it is curious that we had to have a whole separate bill.
The Queensland government says that this bill, as opposed to the main act, does not require the minister to obtain the agreement of the ministerial council before making a determination in relation to the amount of a charge. 'The fact that the bill provides for the minister to make a legislative instrument without the oversight of the ministerial council is actually inconsistent with the tone of the intergovernmental agreement for regulatory reform in vocational education and training.' The Queensland government goes on to make the point that the currently published Australian Skills Quality Authority fee schedule does not include any advice about what audits, if any, are included in the registration fees. The draft fee schedule and charges attached to the cost recovery impact statement did provide, with regard to registration fees, that this fee includes the cost of one post-registration audit, either 12-month monitoring or a compliance audit. There is an inconsistency, which I think the government does now need to clear up. Does the registration fee actually provide for a compliance audit, the first one that an organisation may have to face, or will they now be hit under this subsequent legislation with another fee for just such an audit?
The Queensland government also notes that the national VET regulator may at any time conduct a compliance audit of an NVR registered training organisation's operations to assess whether the organisation continues to comply with the VET quality framework. It sounds like an innocent statement, 'at any time conduct a compliance audit', but that could be an onerous regulatory burden on an organisation. This really does allow the VET regulator quite substantial power for when, how and how much it does and charges and inserts itself into the process of an RTO's operations.
I reviewed the original second reading speech by the parliamentary secretary, who happens to be sitting at the table here today, on behalf of the minister who is in the other place. Again, I was alarmed by the language used:
The main method by which ASQA monitors compliance is by conducting … audits. … investigates complaints …
This bill will enable ASQA to recover … costs and expenses associated with these additional monitoring activities.
… … …
It is necessary for ASQA to conduct compliance audits to ensure ongoing compliance with the VET Quality Framework and identify issues relating to the quality of VET.
ASQA conducts a risk assessment on all registered training organisations (RTO) and this risk assessment is used to determine whether to conduct a compliance audit. Providers who have been assessed as high risk will receive more rigorous monitoring by ASQA.
Compliance audits require a significant regulatory effort. This bill provides that, where the ASQA undertakes such an audit, a charge is payable … outside of Australia—any other reasonable expenses incurred.
Audit compliance charges will represent the resources required to effectively audit a provider.
If an organisation is struggling and not quite sure how it is going to fund next year's budget, what does it do? It ramps up the fees. So we may well find that providers are paying a component of overhead running costs for an organisation, which, under accounting practice, you could quite reasonably attribute to the exercise of an audit. As I said, I am very concerned that this is just going to get away—like so much of this government's legislation when it comes to charging small business. Private providers, which are struggling under the current set of economic circumstances they are facing, will find that the government has carte blanche to charge them what they like.
I want to note briefly that a provider in my electorate of Farrer came to me in the last week to say that they made an application to ASQA for one additional course, a certificate III in financial services. They lodged their application in 2011. On 26 April they received a request for additional evidence, which they provided. They asked how much longer they should expect to wait for registration and they were told three to six months. A basic registration for a certificate III course could take almost a year for the regulator to approve? How could a business that is making money from providing this service or providing training to jobseekers in conjunction with a job service agency operate in such an environment? When I hear stories like that—I do not know the full circumstances and I intend to discuss this with ASQA—I do not have any confidence in this organisation. I do not have any confidence that it is not going to seek to undertake significant extra regulatory activity in order to provide the dollars it needs to administer its affairs and pay a staff of public servants. I am really not confident at all, and I would like to reiterate that the coalition will not be supporting this bill that imposes additional red tape and cost burden on Australian small business.
I am not surprised the opposition is not supporting the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Bill 2012 before us tonight because the one thing that this opposition does is oppose everything. It does not look at anything from a commonsense point of view. The other thing that does not surprise me is that when regulation relates to the business side of the equation, the opposition oppose it, but when regulation relates to the people that are undertaking those training courses, the opposition supports it. So it is a very one-sided approach to operating registered training organisations, which is what this legislation is about. It is about ensuring that training organisations comply with the provisions of their contract to make sure they do they what they say they are going to do.
What this legislation does is put in place cost recovery in providing the audits that are associated with it. It is very simple. It is not about targeting small business. It is not about making the life of small business difficult. It is about ensuring that small businesses that provide training actually provide the training they are supposed to provide. I know that practically every member in this House will have been confronted with a constituent that has been enrolled in one of these training courses only to discover that it does not deliver what they have been told it will or that the course is padded out in one way or another. Under the Howard government some really ludicrous situations existed. We had training organisations enrolling unemployed people. They would do the course, be placed in a job for about a week and then would no longer be employed. They would then be recycled back and do the training again—the training, the job, the training, the job. All the time these training providers were milking the system; they were taking money away from the system. I want to put on the record here that that is the exception, because most registered training organisations are there because they believe in providing good, high-quality training to Australians who need skills to fill the positions that are available in the community and give Australia a skilled workforce.
This legislation before us tonight will enable the national VET regulator, known as the Australian Skills Quality Authority, to recover reasonable costs and expenses associated with additional monitoring activity. The previous speaker was not at all happy with the term 'reasonable'. Her objections were very one-sided. If 'reasonable' relates to something that she supports, she will accept it; if 'reasonable' does not fit in with her picture of the world, she will not. There will be fees and schedules put in place with this legislation. If 'reasonable' fits in with regulation in relation to ensuring that the business delivers what it says it is going to, she objects to it. But if 'reasonable' fits in with reasonable compliance for an unemployed person to undertake training and if they do not fit in with the requirements, then she objects very strongly to it. I think on this side of the parliament we have a much more balanced approach. We accept that business plays a very, very valuable role in training and providing services, and we also accept the fact that there is a need for reasonableness to be associated with those people who are undertaking training.
The cost-recovery arrangements are consistent with the Australian government's cost-recovery guidelines, and include fees and charges for the regulatory activities undertaken.
The main method by which ASQA will monitor ongoing compliance of RTOs is by conducting compliance audits, which is a very reasonable way to ensure that RTOs are doing the right thing. The RTOs that are at high risk—high risk in terms of their long-term performance—are the ones that will be assessed on a more ongoing basis.
There has been widespread consultation on the legislation. As the previous speaker indicated, the Senate has looked at the legislation. The speech from the member of the opposition really showed that she has no understanding of the way RTOs work and no understanding of the system that is in place. She really needs to go and visit some of these RTOs. She needs to talk to people who undertake training. The first thing that is important is that the training provided is quality training. The next thing that is important is that there are linkages between the training and employment. Also, the government needs to be confident that these RTOs are doing the right thing.
The new national VET regulator will have the power to examine quality concerns in all areas of the VET sector and exercise its responsibility based on a robust framework of the legislation and standards. That is what I think should be the expectation of this parliament and the expectation of the Australian people. Providers must comply with registration standards at all times. Noncompliance jeopardises registration, and so it should. For any member of this House to argue that an organisation that does not comply should be allowed to continue operation in the way it currently does is not really considering the interests of our workforce.
The bill empowers ASQA to charge for monitoring activities additional to application based activities, including compliance audits and complaint investigations. This will act as an incentive for providers to improve quality, and that is something that we on this side of the House are very keen to see happen. It is all about the quality of training. When you provide quality training then you skill people up so they can fill the skill shortages that exist in the community.
There are many skill shortages that remain. If I look at the Skill shortages—summary for 2011 I see that employers only filled 62 per cent of their vacancies and attracted 1.7 suitable applicants per vacancy. That is slightly higher than the 61 per cent of 2010. The hardest occupations to recruit in were engineering professions, automotive trades and construction trades—areas where RTOs can provide a very valuable role. But as a government we need to know that the role played by the RTOs is based on providing the skills to address the shortages that have been identified, that they are providing quality training and that the people who undertake the training will be able to find employment at the end of it. This is one of the most important areas of government, so it would be irresponsible for it not to be regulated, not to be monitored and not to have cost recovery in place. I urge those on the other side of this House to move away from their oppositional position. I urge them to look at the legislation, see what it is about and see how monitoring, ensuring compliance and undertaking audits can prevent abuses of the system. You need regulation to ensure that the right thing is done. The majority of RTOs do the right thing instinctively, because they are committed to the development of skills and to training. But there are some that are not, and there is a litany of examples—particularly those that came to light when the Howard government was in power. We need to ensure that that situation does not go unchecked.
This legislation goes together with a number of other initiatives that have been introduced by the government. It is very good legislation and it should be supported by all members of this House.
I rise to speak on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Bill 2012. I have spoken in the past about the creation of a national vocational education and training regulator, due to the need to maintain consistency across Australia. If every state were to operate its own system with its own regulations, the difficulty in ensuring compliance amongst the almost 4,500 VET operators, and ensuring that each student is receiving a quality education, would become exponentially greater in the years to come. With the introduction of legislation to that effect, the new Australian Skills Quality Authority has assumed the role of the registration and monitoring of registered training organisations from state and territory bodies. It does so through undertaking compliance audits and investigating complaints about registered training organisations. In past speeches to the House, I have stated that the government has introduced a supposed national system, which at this stage is still not operating nationally. I note that Western Australia and Victoria have still not signed up to the framework, whilst Queensland's parliament still has the legislation before it. So how can this be a national system when three states are missing from the framework? The obvious conclusion is that it is not, and that any truly national system cannot exclude any state, especially those that, combined, account for almost 12½ million of Australia's total population of over 22 million.
The coalition in the past has been generally supportive of the creation of the Australian Skills Quality Authority, as there has been a definite need to ensure consistency across the country. Nonetheless, there has always been the concern that the organisation would be based on a cost recovery basis. This is compared to the previous systems operated by the states and territories, where registered training organisations were instead given subsidies or financial support from their relevant government for registration and regulation costs. Because of this difference between the old and new systems, many registered training organisations will find themselves having to pay more for compliance than they used to—something that they may not have factored into their operating costs and would be of major concern to them. With increasing costs needing to be accounted for, it is likely that some providers may need to put up their fees for students or, alternatively, they will have to cut services so that they can simply provide the services in the first place.
The Council of Australian Governments agreement that was struck between the Commonwealth and the states with respect to the Australian Skills Quality Authority states that the states will maintain the ability to provide financial support or subsidies to registered training operators. This is not mandatory but rather a choice by the states and territories. Given that many states are trying to rein in their budgets from former bad Labor governments, it cannot be known whether these sorts of measures will definitely be implemented.
Another concern is the discretionary power of the minister to set the level of charges to be imposed on registered training organisations. Introducing a cost recovery model for the Australian Skills Quality Authority may potentially harm smaller and regional providers in the long term. As the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry stated in its submission to the Senate inquiry:
… whilst ACCI supports reasonable fees to training providers as a market mechanism, we do not support the notion that ASQA has to be a cost recovery body.
The submission goes on to say:
The regulatory and audit approach should not be inhibited by a cost recovery model, as to do so could lead to one or both of the following two unsatisfactory outcomes:
The concern that is highlighted here is that, if cost recovery is not adequately supplemented by the federal government, there is a possibility that the costs recovered may not be sufficient to maintain the costs of enforcing compliance. Further, the model may lead to the charges of registered training organisations being increased to such a point—to maintain the Australian Skills Quality Authority's costs—that it would lead many registered training organisations to opt out of the training market altogether, and it would inhibit new providers from entering the market. This will affect competition in the market and ultimately leave students worse off due to a lack of choice of training provider and the range of courses that are offered and available in their area.
The Australian Council for Private Education and Training submission noted another concern regarding section 7 of the bill and the costs incurred by the regulator. ACPET queried as to whether, as stated in the bill, 'costs and expenses incurred by the regulator in conducting the audit' would include travelling costs to where the registered training organisation is located or, in the case of some institutions, to the multiple locations where it is based. If this were the case then the viability of having VET institutions in rural and regional areas diminishes due to the cost burden not only placed by the charges imposed by the cost recovery system but also because of the need to pay travel expenses for auditors and officials, which, depending on where they may be travelling to, could easily account for hundreds of dollars.
Many of the concerns addressed in these submissions reflect those of registered training organisations in the VET sector. By increasing the costs on small providers, it places them in a much more difficult position to provide quality services. The priority of these providers is to give a quality education to their students and prepare them for the workforce, but they cannot do that if they are inadequately resourced due to large overheads.
The VET sector not only supplies the future workforce with the tools of the trade and the current workforce with the ability to re-skill and improve their productivity but also provides thousands of Australians with employment. By limiting participation in the training market, we remove the ability of both domestic and international students to choose where they want to go to receive an education. That point has in the past been made by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Clearly, it is the right of all students to be able to choose where they want to go, and we should be supporting that rather than making it harder for them to do so.
The contribution made by the VET sector and the educational sector as a whole to our national economy cannot and should not be underestimated, with education being Australia's fourth largest export and contributing $5.9 billion in 2009-10. Thousands of Australians pass through educational institutions every year and thousands more international students come to Australia to take advantage of our world-class education system, both at school and in tertiary and VET sectors. All these things need to be considered when developing education policy and they should not and must not be placed in jeopardy. I will not go as far to say that the cost recovery model and the current system in place does so, but it does raise questions as to what is the best way to ensure consistent compliance nationwide and how we support the VET sector in growing and continuing to provide world-class courses to both domestic and international students.
In summary, there are numerous concerns that have been raised by stakeholders with regard to the changes that will be implemented by this bill, and many of these need to be addressed. The current system cannot continuously be called a 'national' system, as I have stated, if a large part of the nation does not currently subscribe to it. Although I am supportive of a national regulatory system to ensure compliance and quality education throughout Australia, this system still has a long way to go before it can achieve its intended objectives.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to speak in support of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012. This bill introduces additional powers for the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA, to create prudential standards. It amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 in order to expand the duties for registrable superannuation entity licensees. It applies new trustee duties to RSE licensees who offer a MySuper product and applies duties to the directors of corporate trustees.
The additional powers provided to APRA will enable the authority to make prudential standards in superannuation which will improve the clarity and certainty of prudential regulation by providing further detail on the prudential matters as set out in the enabling legislation. This is consistent with APRA's current ability to make prudential standards in the finance industries and is a sensible application of their experience to a different industry sector—the superannuation industry.
The new prudential standards can apply to an APRA-regulated superannuation fund, connected entities, specified classes of super funds or any individual fund or connected entity. 'APRA has successfully established prudential standards in banking and insurance for many years,' the authority's Ross Jones said on 28 September 2011, 'and the establishment of such standards in superannuation will provide clear benefits to the superannuation industry as a whole and to its members.' I agree. This legislation is about extending peace of mind to all Australians and ensuring the responsible management of their superannuation funds, which they will reply upon in their retirement.
The ability to make prudential standards will give APRA greater flexibility to essentially adapt to industry developments as they happen and give the authority the ability to provide regulated entities with clearer and more suitable legal requirements, tailored to their unique needs. This industry is far too complex in nature for a one-size-fits-all approach. Current regulations governing the superannuation industry are certainly not flexible enough. They are unable to be amended in a prompt manner in order to respond to the various changes that occur within the industry.
The diversity within the superannuation industry and the varying character and size of entities demonstrates the need for flexibility, which is what we are introducing with this bill. As disallowable legislative instruments, prudential standards must adhere to the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. This would include suitable and appropriate superannuation industry stakeholder consultation, ensuring that there is a degree of transparency and adequate process when it comes to making any changes.
This bill will also require that trustees who elect to offer a MySuper product meet the new stringent obligations to support and ensure that the financial interests of its members are put first. This is a common-sense and fair approach. It is the same approach that we adopted in the financial advice legislation, which is soon to be debated in the House. Trustees will have increased responsibilities for default members, the members who more often than not delegate majority of the responsibility for their superannuation through the trustees. Furthermore, under this legislation APRA must also be satisfied that a trustee will comply with new enhanced obligations and that individual directors comply with the enhanced obligations when authorising an RSE licensee to offer a MySuper product.
The duties required of fund trustees will be expanded to: give priority, first and foremost, to the interests of beneficiaries where any conflicts arise; develop strategies for insurance and risk; and require trustees to give regard to valuation information, potential and expected tax consequences, and costs in investment strategies. These measures are all designed to ensure that responsible, informed decisions are made and that fund boards are managed in an effective and accountable way. Our government is committed to protecting the money that hardworking Australians have accumulated over their working lives and providing certainty for them in retirement.
Under this legislation, the duties required of individual directors will be further clarified and separately identified. Directors must act honestly, exercise appropriate care and management of funds, and give priority to the interests of beneficiaries. While this all seems a common-sense and rational approach, best practice within the industry is not always evident. These reforms are necessary reforms. Certainty is required. As a federal Labor government, we strive for the betterment and protection of working Australians and their families, and this legislation is about ensuring that their entitlements—their superannuation—is looked after well.
As with the vast majority of bills that this federal Labor government has put forward, this bill is about fairness and protecting working Australians. It was a federal Labor government that first introduced compulsory superannuation savings in 1992, and it is again a Labor government that is building upon that legacy. We are committed to strengthening superannuation through the minerals rent resource tax legislation, which has now passed through the Senate to fund our historic increase to the superannuation guarantee, from nine to 12 per cent, a change that will benefit 8.4 million employees across Australia. According to BT Financial Group, within 10 years, Australia's superannuation pool will double from $1.4 trillion to $2.8 trillion. This is too significant an amount of national savings to take a half-measured approach when it comes to industry regulation.
As Minister Shorten has highlighted, for the majority of Australians superannuation is their second greatest source of wealth after their home. However, all too often Australian families do not know all that much about the people they have entrusted with this considerable asset. Australians should not have this unnecessary burden—this uncertainty—hanging over their heads throughout their working lives. They should be assured that governance across the superannuation industry is of an adequate standard with quality assurance measures in place. They should be assured that money they have earned through fair and honest work in their lifetime, saved away and growing for their retirement, is being looked after adequately in a prudent and responsible manner.
As good governments like ours know, it is always important to keep up with developments in industries and to initiate appropriate reforms. It is necessary that governments review operations within key areas such as the superannuation industry. The Stronger Super package represents our Labor government's response to the review into the governance, efficiency, structure and operation of Australia's superannuation system—the Cooper review —which was first handed to the government in 2010. As the review found, standards of governance have not managed to keep pace with developments within the superannuation industry. Among several key findings in the Cooper review was the finding that trustees and directors of trustee boards had difficulty in understanding the nature of their roles and the expectations placed upon them. The review also highlighted the rate at which conflicts of interest could arise due to the consolidation of the superannuation industry. For these reasons, it is important that we keep governance measures up to scratch and assist with the modernisation of this important industry, protecting national wealth and securing Australians' retirement.
The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012 follows and builds upon the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (MySuper Core Provisions) Bill 2012, introduced in November 2011. It is the second component of legislative reform that our government is introducing to implement our MySuper and governance reforms as part of Labor's Stronger Super package. These were first announced by Minister Shorten, the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, and I am very pleased to witness the ongoing work towards delivering these reforms. I note that there are two members in the House who have very much been part of audits and audit committee work with the Taxation Office, where we saw too many times that standards were not being upheld and that peoples' savings were at risk. Extensive industry, employer and consumer consultation have informed the development of these improvements. This is best practice and our government is to be commended for its engagement with industry stakeholders. With these reforms designed to achieve the protection of and assistance to the growth of member superannuation entitlements, who could actually say 'no' to greater returns or greater security for working Australians in their retirement?
In my electorate of Newcastle, there are over 15,627 lost superannuation accounts worth $60 million waiting to be found. Of course, that data is now available for the whole country—and it is staggering. Along with many of my colleagues, I have done all that I can to inform constituents of the Australian Taxation Office's SuperSeeker website, to help them find and reclaim their lost super. But this figure is just one small indication that there remains the need for continued reform in superannuation. There is a need for people to be informed about the decisions they make in regard to their superannuation, and certainly there is a requirement for the people who manage superannuation funds to keep communicating with their members.
Labor's commitment to reforming and modernising the industry aims to assist with these important tasks. I look forward to the government building on these superannuation reforms, with subsequent tranches of legislation due in the near future. These will include reforms to arrange the transition of member accounts from existing default superannuation products to MySuper products, prohibit the deduction of commissions from MySuper member accounts, introduce new rules for the payment of performance based fees by RSE licensees to investment managers relating to the assets of a MySuper product, introduce rules for the fair and reasonable allocation of costs between MySuper products and each choice product within a super fund, create additional governance measures relating to selective service providers, enhance data collection and data publication powers for APRA and create new disclosure requirements in relation to MySuper and choice products.
Our government's agenda when it comes to superannuation is clear. As the minister has highlighted previously, superannuation assets in Australia are expected to reach $6.2 trillion by 2036. We are protecting the retirement savings of working Australians and their families. We are ensuring that their funds are managed responsibly and managed fairly. Our Labor government is strengthening superannuation with these many reforms, and I would say that many of these reforms have come from the work of some wonderful committees of this parliament. I congratulate all the backbenchers who work very tirelessly on committees to bring about reforms and hope that governments will respond to their recommendations. Of course, that is exactly what has happened in this case. We are also lifting compulsory super from nine to 12 per cent through the minerals resource rent tax. Historically and contemporarily, we are the party that stands for stronger super. A multitrillion-dollar industry is far too significant to be taken lightly. Stronger super is what our government is committed to delivering and I therefore commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012. I agree in part with the member for Newcastle, on the point that she made that Australians expect that their superannuation will be managed in accordance with the most appropriate modern corporate governance standards. That is where I diverge from the member for Newcastle. The current climate, with what has occurred and is continuing to occur in this place and outside it, raises the necessity for us to reconsider whether this bill does enough, particularly in light of many of the recommendations in the Cooper review which have seemingly been ignored or, at this point, passed over by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation.
I think it is time for us to reconsider this because—and the member for Newcastle made this point—there is over a trillion dollars in Australian superannuation. A large portion of that, of course, is held in industry super funds, and in recent days we have seen several examples of concerns raised about the governance of industry super funds. This is an area where the minister is strangely silent in relation to industry super funds and the recommendations of the Cooper review. The first of the examples I refer to is a contribution yesterday in this House by the now Independent member for Dobell, where he said:
She—
meaning Kathy Jackson—
sat on the board of HESTA, collecting board fees for many years, rarely attending meetings. But when the union decided the board fee should go to the union, she left the board.
The second examples are two stories which appeared in the Australian newspaper. Last Friday there was an article by Hedley Thomas headed 'Unionist took cash from developer amid $30m super investments'. There was a follow-up story in the Weekend Australian by Hedley Thomas which was headed 'Strategy doubts as union super fund gets burnt'. Those stories raised several very concerning allegations about the use of workers' money which has been invested in industry superannuation funds.
We know from the statement by the member for Dobell yesterday that there are concerns that have come to light, I think to the surprise of nearly all members of this House. The extent to which workers' money has been used for inappropriate activities that has come to light has surprised all of us. In that sense, I think it is an opportunity for this parliament to reconsider the strength of this bill, and I call on the minister to indeed reconsider the strength of this bill and to reconsider whether he should look more deeply at the Cooper recommendations in relation to directors' obligations when it comes to industry super funds.
We know we have hit upon a bit of an issue because, when the Leader of the Opposition was reported to have made comments in the coalition party room earlier this year in relation to this issue, the following day the person who had benefitted more from industry super funds in their life than anyone in this country, Mr Garry Weaven, was reported as rejecting the comments as:
… mightily insulting and a slur on the employer groups equally represented on fund boards alongside union officials.
What's his implication: that the employer associations are being duped? It's like a return to the worst days of 1980s bigotry.
Indeed, it seems to me that, when there is a reaction from someone who has benefited so much from the current regulations relating to the matter, given what we have heard about the HSU in recent times, the HSU disease may have had a far wider effect than what people could possibly imagine. Therefore, it raises questions as to why the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation has not acted more quickly in relation to some of the recommendations made by Mr Jeremy Cooper as to the obligations of directors when it comes to industry super funds.
My colleague the member for Bradfield, who has been raising some of these issues in a very considered fashion in recent weeks, wrote in the Financial Review:
Of the 16 self-branded “industry super” funds, less than half disclosed fees paid to individual directors in annual reports.
We also know that, contrary to good corporate governance standards, directors can sit on multiple boards, and we know that does occur. We know that the Secretary of the AWU, who spoke at the Press Club today about his fantasies of taking Australia back to some socialist operation, sits on multiple boards, as does the former secretary of the ACTU and several others. We know that when Cath Bowtell, who was the Labor candidate in Melbourne, lost the last election to the member for Melbourne, she was then appointed CEO of an industry super fund. So there are quite a number of issues relating to the operations of industry super funds and their directors which are conveniently forgotten in this bill.
My erstwhile colleague the member for Bradfield also made a point in relation to this matter in another article he wrote in the Financial Review late last year, where he said 'in the federal cabinet reshuffle on Monday' the new Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations 'retained his responsibility for financial services and superannuation.' He continued:
This only makes sense if you understand the attraction to successive Labor governments of using the compulsory superannuation system to increase the power, influence and financial position of the union movement and its key personnel.
Given what we have heard in recent days, weeks and months about the questionable practices of some registered organisations—or one registered organisation in particular—in use of their members' money, it raises an increased need for us to reconsider what Jeremy Cooper recommended in that review. There is a litany of examples and much evidence around which says that this issue needs to be looked at with greater consideration.
I refer to another example, which relates to an article, on 17 July 2011, in the Sunday Telegraph, referring to the former head of the Electrical Trades Union, Mr Bernie Riordan. At one point I think he was president of the New South Wales Labor Party. He was being sued by his own members over $1.8 million in fees that he allegedly pocketed while serving on four boards connected with industry superannuation funds. Interestingly, he also had those claims settled just days before being appointed, coincidentally, to Fair Work Australia. In recent days we also heard that one of the people who the member for Dobell mentioned yesterday in his long statement—50-odd minutes worth—Mr Michael Williamson, of the HSU, continues to sit on industry super fund boards, even though a series of allegations have been made, including by the member for Dobell, about some of those issues.
This bill is conspicuous in its silence when it comes to dealing with the issues that Cooper raised in relation to industry super funds. It is the opposition's very strong view that these issues should have been addressed at some length some time ago. As Lyndon Baines Johnson famously said, 'Power is where power goes.' That is exactly what we suspect is going on in this respect.
The member for Newcastle just repeated at length that the Labor Party 'stands for good corporate governance when it comes to superannuation', but that is not backed up by the facts. The regulations relating to the industry super fund network and the directorships in that respect are of course very different to what you would expect with a retail fund. Different standards operate and, with respect to Mr Weaven's allegation against the Leader of the Opposition, of course we include all members of those boards. We say that good corporate standards should be applied to all representatives, whether they be employer representatives or employee representatives. I say again that some of these accusations, allegations and evidence that were presented in the Fair Work Australia report which was tabled just two weeks ago have raised to a new level the possibilities and suspicions about how money can be misused in these organisations and associated entities.
In that respect we think this bill is too weak and that it should be addressing those issues which Cooper raised, rightly, in relation to directorships of industry super funds. For instance, the Cooper review recommended a range of reforms relating to the governance of superannuation which have largely been ignored: that disclosure of conflicts of interest be mandatory, that directors properly disclose remuneration in line with the provisions that apply to publicly listed companies, that there be appropriate provision for independent directors on superannuation funds boards, and that directors who want to sit on multiple boards must demonstrate to APRA that they have foreseeable conflicts of interest.
As I said earlier, we now know that some very senior trade union officials and employer officials also sit on multiple boards. In fairness to Minister Shorten, after much pressure from the shadow minister for superannuation, Senator Mathias Cormann, he finally made some announcements in relation to this issue on 27 April, long after Cooper had found and long after this bill had been drafted. As I say, it was very scant compared to what Cooper demanded.
In that respect, the direct decision that the Prime Minister made, for the first time, allocating portfolios for ministers, which bucketed together the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation cannot be overlooked. That is the first time it has happened. Departments have never been linked before. The excuse given, of course, was that that minister had been responsible for that portfolio for some time. Indeed he had been responsible for that portfolio for some time. But it does just seem a coincidence that the minister who is responsible for regulating trade unions and registered organisations is now also the minister responsible for regulating one of the big income-earners for those organisations. I would put to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the parliament, that there is an inherent conflict in those positions. The Prime Minister should address that conflict because the two should not run together—they have got two very different considerations. I do not think I am the only person who perceives this conflict.
I finish on this point: the coalition supports the best corporate governance structure and regulations that can possibly be in place to protect people's superannuation. It is important for our country that we have a strong savings arrangement for people to look after themselves in their retirement. As our population gets older, we must ensure that people are able to take care of themselves in the best way possible. It is not just through superannuation, of course. It is through a range of their own investments—their own home and so forth. But they must be in that position. So we do support, of course, the best modern corporate governance standards.
We are concerned that this bill is not doing enough. It is not doing enough to address what we see are inequities, are differences between the standards that are applied to other superannuation funds and those of industry superannuation funds. And we know, because of what has been reported by the Fair Work Australia report in recent days, that there has been a range of misuses of hardworking union members' money in respect of the HSU. We do not want to see the HSU disease inflicted on the industry superannuation network. It is a time for us to pause; it is a time for us to give greater consideration to what is in this bill. I urge the minister to give reconsideration to the recommendations that Mr Jeremy Cooper made, to amend this bill, to make the appropriate changes, to crack down on ever-increasing amounts of stories about misuse of workers' money and misuse of the superannuation money, and to do the right thing in this bill so that we can all have guarantees that our industry superannuation funds are governed in a modern and appropriate way.
That was an interesting contribution from the member for Mayo. It would be interesting to have a chat with him about what he thinks about industry super funds, actually, and what he sees as being the appropriate composition of a management board for a super fund. I wonder if it is white, Anglo-Saxon males that were educated at Geelong Grammar. The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012, that we are debating today, is another example of Labor's commitment to ensuring we have a fair, regulated superannuation industry in Australia—a superannuation industry that Australians can have faith in as they work hard to save for retirement.
Superannuation is a Labor Party policy through and through. It was a Labor government that first introduced the compulsory superannuation guarantee, and it is a Labor government that is now reforming super to ensure the retirement savings of Australian workers are better protected. The Gillard Labor government is committed to strengthening super, and we are doing this through a historic increase in the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent. Around 8.4 million Australians will benefit from the increase in this superannuation guarantee. For example, a 30-year-old on full-time average weekly earnings will now be around $108,000 better off at retirement. We are also working to make superannuation concessions fairer for up to 3.5 million low-income earners. Overall, our historic super reforms will lift retirement savings by $85 billion over 10 years and $500 billion by 2035.
But it is not just this increase in the superannuation guarantee that will benefit Australians in retirement. Labor will also provide an annual contribution of up to $500 into the superannuation accounts of workers earning less than $37,000, from 1 July this year. The majority of the people that that will benefit, 60 per cent, are working women, working mums. Next year we will also get rid of age limits on contributions for the first time since the introduction of compulsory superannuation.
We are also going one step further by creating a new low-cost superannuation product called MySuper, which is what this bill centres on tonight. The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012 is the second tranche of legislation implementing the government's MySuper and governance reforms. The first tranche of legislation was introduced to the parliament on 3 November last year as the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (MySuper Core Provisions) Bill 2011. This latest bill implements the next stage of the reforms by amending the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.
This bill is a critically important element of the government's Stronger Super reform package and will help to improve the governance and supervision of our superannuation system. The bill also introduces the power for the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, or APRA, to make prudential standards, which is in line with our banking and insurance industries. Ultimately this bill is important because it complements the government's reforms to boost superannuation savings.
Australia should be able to have confidence in those managing their money and in the regulatory framework. As I said, at the centre of this bill is MySuper, a new low-cost and simple superannuation product that will replace existing default funds. MySuper products will have a simple set of product features, irrespective of who provides them. This will enable members, employers and market analysts to compare funds more easily based on a few key differences. It will also ensure members do not pay for any unnecessary bells and whistles they do not need or use. Superannuation funds will still be able to offer different products and will not have to offer a MySuper product, but only a MySuper product will be eligible to operate as a default product. What this means is that a fund's default product must meet the MySuper standards to continue to accept contributions from employees who have not exercised choice and nominated a fund. I believe that this will encourage the industry to become more competitive and that people who benefit most will be young workers. We know that in order to maximise your retirement income it is important that your super fund, particularly if it is a default fund, is a low key, high performing fund. This legislation will maximise retirement incomes by making sure that only those super funds that deliver and continue to deliver for their members will be able to be included as a default fund option in modern awards and enterprise agreements.
It is estimated that 4.5 million Australians will hold a MySuper account once this legislation is fully implemented, and those people have the potential to be $40,000 better off in retirement. MySuper has been implemented in response to the Cooper review, a comprehensive review of Australia's superannuation system by the former deputy chair of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, Jeremy Cooper. The final report highlighted that not everyone wants to make a choice about their superannuation and often default members are not adequately protected and will find themselves paying for services that they do not necessarily need.
Although I am a strong advocate for financial literacy, particularly for women and particularly when it comes to superannuation, I do believe there needs to be adequate regulation of the industry to protect the retirement savings of workers and encourage more confidence in the superannuation industry. Recently I held the first of what I hope to be a number of financial literacy seminars for people in my electorate. It was run by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer and we held it at the Tuggeranong Seniors Centre. The seminar was very well received; it was a pilot seminar; and it provided an opportunity for people to learn about the scams that are out there now. I have spoken in this House many a time on the scams my family and my husband's family have experienced in very minor ways and the scams experienced by people in my community. It was a really good opportunity for us to talk about these scams and educate the community on the scams and what to avoid—if it looks too good to be true, then it probably is. There were many good, positive take-away messages from that seminar and I look forward to conducting more in the future.
The Cooper review also found that superannuation governance standards have not kept pace with developments in the industry. It suggested there were difficulties for trustees and directors on trustee boards to understand what is expected of them. It also found that, as the industry consolidates, it becomes more integrated, leading to more conflicts of interest. And that is why we are focusing on reforming the governance and supervision of our superannuation system. By giving APRA the power to make prudential standards in superannuation, it will have greater flexibility to effectively adapt to industry developments. It will also have the ability to provide regulated entities with clearer and more tailored legal requirements. This bill will also strengthen our response to the Cooper review by imposing new obligations on trustees that elect to offer a MySuper product, in particular compelling them to promote the financial interests of members more thoroughly.
By introducing this tranche of legislation, the government is making it clear that trustees should have increased responsibilities for default members who generally delegate all aspects of their superannuation to them. APRA must be satisfied that a trustee will comply with the enhanced trustee obligations and that individual directors of corporate trustees will comply with the enhanced director obligations to authorise an RSE licensee to offer a MySuper product. These duties for individual directors will be clarified and separately identified, and will include acting honestly, exercising appropriate care and giving priority to the duty to, and interests of, beneficiaries. This change addresses the concerns raised by the Cooper review that accountabilities in the system had become obscured by the corporate trustee structure, and will clarify the standards expected of directors of corporate trustees. These changes, which will improve governance and supervision in the superannuation industry, are especially critical given the Gillard government's historic commitment to increase the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent, which, combined with existing growth, is expected to see super assets reach $6.2 trillion by 2036.
As we raise the bar in areas such as financial planning, it is fair that we ensure there are improvements in other areas of our superannuation system, including in the operation of the funds themselves and the conduct of trustees. The Gillard government's reforms will make our superannuation system stronger, more efficient and will help to maximise retirement income for Australian workers. It is in our national interest to encourage more Australians to save more for their retirement and to understand how their superannuation works. I often see and often have conversations with women—and they are all women—coming into my electorate office or I meet them in mobile offices or just down at the shops who are really doing it tough. Many of them are in their late 50s or early to mid 60s; they feel compelled to continue to work and they are worried sick because often they are in the private rental market and they do not have enough superannuation to sustain a comfortable retirement. They realise that they will probably be on superannuation for a couple of years after they retire and then it is on to the pension.
When I am talking to groups of young women, I always underscore the importance for them to plan for their super and plan to put money away throughout the course of their life. If they plan in advance—when they get married or in their early 20s—and they understand the ebb and flow of their career changes and how their finances change, they can plan to ensure they have a comfortable retirement and the appropriate superannuation.
One of the things I am keen to do is to conduct a series of seminars—originally they were directed at women, but there has been a lot of interest from men too—about how to read superannuation statements. By understanding what is actually in your statement you can then work out how much money you have, and you can then go and speak to a financial planner or do some homework and some research through the range of online resources—particularly government resources—and work out, 'All right, I need this amount of money for my retirement. How am I going to plan to make sure I have that money for that comfortable retirement?'
Superannuation is a subject that is very dear to my heart, having spoken to these women who are really doing it tough and who realise that they do not have enough superannuation. That is why I am constantly underscoring, particularly to young men and women, to plan for their retirement and to do that through superannuation.
As you can see, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we have a very clear plan when it comes to superannuation and helping Australians save more for their retirement. But there is an onus on the superannuation industry to facilitate higher retirement savings through greater efficiency and lower fees. We are assisting lower paid workers and also helping older workers who want to contribute more to their super. We are raising the superannuation guarantee for everyone, which will have a huge impact on the nest eggs of 8.4 million Australians.
Unfortunately—and we heard a bit of it tonight from the member for Mayo—those opposite think superannuation is the greatest con job ever. While Labor is getting on with the job of increasing the superannuation guarantee, those opposite have no plan because they want to scrap the mining resources tax, which is funding this historic rise in super.
The coalition originally opposed Labor's introduction of compulsory super in 1992, and I do believe that they remain a threat to the future retirement incomes of Australians. They still do not have a superannuation policy because they do not believe in it; it is as simple as that. Thankfully, the Gillard Labor government is committed to superannuation in Australia and is working hard to strengthen and improve this important economic policy. And it is working hard to ensure comfortable retirements for all Australians.
This latest tranche of legislation will help make our superannuation system more efficient, transparent and fairer for the millions of people who have put their faith in it, and I commend the bill to the House.
Before I get into the substance of the bill, I would just like to correct something that my colleague from Canberra has just touched on. The mining resource rent tax was never, ever going to fund the three per cent increase in superannuation contributions. It was going to fund a reduction of one per cent in the company tax rate. But, as we have seen from the budget that has just been handed down, that has been done away with. So now the three per cent superannuation increase is going to be entirely paid for by employers, and they are not going to get any tax offset at all.
It is wonderful that—
You should have supported the tax cuts!
It is not a tax cut.
Always against the employers!
Yes—always against the employers.
Why did you vote against the tax cuts?
You produced a pretty good budget that is punishing small business, so you have nothing to hang your hat on in that regard.
In 2010 the IPA put a report out, Keeping super safe, and in that they made the comment that some 12 people control approximately $190 billion out of $220 billion in assets in the industry super fund network. It is this web of cross-shareholdings and directorships that would not be tolerated in the retail super fund network. There is also a lack of transparency and information on the investments and their relevant strategies. Industry super funds also make up, interestingly, some 84 per cent of award default funds—a significant and powerful financial position.
This bill before us tonight is about addressing some of the issues raised in the Cooper review. But, again, the focus of this piece of legislation is more directed at the retail super fund market than at holding the directors and shareholders of the industry super fund network accountable. And, as I have just touched on, it does not deal with some of the issues that I have just raised from this report.
But the bill does seek to increase obligations on superannuation fund trustees and directors generally, and more specifically for MySuper trustees. It gives APRA the power to issue prudential standards in relation to prudential matters related to superannuation, and it contains provision for additional statutory duties for trustees of super funds—specifically MySuper trustees, where they must promote the financial interests of beneficiaries' returns in particular. They must assess annually the sufficiency of scale, or so-called scale test, and include in their investment strategy an investment return target and a level of risk for MySuper fund members.
Just these three points in and of their own raise a number of questions. In particular, how is the investment return target set? What is the appropriate level of risk for MySuper fund members? Who is going to determine those? And what are the consequences for the trustees and directors of those MySuper funds that do not achieve those targeted rates of return or exceed the level of risk?
Trustees of registrable superannuation entities must give priority to the interests of beneficiaries where conflicts arise. I think that probably is a much bigger risk in the industry super fund network than in the retail network. An explanatory memorandum makes mention of the fact that trustees must act fairly, but who defines what 'acting fairly' is? They are supposed to exercise the same degree of care, skill and diligence as a prudent superannuation trustee would. Who defines what a 'prudent superannuation trustee' is? They must have regard to valuation information, expected tax consequences and costs of their investment strategies, and offer a range of options sufficient to allow members to choose a diversified asset mix. Well-run funds already do all of these things to maximise the returns for their members. They must have an insurance strategy and meet additional duties in relation to insurance. They must formulate, regularly review and give effect to a risk management strategy, and maintain and manage the financial resources to cover operational risk. These are all sound ideals. The covenants of the default rules for the trustee governance in the super funds are similar to model rules for a company, and they would replace the existing, differently worded covenants contained within the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. It is always worthwhile to support things that are going to simplify regulation and make it easier and clearer for our trustees of super funds or in any manner of business to do their job. Schedule 1 of the bill also sets out a series of new covenants and obligations that will apply to individual directors or corporate trustees and imposes a personal liability on directors by deeming them to be parties to the governing rules of the trust.
Schedule 2 introduces the power of APRA to make prudential standards. As Australia's prudential regulator, APRA already has the power to issue prudential standards in relation to authorised deposit-taking institutions, life insurance companies and general insurance companies but, to date, not superannuation funds. The current powers for APRA do allow it to issue guidance material on expected standards. However, these materials are not legally binding. I think APRA has a reasonable track record over the years, and I think this is a sensible step in giving it this additional power. According to this amendment, the prudential standards will then be determined and drafted by APRA and they will become legislative instruments within the meaning of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and will be disallowable by parliament.
The Cooper review into Australia's superannuation system in 2010 recommended that APRA be given these standards-making powers. Additionally, the Cooper review made a range of recommendations relating to governance of superannuation, which has largely been ignored by the government. The recommendations include—and I have probably touched on these already—that disclosure of conflicts should be mandatory, that directors must properly disclose their remuneration in line with provisions that apply for publicly listed companies, that there be appropriate provision for independent directors on superannuation fund boards, and that directors who want to sit on multiple boards must demonstrate to APRA that they do not have any foreseeable conflicts of interest.
The coalition strongly supports genuine attempts to improve corporate governance and transparency for directors and trustees of super funds, as well as improvements and enhancements to prudential standards in superannuation. As has been mentioned in a number of contributions tonight already, superannuation is one of the key pillars that Australians use to accumulate wealth to fund their retirement, so it is important that that money be properly looked after. However, we do not support this bill in its current form, because it imposes a vague annual scale test on superannuation trustees which would be impossible to administer in practice. The coalition has serious concerns about the new scale test provided in this bill, which requires trustees of superannuation funds:
… to determine on an annual basis that there is sufficient scale, in terms of assets and beneficiaries, such as to not disadvantage the financial interests of beneficiaries relative to the financial interests of beneficiaries in MySuper products in other RSEs …
Who is going to determine what sufficient scale is? Industry experts such as the Financial Services Council have indicated that such an external comparison would be impossible to conduct in practice, as a trustee will not have sufficient knowledge of other registrable superannuation entities to meet this test. The scale test is based on a presumption that larger funds invariably provide lower fees and higher returns to members. There is no evidence to indicate that this presumption is correct in all cases. The scale test, if implemented in its proposed form, could be another potential source of advantage to the larger industry superannuation funds because they already have existing scale, and their ability to gain significant additional scale is then almost enshrined in law. The scale test would create a significant new barrier to entry for new funds by making it more difficult for them to achieve the required scale from the outset, which would lead to a reduction in competition in the superannuation market. It may also lead to further consolidation and mergers of super funds that are driven not by an assessment of the overall best interests of the members but by concerns about meeting this technical and arbitrary test.
Already industry groups have submitted that a better alternative would be an internal test based on a finite list of factors rather than the open-ended and poorly defined external test that the government has proposed. The government should withdraw this provision and embark on a proper consultation process with all participants in the superannuation industry to achieve a more appropriate and more workable outcome than the current flawed proposal. The coalition will move an amendment to remove proposed sections 29VN(b) and 29VN(c) of the bill, which impose the scale test. With MySuper not due to commence until 1 July 2013, we believe the government has ample time to engage in meaningful consultation with the industry if it wants to introduce a more practical test. This would assist in preventing potential negative consequences for members of affected superannuation funds.
In addition to the scale test, we are also concerned about a new provision in the bill which may impose personal liability on directors of superannuation fund boards for meeting the collective obligations of the trustee board by introducing a series of new covenants for directors and deeming individual directors to be parties to the governing rules of the super fund. Section 52 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 imposes a series of statutory obligations or covenants on trustees of regulated super funds. These covenants or obligations are exercised by the board of directors or the trustees, acting in a collective manner. This bill proposes to replace existing section 52 with a new section containing enhanced statutory covenants that will be imposed on all regulated super fund trustees, including MySuper trustees. The bill also contains a new section 52A which extends the covenants to individual directors of super funds. There is no equivalent provision in the current SI(S) Act. The new section would make individual directors personally liable for any breach of covenants by deeming them to be parties to the governing rules of the fund. The coalition strongly support enhancing and clarifying the law relating to the obligations of super fund trustees and directors. We also support introducing provisions that clearly deal with conflicts of interests of directors of super funds and ensure that, at all times, directors of super funds put the interests of fund members ahead of any other interests, including their own personal interest. However, there are some strong concerns about the mechanism that the government has used to attempt to achieve this. The bill attempts to introduce covenants that are imported into governing rules of every single super fund and then tries to bind directors to these covenants by deeming each director a party to the governing rules of the fund.
The provisions of section 52A appear to reverse the longstanding convention that boards of directors are jointly or collectively liable for decisions made by the board, including a trustee board, and that the directors are only personally liable if they breach their directors' duties, including their duty to act with reasonable care and diligence at all times. The provisions are so broadly drafted they may not provide certainty for directors who are trying to faithfully execute their duties that they are complying with the law.
In conclusion, the coalition will closely monitor the impact of these new obligations on directors of super funds when they come into force and will act to address any issues that may arise. The government continues to ignore many of the sensible and important corporate governance recommendations of the Cooper review because the government continues to put the interests of its mates in the union dominated funds ahead of those of Australians in the superannuation system. (Time expired)
I am pleased to rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012. This bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act and purportedly increases governance standards for superannuation funds. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the reality is somewhat different from the promise. In the brief time available to me this evening I want to focus on three aspects of the bill which, in the coalition's view, are deeply troubling. The first is that the government has cherry-picked a small selection of the governance reforms recommended by the Cooper review and has conveniently neglected reforms which do not suit the agenda of its union mates. Secondly, the scale test, which is one of the centrepieces of this reform, does not make good sense in economic logic or day-to-day practice. Thirdly, the provisions which impose additional obligations on directors are ill-conceived and go too far.
Let me turn to the first point, about the extent to which the government has cherry-picked certain changes recommended by the Cooper review into superannuation and has ignored other key recommendations, including the recommendation that the disclosure of conflict of interest should be mandatory and the recommendation that the so-called equal representation model should no longer be mandatory. Of course, I need hardly add that the equal representation model is code for union officials having a privileged role in the governance of superannuation funds. Another reform recommended by the Cooper review which is ignored in this legislation is that, where the equal representation model continues to apply to a superannuation fund, at least one-third of the directors on the board should be independent.
In light of the scandalously bad state of governance recently revealed in the Health Services Union, and the flow-on implications for superannuation funds, these governance issues are of urgent importance. Let me remind the House that the government's problems with the Health Services Union are so severe that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has cut its ties with the Health Services Union. Yet until recently a significant number of Health Services Union directors have been appointed to the board of major superannuation funds, and several Health Services Union officials remain directors of major superannuation funds.
Let me remind the House that Health Services Union boss Michael Williamson, a man against whom very serious allegations of corruption have been made, was until recently a union appointed director of First State Super, a fund with some $30 billion under management, funds which are there to provide for the retirement incomes of current and former New South Wales public servants. Just last month the chairman of First State Super complained that he had no power to remove Mr Williamson as a trustee of that fund despite the very serious allegations which had been made about Mr Williamson's conduct.
Other Health Services Union officials on superannuation fund boards include Mr Peter Mylan, who is still on the board of First State Super. He is the assistant secretary of the Health Services Union of New South Wales and was recently described in the Australian as a long-time Williamson loyalist. Rosemary Kelly and Lloyd Williams, two other HSU officials, are both directors of HESTA, which has $18.3 billion of funds under management. Those who listened carefully to the member for Dobell's statement yesterday would have noted with interest his allegations about another HSU official, Kathy Jackson. The member for Dobell alleged that she was recently on the board of HESTA but stepped down once it became the policy of the union that directors fees needed to be paid to the union. I have not tested whether the allegation is correct or not, but it is an interesting insight into the attitude of the member for Dobell, a former union official, about the way positions on superannuation fund boards are broadly seen as prizes to be handed out to union officials.
It is curious indeed that a union whose affairs have become a byword for mismanagement, corruption and failure of governance is in a position, by reason of design features of the superannuation system put in place by the Keating Labor government, to appoint its officials to the boards of major superannuation funds with responsibility for many billions of dollars. As the chairman of First State Super complained last month, if the conduct of the directors proves to be problematic or if there are other reasons why it might decide to remove them from the board, there is no capacity to do so because the appointment to the board is wholly in the gift of the relevant union.
This is not specific to the Health Services Union. This is a systemic issue. There are dozens of superannuation funds in Australia which have up to half of their directors appointed by a union. That means that if there are flaws in governance, if there are flaws in the organisational culture in those unions then there is a real risk of those cultural flaws being transmitted to the superannuation funds. That is a matter which should be of great concern to the millions of Australians, most of whom are not associated with unions at all, most of whom are not union members, who have their superannuation savings invested in these funds on which union appointed directors sit.
You would have thought that this bill before the House, dealing as it does with the governance of superannuation funds, purporting as it does to give effect to the recommendations of the Cooper review, would have dealt with the recommendation in the Cooper review to deal with the so-called model under which union officials have a privileged appointment position on boards of superannuation funds, the so-called equal representation model. You would have thought that this would have been the perfect opportunity to give effect to the recommendation of the Cooper review that the equal representation model should no longer be mandatory. But Minister Shorten has chosen not to implement that recommendation. I note in passing that Minister Shorten is a former union official and a former union appointed director of a superannuation fund. I note that Minister Shorten was quoted as saying about the Fair Work Australia report into the Health Services Union scandal that he was 'appalled'. I am reminded of Captain Renault in Casablanca who was 'shocked' to discover that there was gambling going on.
Let me turn to the second issue I want to raise, which is the scale test. This bill purports to impose a so-called scale test, which is fundamentally misconceived. It would impose upon directors a black letter law obligation each year to determine if there is sufficient scale in the fund—that is code for saying that the fund is big enough such that members are not disadvantaged. It is a bad idea for three reasons: it is deeply anticompetitive and serves the interests of the big funds while making it harder for smaller and newer entrants; the idea that scale is an absolute good is wrong; and the test as drafted is unclear, impractical and unworkable.
Firstly, it is deeply anticompetitive to say we will put into the legislation a criterion that the big funds can automatically meet and that the small funds are at a systemic disadvantage in meeting. It is hardly surprising in this context that the scale test has been pushed by the Industry Super Network, the lobby group that represents large industry funds such as Australian Super. Again, I remind the House it was a predecessor organisation of Australian Super that the present Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation was formerly a director of. I also remind the House that two other members of the parliamentary Labor Party, the minister for climate change and Senator Doug Cameron, were also former directors of Australian Super. In other words, there is a real concern that the policy agenda of the big funds is being pursued by this government. It is interesting that the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, which represents the trustees of super funds across the board including industry super funds, is opposed to the scale test. They told the joint parliamentary committee:
While accepting that scale may provide benefits to members, AIST confirms the position we put before the Committee. That is, the pursuit of optimal net returns to members having regard to risk considerations and the safe stewardship of members’ benefits should the overwhelming obligation upon trustees … and this obligation should not be clouded, diminished or distracted by other considerations including scale.
The second reason why the scale test is a bad idea is that it is simply wrong that scale is an absolute good when it comes to investing money. It is well accepted, in fact, that investment funds that are too big compared to the size of the market will effectively be precluded from taking up many investment opportunities. They cannot easily invest in small companies because the size of the investment stake they need to make as a proportion of their large fund would swamp the size of the company they were trying to invest in. This is a well acknowledged problem in the whole area of funds management—that is, when the fund becomes too big certain investment opportunities, particularly in smaller companies, are precluded. And that is just one instance of the general proposition that to claim that scale is an absolute good, and that that is an uncontested matter such that it should be put into legislation, is fundamentally ill conceived.
Thirdly, the test as drafted is unclear, impractical and unworkable. As the financial services counsellors pointed out, it means that directors will be required to make a comparison with other superannuation funds when they may very well not have available to them the relevant information about the other funds. The nature of the agreement between a fund and its service providers may not be publicly known. So it is very bad policy indeed to put into legislation a provision which is so poorly drafted that in practical terms it is very difficult for directors of a trustee company to know what they have to do to comply with it.
The ill-judged provisions in this bill seek to impose additional obligations on the directors of a corporate trustee as well as upon the trustee itself, for example, the duty to act honestly in all matters concerning the superannuation entity and a whole range of others. They all sound very worthwhile in principle. But when we consider the practicalities, one of the issues which is troubling is that the Cooper review essentially recommended that there ought to be the merger of the office of director and the office of trustee. The government correctly rejected that recommendation because of the confusion that would result, and yet this bill is now taking up that suggestion again.
One of the things that is very troubling about these provisions is that they potentially make directors of a corporate trustee personally liable to beneficiaries. They materially deviate from the position in the current Corporations Law in which the obligations of a company are not ordinarily ascribed to directors. They will undoubtedly make it more difficult to recruit high-quality directors to the boards of superannuation funds, because they will find themselves bearing specific obligations which are not borne by directors under the general corporate law. So these provisions have been very poorly thought through. There is a great deal of angst about them amongst what might be called the community of professional directors. The coalition has stated that we will be moving amendments designed to remove the provisions which result in this additional liability.
I am sorry to have to tell the House that this bill, like much of what this government does, is not what it purports to be. This bill is purportedly motivated by a high-minded intention to improve the governance of superannuation funds, and as a principle that is one we can all sign on to. I strongly endorse the comments made by members of the House on both sides that superannuation is an extremely important savings vehicle. But it is very hard to overlook the clear fact that this bill fails, and conspicuously fails, to address the most important of the reforms which were recommended by the Cooper review, particularly reforms designed to break the union stranglehold on industry super funds. And the reason is undoubtedly the fact that the present minister, and those who put him into his position, like the current arrangements. The scale test is bad policy. There are key aspects of this legislation we oppose.
Since the former speaker has outed the minister, the member for Maribyrnong, and Senator Doug Cameron, as being for my trustees of Australian Super, I suppose I should declare an interest in this matter: I am actually a member of Australian Super. I have certainly no inhibition in being part of industry superannuation. It has certainly served this nation well and many of the workers out there.
In 1984 I was part of the campaign at that stage when I was an officer of the Australian Workers Union campaigning for superannuation for blue-collar workers. At that point in time those that had superannuation tended to be in the white-collar sector or public servants. The application of superannuation was a direct trade-off for a productivity increase. As opposed to a four per cent increase in productivity the union movement subscribed under the award based deal for a three per cent payment to superannuation. It was the first time award based employees had general access to superannuation. What followed, of course, was that in 1988 the Labor government brought in superannuation for all workers. That was three per cent of paid rates to all Australian employees. That was revolutionary. I thank the member for Bradfield in saying that superannuation is a good thing, and collective savings are a good thing. But go back and have a think about it: superannuation was opposed by those opposite at that stage. Superannuation now represents $1.3 trillion which is under management in this country. This is a great Labor initiative.
As a consequence of those initiatives industry funds have flourished. But in terms of securing proper management, that has got to be an ongoing thing that causes all of us to have an interest. We want to make sure that not only are the funds well managed but also that the members are being appropriately serviced in the modern, dynamic environment in which we live.
The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012 is the second tranche in the legislation implementing the government's MySuper governance reforms. Trustees that elect to offer MySuper products will have to meet the new obligations, in particular to promote the financial interests of members. The government has decided to introduce enhanced trustee obligations for trustees of funds that offer MySuper products, recognising that trustees should have increased responsibilities for default members who generally delegate all aspects of their superannuation to them. Further, APRA must be satisfied that the trustee will comply with the enhanced trustee obligations and that the individual directors of corporate trustees will comply with the enhanced director obligations to the authorised RSE licence and offer a MySuper product.
These are pretty significant things. It is going to ensure that there is a default position for all Australian workers who do not go out there, particularly in the casual sector, and elect a product. The product that their superannuation will go into will be one that subscribes to those principles of MySuper.
The duties required of a superannuation fund trustee other than a SMSF will be expanded to give priority to the interests of beneficiaries. Where conflicts arise, the former strategies for insurance and risk will have regard to the valuation and information, expected tax consequences and the cost of the investment strategies. This is actually imposing those responsibilities directly on the trustee and APRA must ensure that that does occur. Trustees not complying with those requirements are not satisfying the conditions of MySuper and therefore are in a position of being in default of their responsibilities. These things are very important, particularly, as I say, where you have a situation where $1.3 trillion is now under managed funds. This is something that our economy is well and truly benefiting from and will continue to benefit from. It is not a matter of how we entice directors to invest in things such as national based infrastructure—
Debate interrupted.
Tonight I would like to pay tribute to a beautiful and intelligent young woman who was taken too soon and unnecessarily: 23-year-old Sarah Frazer was finally about to fulfil her dream. She was on her way to study photography at university in Wagga Wagga. She wrote to her aunt on her Facebook page:
My car is pretty much all packed up except for my bed linen and a few loose ends.
Her car was packed. Sarah was on her way , on a new adventure that should have seen this beautiful and adventurous young woman achieve her dreams.
She left her home in Springwood in the Blue Mountains on 15 February. The world was her oyster. But her dependable car, loaded with all her possessions , failed Sarah when she needed it most, breaking down along the way. With no other option, Sarah pulled to the side of the road. She was on the Hume Highway just two kilometres south of Mittagong. The shoulder a long this stretch of road was not very wide, but she pulled over as close to the guardrail as possible. Despite parking against the safety guardrail , Sarah's car remained stranded out in a 110-kilometre per hour lane, leaving her directly in harm's way. Passing cars and trucks that were travelling at high speeds had to swerve to get around her. Sarah knew it was not safe, but her car had stopped working. It was loaded with everything she owned. What was Sarah to do?
Sarah called roadside assistance for help. Because she was in an unsafe location they advised that they would need to send a tow truck to move Sarah and her car to a safer location. She waited for close to an hour and half as trucks and cars came up behind her at high speeds and swe rved around her. Eventually a t o w truck and well-regarded Southern Highlands local , Geoff Clark, rushed to Sarah's aid. Sarah and Geoff prepared the car for towing. It was not safe, but Geoff was committed to helping Sarah move her car from that dangerous location. It is believed that the truck driver may simply have seen the two vehicles too late, but Sarah and Geoff died instantly.
The deaths of these two innocent and treasured people is a tragedy that could have been avoided if the breakdown shoulder had been wide enough to allow Sarah's car to be completely out of the high-speed lane.
I have had the honour of meet ing with Sarah's parents, Peter and Judy Frazer. These two people, who lost their precious daughter so soon and suddenly, have made a commitment to make the roads in New South Wales safer for everyone. This tragedy and the loss of their beautiful daughter have inspired them to take action and to submit a petition to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly requesting that roads across New South Wales be audited.
The petition requests that the New South Wales Legislative Assembly introduce legislation requiring that all major roads, highways and freeways have breakdown lanes and road shoulders that meet the Austroad s standard of 2.5 metres. In this way , the life-and- death risks faced by drivers, passengers , first- call services and emergency services will be mitigated. The petition also requests that the New South Wales Legislative Assembly enact ' slow down move over ' legislation requiring drivers who see flashing hazard lights on a roadside vehicle to slow down to half the posted speed limit and move into an adjacent lane , away from the vehicle displaying the flashing hazard lights. This will minimise the risk of injury and death for drivers, passengers and the first-call service and emergency service personnel who are providing assistance and protection to the driver and to their passengers.
Sarah's parents are neither unreasonable nor bitter. In the words of her father, in a letter written to my office, Peter states, 'It would seem commonsense to expect that federally-funded roads should require shoulders wide enough for a vehicle to break down and be out of harm's way.' Last week the New South Wales Liberal government promised improved highway safety, accepting the petition for wider breakdown lanes. The petition, which I am proud to say I signed, had 23,000 signatures—1,000 for every year of Sarah's life.
The New South Wales Minister for Roads and Ports, the Hon. Duncan Gay, has publicly agreed to have Roads and Maritime Services undertake an audit of major roads, highways and freeways to ascertain which sections do not meet the Austroads specifications.
I call upon the federal government to review the federal guidelines when providing funding for roads infrastructure, so that this tragedy will bring about real change with regard to how roads are built. We need to work towards ensuring that the federal government provides funding for road infrastructure only in circumstances where all roads and highways meet the Austroads standards. A fundamental expectation of the Australian community is that our highways will provide safe passage for our families. I believe it is our duty, one way or another, to ensure that our roads are safe.
Tonight I wish to honour Sarah's parents, Peter and Judy Frazer, for their commitment, for their passion, for their love for their daughter and for their bravery.
I rise this evening to highlight two very significant developments in health within my electorate, and that is the start of works on two very vital projects. The Central Coast Regional Cancer Centre and the Woy Woy sub-acute rehabilitation unit are the two key pieces of infrastructure that I am very pleased to be speaking about this evening. Both of these projects are being delivered thanks to significant investment in regional infrastructure for the health sector through this federal government and directly through the national health agreement struck between Prime Minister Gillard and the New South Wales state government.
Without the determination of the Prime Minister to strike a national deal on health, I think it is fair to say that these much-awaited projects would still be in the 'planning and promises' stage rather than in the building and delivering phase. The two projects, the Gosford cancer centre and the Woy Woy rehab unit, will provide essential health services for the Central Coast community. I really cannot stress the point enough that these two new facilities will make life so much easier for so many people on the Central Coast.
As a Labor Member, I am only too well aware of the additional burden that cancer sufferers on the Central Coast have had to bear. They have had to endure the challenges of travelling to either Sydney or Newcastle in order to receive their treatment. During the time that I was door-knocking prior to the election and in the time since I was and have been overwhelmed by the generosity and courage of people who share their stories of the experiences that they have had and, in their recovery, the energy and passion that they have invested in making sure that other members of our community do not have to suffer the difficulties that they have suffered. They have committed their lives to making sure that they make a better lot of it for everyone else. I think that that is a great indication of the character of the electorate of the Robertson, which I am so proud to represent in this place.
Similarly—though not in terms of cancer in particular—I have heard many stories of struggle from many elderly people who were impacted by the closure of the Woy Woy rehab unit by the previous state government. I heard stories of pensioners being forced to catch a myriad of buses and trains to travel from the peninsula, in the southern part of the Central Coast, to Wyong Hospital on a daily basis to visit their partner. For cancer patients and rehabilitation patients alike, these stories of struggle will no longer be the case because of this government and its commitment to get these two vital health facilities up and running.
As a member of parliament I have been very proud of the efforts of our community to convince the government of the merits of these projects. Dare I say, I do not think the rehab unit would have ever got off the ground again without the power of the peninsula at the helm. There are a number of people that have fought and lobbied governments of all persuasions to make this happen, and I have been honoured to work with them to see their dreams, and the dreams of thousands of other coasties, come to fruition.
First, I would like to commend Kathy Smith and Mark O'Dwyer of Cancer Voices Central Coast for their tireless work in bringing a regional cancer centre to the coast. I was only thinking of Kathy Smith this morning. Having delivered that project, she is now lobbying for significant improvement in palliative care, and I commend Senator Claire Moore for the excellent breakfast that was held this morning in the Great Hall to deal with another vital issue that is of consideration, certainly for this government. Kathy has been a terrific advocate for families and patients who are living with cancer, and I am very proud to have someone like her working for us on the Central Coast.
The team behind Woy Woy Hospital and bringing the rehab facility back to life should also be very proud of their work and all they have done for the people of the peninsula and the coast at large. Even after being told by the state government that it was impossible for a resuscitation of this rehab unit, Ivan Kinney never gave up. He never let the dream go and never once thought that this vital facility could not be brought back. I also want to acknowledge the hospital auxiliary for their passion and commitment to the community based and community minded Woy Woy Hospital, especially Phyllis Thomas and the secretary, Olivenne Barron, and committee members Rhonda Finch and Patricia Harding for their great contributions.
It is a tremendous testament to the people power of the peninsula and the passion that so many in our community have for better health services. Once again, it is an honour to work with these dedicated Australian citizens and see the great work being done in Robertson and across the Central Coast for so many others who will benefit from this investment in infrastructure. It is a signature of the Gillard government.
In prefacing my remarks tonight I would like to thank the government for two grants to my electorate: one for an oncology cancer unit in Bundaberg—a $5 million project—and one for a $5 million extension to the cardiac facilities at the Friendly Society's Hospital. It is quite a recent unit, which I had the honour of opening a year or so ago. So I suppose I am singularly lucky in the Hinkler electorate that in Bundaberg I have two private hospitals and a base hospital and in Hervey Bay I have a private hospital about to be built—a $100 million hospital—a state hospital and also a day surgical hospital. With that in mind, things look very bright in my electorate.
But I think sometimes we take for granted that the provincial cities are the be-all and end-all of medical services and forget that we need to extend those services right out into even the most remote areas—and we all know the stories of how difficult it is to get doctors into really remote country areas. But then there are other towns that are not cities but are pivotal towns, hub towns, that play an important part in community life. One such town is Childers. Childers is well known, of course, for that dreadful backpacker fire, but it is an absolutely beautiful town, sitting up on the top of the red ridge with its leopard tree lined main street, with a mixture of very modern and colonial shops. It is quite a beautiful place, and it is matched by an equal amount of spirit amongst the people of the town.
What I have seen emerge there, especially in the last five years, is a new style of medical community. I had the privilege this last week to open a new radiological facility and to commission a CAT scanner. A CAT scanner in a town of 6,000 is quite unheard of, but two people in Childers, Jim Burstow and his wife, Clare Fitzgerald, and their team of professionals decided to do that in Childers. They also offer a full range of radiological services, including X-ray and ultrasound. That has meant that Childers has become a hub for places like Gayndah, Biggenden, Torbanlea, Howard and Woodgate, with all those smaller communities coming into Childers. So here we have a town of 6,000 with facilities that some provincial cities do not have and in fact all those that do have them have only got them in reasonably modern times.
We need to realise the necessity of modern medicine at the doorstep of people's lives. We do not look to the effects that remoteness has on people in country towns. When you see people like the Burstows going to the trouble of doing this, you are filled with admiration. It was a great honour to open their new premises and to commission this new tomography machine. I once again thank the government for investment in my area. I like to be bipartisan about health services. I think they are very much appreciated and it gives two levels of great health care in the electorate of Hinkler.
I rise tonight to celebrate the success of the Glenelg SANFL Football Club's new lights at Gliderol Stadium, which were partly funded by a $190,000 grant from the federal government. I have lived in the western suburbs of Adelaide my whole life and, way before I entered politics, I always followed the SANFL. I have been a big fan of local footy. In fact, I am actually the No. 1 ticket holder for one of the clubs, West Adelaide Football Club, which I have followed all my life.
As the current member for Hindmarsh, people constantly talk to me about the good work that these local footy clubs are doing in their communities and Glenelg Football Club is no exception. Back in 2010, when I was down at Glenelg, I spoke to the CEO, Rob Nelson, about how the club was going, and in particular what the federal Labor government could do to help support all the good work it does in the community. That is because footy clubs have a fantastic, brilliant way of breaking down barriers, building communities, striving for achievement and promoting healthy, active lifestyles and an opportunity for children and teenagers to play a great, magnificent sport.
So we workshopped the problem together with Rob and the then Minister for Sport, Kate Ellis, the member for Adelaide. She came up for a meeting and we discussed what we could do to help. We came up with a plan for the government to partner with a club to help them out. It turned out that one of the key problems at Glenelg Football Club was that the oval could not be used for night matches because the lighting was not good enough. Glenelg had already done a lot of groundwork and planning for new lights, but the finances needed a bit of a boost to make it a reality. That is why I was so pleased to announce an election commitment in August 2010, together with Kate Ellis, for $195,000 towards the installation of lights at Glenelg Oval. I was incredibly proud to deliver that money and attend the official switching on of the lights together with the member for Adelaide recently. Now that they are installed, the Glenelg Football Club has been able to expand its operating times and provide a more flexible schedule for use by not only football teams but also the wider community in the area, for whom it will be a great asset. That is important because one of our priorities is supporting sport better into the future than it has been in the past, whether that be at school, state or elite level.
I just want to read out an article written by Tim Williams that appeared in my local paper, the Guardian Messenger, on 10 May 2012, because it sums it all up. The title of the story was 'Bays crowd figures up' and it goes on:
GLENELG Football Club says night games have boosted home crowds by 35 per cent so far this season.
More than 5800 fans watched the Bays defeat Sturt under lights on April 27.
That followed a crowd of more than 6000 for the Tigers' first night match against West Adelaide in March, while almost 5000 turned up for the clash against South Adelaide last month.
Glenelg chief executive Rob Nelson said the dub was "absolutely delighted" with the response to night football.
"People are coming for the spectacle," he said.
"You walk around on a Friday night and see a lot of teenagers walking around in Glenelg merchandise in a safe environment. It's opened up our club and our team to a broader demographic."
Mr Nelson said extra lighting had been added to the scoreboard after complaints from fans that it could not be seen clearly during the first night game.
Rob has since written to me to tell me:
"We believe this increased patronage to be largely as a direct result of night football"
"We have not had any reported incidents from any match so far as a direct consequence of night football.
The new sports lighting has enabled a safer environment for our senior teams and junior development teams for training.
We have already been approached to run a charity event under lights later this year such is the interest
This is a great outcome. It is a great outcome for the Glenelg Football Club and a great outcome for the Glenelg area. It means more families are joining the local footy community, more people are getting access to the grounds, and the club is better able to engage with philanthropic ventures, like the proposed charity event.
I take this opportunity to congratulate all the players, the staff and the volunteers at Glenelg on this fantastic achievement, although it probably meant quite a few late nights for them in planning and preparing and weekends of work. What a fantastic outcome for the Hindmarsh community. (Time expired)
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate more than 120 members of my community who took part in the Envy Personal Training Winter Charity Challenge last week. These locals braved the cold to take part in training sessions over four days to raise more than $6,000 for a local charity called Everyone Can Dance. Everyone Can Dance is a not-for-profit organisation based in my electorate that supports young people in Macarthur who live with a disability. The group organises social and respite outings for people with disabilities and aims to help them overcome obstacles to become active and equal participants in their community.
Today I would like to pay tribute to the president and founder of this charity, Tara Grech. It is hard to believe that Tara is just 24 years of age. She was only 20 when she started organising events for charities to support people living with Down syndrome, autism and cerebral palsy in the Macarthur area. It started off with a disco for children with a disability to raise money for several charities including the Cerebral Palsy Alliance and Autism Spectrum Australia. In 2010, when she was 22, Tara decided to start her own charity and registered Everyone Can Dance, which now supports many families in my electorate. When Tara started the charity she asked local parents what their needs were, so she could cater for families in Macarthur. She said the main issues bought up by local parents were socialisation and respite to give parents and carers a break from the 24/7 care for their children. So Tara started holding art classes for people with a disability aged five to 30 to give parents a break. She is now extending her programs to include parent support meetings and workshops while their children are taking part in the activities. Tara had a big inspiration to start this charity. Her brother David, who is now 22, lives with cerebral palsy. Doctors told David's family that he would never walk and would not be able to live a normal life like other children, but he proved them all wrong. David goes to the gym every day and he even drives a car—what a fantastic achievement. He lives every day to the fullest and is an inspiration to other people in my community who live with cerebral palsy.
Tara said she was driven to help local families after David had trouble getting involved in sports and other social events because organisers were worried about insurance. He was apart from the community, not part of the community. This is why she wanted to start a charity that would give people living with disability the chance to socialise with others and take part in a range of fun activities.
As you can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, Tara is very passionate about her cause, especially the need to raise awareness in my community so that everyone will be treated equally, whether they have a disability or not. Tara said her main goal for the charity remains the same today as it was on day one—to improve socialisation for people living with disability and respite for their parents or carers.
While art classes and social outings are currently available, Tara also wants to implement a program with local sporting groups to help them include people with disabilities in their sports teams and clubs to help combat obesity. This is a young lady with a very big heart who has dedicated her life to helping those less fortunate be more confident, self-reliant and involved in our community.
Of all of Tara's aspirations there is one I admire the most. That is her goal to improve community acceptance and perceptions of people with disability. By breaking down these barriers Everyone Can Dance is enabling people living with disability to interact and participate in community events, to be more confident and independent in any field they pursue and to live full and rewarding lives.
The charity raises funds through donations, fundraising events, membership and sponsorship. Events like the Personal Training Winter Challenge on the weekend will help the charity to organise supervised outings and events and provide individuals and their families with support services. I attended the final day of the charity challenge on Saturday and was very impressed by the number of people who took part.
Rob Mann and his team from Envy Personal Training organised the event and did a great job bringing so many people and businesses from my community together. It was great to see people from all walks of life and many different fitness levels take part in the challenge. From teenagers to senior citizens, fitness fanatics to the not-so-fit like myself, small business owners and many local residents—they all had a great time competing for a great cause.
This was a fantastic example of my community coming together to support each other, and I felt very proud of all their efforts. Even the local media was represented in this charity challenge by Krista Thomas from C91.3FM, who put in the hard yards for her team and gave some of the blokes a run for their money. Local photographer Sharon Robertson also donated her time to take photos for the charity. Sharon is a lovely lady who is well known by my community for her involvement at many community charity events across Macarthur.
This is why tonight I have done one of my favourite things in this parliament and praised the generous spirit of giving that is alive and well in the Macarthur community. Times may be tough, but the people of Macarthur are always willing to help those less fortunate than themselves, and that is something I am very proud of.
I would also like to thank the following local businesses and individuals who supported this event: Landcom, Simmons Painting and Decorating, Platinum Personal Training, Splashbacks with Glass, DNM Designs, Camden Valley Inn, Naked Tan, 21st Century Pest Management Services, Club Cycle, Sports Spirit Narellan, Liz's Hair Stop, Ultimate Paintball and Pat Farmer. (Time expired)
Last month I announced the winners of the Chifley Young Leaders Awards at a ceremony in Mount Druitt. I initiated these awards last year to recognise the positive contribution young people made to the local community over that year. I hope the Chifley Young Leaders Awards encourage young people to start thinking about the issues that matter to them—not just within school but also outside the classroom and in the broader community. Education was a big theme among our entrants this year, focusing on the value of education in cultivating learning and paving the way for future opportunities. I would like to congratulate the joint winners of this year's award, Hanan Aziz and Pascal Moussa.
Hanan, 17, from Mount Druitt, had an entry which explored domestic violence from the perspective of it being a human rights issue. The judges were particularly impressed with the passion put into Hanan's entry, which opened with an expressive poem and delved into the effects of domestic violence on men and women alike. Pascal Moussa, 17, from Whalan, explored community pride and the media—critically thinking about how often the negative perception about an area is attributed to a postcode and what can be done to celebrate diversity as a community.
Eighteen-year-old Blake Fry from Hassall Grove, who last year completed year 12, was awarded second prize. Blake's entry explored how an education revolution could be built through an interactive curriculum where students could step into a teacher's shoes for a day through peer-led programs. His practical ideas statement also included providing smaller classes and more options for school tutoring as a form of educational enrichment. I would like to thank the judges, Majidi Warda from Blacktown Council and Cassie Scerri, a youth worker at the Ted Noffs Foundation, Mount Druitt, who had the unenviable job of sifting through all the entries and choosing the winners.
Another initiative I have been proud to launch has sought to recognise the efforts of women in our community who have looked to improve the welfare and prospects of others in neighbourhoods across Chifley. I was delighted that Cassie Scerri was awarded the Chifley Young Woman of the Year for her work with the Ted Noffs Foundation implementing music, dance and art workshops for disadvantaged boys and girls. Leading Senior Constable Cerise Britton from the Mount Druitt police and Tarsa Linsdell from Housing NSW were jointly awarded the Chifley Woman of the Year for 2012.
The main award is the Coral McLean Award, which I named in honour of a tireless community worker for Chifley who last year lost her battle with cancer. Blacktown resident Bernadette Agyepong received a highly commended award for her work advocating on behalf of women refugees at SydWest Multicultural Services. The winner of the Coral McLean Award was Rita Wright. She received this award for her work mentoring Indigenous children and their families at the Tregear Presbyterian Preschool, along with all of the support that she has given to Anglicare. It was most appropriate that Aunty Rita won the inaugural Coral McLean Award, as she is someone who has benefited from the support and friendship that Coral McLean, who donated 100,000 hours of her own time to the local community, gave so many people in our area.
One of Coral McLean's lasting legacies is the Mt Druitt and District Reconciliation Group, which she helped to establish more than 15 years ago. Last Saturday I had the great honour to walk with the Mt Druitt and District Reconciliation Group at the annual Mount Druitt Reconciliation Walk. The annual walk and festival, now in its 15th year, had a number of stalls that included groups from the Mount Druitt Learning Ground and TAFE. It encompassed painting workshops, local performers, speakers and family entertainment. It is a highlight of the Mount Druitt calendar, and I want to congratulate all the volunteers who made the day possible along with the Mount Druitt Reconciliation Group.
Many local cultural celebrations like the Reconciliation Walk bring the community together. The Pacific Islander Multicultural Day held a few months ago in March was organised by the Australian Samoan Group Inc., and was a fantastic day of food, arts, crafts and music. I also had the pleasure of attending the Pacific Islands Mount Druitt Action Network—PIMDAN—AGM at Mount Druitt, attended by the Samoan High Commissioner from Canberra, Hon. Lemalu Tate Simi. Many of the PIMDAN members also took part in the Chifley Pacific Islander community roundtable which I hosted with my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, the member for Corio, Richard Marles. The roundtable was a great forum to discuss ideas and feedback from a number of local community groups, with representatives from Chifley College Bidwill, the Plumpton Tongan Association, the Samoan Women's Association, Peteli Tongan Uniting Church, Blacktown Samoan Methodist Church and many others. It was a great event, and I thank them for their participation.
I rise to acknowledge World IBD Day, which fell on yesterday, 21 May. IBD is an acronym for inflammatory bowel disease, perhaps better known as Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Affecting approximately 70,000 Australians, Crohn's disease and colitis are debilitating conditions that target the intestine and other parts of the digestive tract. Extreme diarrhoea, fever, weight loss and abdominal pain are common symptoms that dramatically impact a sufferer's quality of life. Often diagnosed between the ages of 15 and 35, Crohn's and colitis hit young people in their prime just as they are finishing off their schooling or beginning their career journey. With no cure and medications that can go only so far, many of those affected must resort to complex surgery to have parts of their diseased intestine removed, or commit to a life of suffering in silence.
I had the privilege last week of meeting with a number of people living with Crohn's and colitis. They, together with parents, grandparents and siblings of sufferers, gave me a window into the lives of those affected by the disease. Stories of depression, dropping out of university, being unable to keep down a job and the deep fear of revealing to one's friends and employers the true state of their physical condition were just some of the anecdotes I heard at the meeting. These sufferers of Crohn's and colitis recalled the constant disruption to their everyday lives and their inability to do things that we often take for granted, such as travelling by plane, which they would avoid at all costs in the event they were unable to access a toilet. Others told me of their intense and continuous pain, which could see them hospitalised for stints of more than six months. Such a lifestyle, such a condition, could not be wished upon anyone.
Also at the meeting in my electorate office last week were Francesca Manglaviti, Chief Executive Officer of Crohn's & Colitis Australia, the peak national body, and Dr Greg Moore, a director of CCA who is also a medical expert in the field. CCA has their offices in Hawthorn in the heart of my electorate. Francesca and Greg talked about the mission of CCA—namely, to educate the community about Crohn's and colitis, to generate funds for research and program development and, most importantly of all, to provide sufferers with support, counselling and a help line that receives more than 1,000 calls a year. They also talked about the challenge ahead: how to build greater awareness and understanding in the community of Crohn's and colitis and reduce the stigma which is, unfortunately, so commonplace in our community.
This is not just a moral imperative for us all but also an economic one. An extensive report by Access Economics on the economic costs of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis found that these conditions cost the nation $2.7 billion a year in lost earnings, premature death, absenteeism, allocated health expenditures, informal care, out-of-pocket expenditures and a host of other financial burdens. Thankfully, the report lays the path for going forward, recommending: education programs to assist early diagnosis, including for GPs and emergency departments; better access to pharmaceuticals and biological therapies; a more targeted and focused effort on geographical areas of need for specialist care; enhanced employment programs; support for the carers; and better funded research and development. These measures and other important steps like direct funding for the CCA and financial assistance for specialist IBD nurses in every state and territory could make an immediate difference. When combined with a community-wide awareness campaign and a destigmatisation program, we could alleviate some of the silent suffering of those who live with Crohn's and colitis. You can judge the quality of a country by the size of its balance sheet and its list of achievements but, in the end, this will take you only so far. What really counts is a nation's values and its willingness to help those less fortunate in the community. I know that I speak for members on both sides of the House when I say Crohn's and colitis is one such cause which is deserving of all our attention and for which we must do more. Working with my colleagues, including the members for Oxley, Bowman, Chifley, Melbourne Ports, Boothby and Denison, and many others who have joined the Parliamentary Friendship Group of Crohn's and Colitis, we stand ready to make a difference.
With 70,000 Australians already affected by IBD, and that number predicted to rise by 23 per cent in just the next eight years, we cannot afford to wait. We must act now, and we must act in a comprehensive manner, for thousands of our fellow Australians are counting on us. (Time expired)
I rise tonight to speak on a topic near and dear to my heart: the preservation of one of the world's great natural jewels, the Coral Sea. The Coral Sea is globally recognised as an extremely important marine region due to its unique biodiversity and World War II history. Recent international studies have highlighted that the Coral Sea is one of the last remaining areas of the world's oceans where large-scale and biologically rich ecosystems remain relatively intact. Its reef systems support tropical ecosystems rich in hard and soft corals, sponges, algae, fish communities and other sea creatures. Many globally threatened corals and other marine animals are known to live there. Many species are known to occur only there and nowhere else in the world. A vast pool of biodiversity is yet to be discovered in the region—and who knows what benefits they will bring to health and other fields of endeavour?
As I am sure many parents in this chamber with children under 10 years of age would be aware, the Coral Sea is also home to a fish named Nemo. In Australian waters the coral reef environment is an unspoiled paradise, and some of the reefs in the French controlled waters of New Caledonia also provide wonderful opportunities. The Coral Sea's historical significance must also be mentioned. It was the site of the Battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942 which turned the tide of World War II in the Pacific. We must never forget the defence personnel who perished in these waters during this significant battle; the first significant battle where the Japanese were defeated.
I have had the honour of representing Prime Ministers Gillard and Rudd at the commemoration of the Battle of the Coral Sea at Newstead House in Brisbane many times since I was elected. To this day our American allies recognise the importance of this area—the Coral Sea—in our nations' histories. Both on land and at sea, the opportunity to protect such noteworthy and pristine environments do not come along in too many lifetimes. Preserving the Coral Sea is a rare opportunity for our generation and for this parliament.
I have been contacted by numerous groups and many of my constituents urging me to support increased protection for the Coral Sea. In fact, just this morning I met yet again with representatives of Global Ocean Legacy Australia about the Protect Our Coral Sea campaign—and certainly many Queenslanders would have seen the full-page ad that they took out in the Courier Mail on the weekend. Protect our Coral Sea is a joint campaign supported by regional, national and international conservation organisations, including the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace, the Humane Society International, the National Parks Association of Queensland, the Queensland Conservation Council, Wildlife Queensland, deep sea fishers and many others I will not list because of time constraints. It is their goal to establish a large, world-class, highly protected marine park in the Coral Sea that will provide a safe haven for marine life, which is good for deep-sea fishes, and will recognise its historic significance.
The safeguarding of the Coral Sea is a matter of great importance to concerned people, and rightly so. I encourage all people in my electorate to find out about this matter so that we might help protect this international and national treasure. I also encourage all my parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the chamber to work together to protect this precious area and its fragile marine life. Finding Nemo is not enough; now we must protect his home.
I also call on the Queensland Premier, Campbell Newman, and his cabinet to show support for this matter of public importance. As the minister for the environment, Minister Burke, said this afternoon during question time, 'Unfortunately, it only took Premier Newman a fortnight after saying he wanted to enforce national environmental laws to then turn around and say he wanted to tear them down.' Hopefully, this troubling attitude will not continue. I hope that Mr Newman and his government are much more reasonable about the Coral Sea than they appear to be in these early days about the environmental protection of koalas.
The Australian government is committed to improving the protection of our marine environment. I will continue to advocate for the better protection of the Coral Sea not only because of public concern but because it is the right thing to do. This is a legacy moment for our generation and for this parliament. As I said, finding Nemo is not enough; now we must act to protect his home.
I rise this evening to raise serious concerns about the continued failure of the insurance industry in Far North Queensland. Some two months ago the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs tabled its second In the wake of disasters report after a comprehensive inquiry into the affordability of strata title insurance in Northern Australia. During the inquiry I heard some heartbreaking stories from people in my electorate who are suffering huge financial pressures due to the skyrocketing costs of insurance, the total unaffordability of insurance and, in many other cases, the lack of availability of insurance for their properties. These are people whose homes and investment properties had, in many cases, not been affected by either Cyclone Larry or by Cyclone Yasi, yet the insurance companies in the north had determined to penalise these owners, taking absolutely no notice of ameliorating circumstances such as topographic location, the age of their homes or standard of maintenance.
The report was tabled and it was a very good report. The previous speaker was involved in it, and I commend him for his outstanding efforts. When the report was tabled, I was pleased to see that it contained some substantial recommendations, including that the government: investigate the risk assessment methodologies of insurance companies; examine the reasons for the lack of competition; and check whether improper or anticompetitive behaviour was taking place. A deadline of 1 October was given to complete the reviews. At this point we are approaching the halfway point of the allocated period and I truly hope that progress is being made.
Since the inquiry in late January I have continued to receive evidence of insurance quotes that have increased up to 800 or 1,000 per cent. They are the ones that can still get insurance. Many of the insurance companies are not providing any cover whatsoever in this region. One letting agent in Cairns, Linda Tuck, reported that last year the cost of insurance for a two-bedroom, one-bathroom duplex with a value of around $350,000 was $941. This year she was told that the insurer, Lumley, had withdrawn from domestic property insurance for all locations above Mackay. With only two insurers willing to quote, the prices jumped to the ridiculous level of $4,803 with Vero and $4,439 with CGU.
Redlynch resident Mr Ron Mason got off relatively lightly, yet his home and contents insurance has still doubled in the space of a year despite the fact that he lives on a hill well above any potential flood zone. Ron was astounded to be told that the increase was due to 'the reassessment of risk after a number of natural events', and worse, 'a commercial decision to recover losses incurred'. Mr Mason wrote to me in disgust and said:
I consider myself now speaking for thousands of people in North Queensland who are becoming aware of this institutionalised financial discrimination based on localised hardship. This is far from the Australian way.
In my view it is blatantly obvious that the market has clearly and totally failed. These companies are acting in a discriminatory way in Northern Australia and what they are doing is, I believe, both criminal and disgusting. There is no doubt that they are price gouging. We have to stand up and say that this is not good enough. What makes me so angry is that it is the mums and dads, small investors and pensioners who are paying the price.
After the report's recommendations were released I urged the insurance companies to show some social obligation, have a heart and provide affordable insurance. I thought that would be more preferable than waiting for government intervention, but it appears that I was wrong. The review was originally on strata insurance, but now the pain has spread across all areas of Northern Australia from bed and breakfasts to rural properties and landlord insurance.
The government has until 1 December to outline a way that it can bring affordable insurance into the region. At that time I will be demanding that insurance companies who cherry-pick based on postcodes as a way of minimising market exposure spread their risk across the spectrum, otherwise I will be strongly advocating that they be prohibited from selling insurance across the country. If they do not want North Queensland postcodes they should not have the opportunity to provide insurance anywhere in this country. It is an absolute disgrace what they are doing and they need to be held absolutely accountable for these practices.
Last Thursday, 17 May 2012, the Minister for Health, the honourable Tanya Plibersek MP, visited my seat of Banks. Specifically, the minister was there to visit the Hurstville Adult Dental Clinic and to hold discussions with representatives from the South Eastern Sydney and Illawarra Area Health Service. The visit followed the government's budget announcement that $515.3 million would be spent over the next four years for dental health reforms. The majority of this funding will be directed at treating patients on public waiting lists.
The Hurstville Adult Dental Clinic currently has two chairs which are used for up to 18 patients a day. While we were there a local mum and her family waited as one of her children received a thorough dental check. He did not seem too concerned about it, and we saw him emerge later, unscathed and with his blue toothbrush. Not far from the dental clinic is Hurstville Public School—which, coincidentally, I had visited earlier in the day—where another dental chair is available for eligible children to visit a dentist. Approximately 47 per cent of the New South Wales population is eligible for public oral health services. Sadly, many of these people wait for years, in some cases, for treatment. It is estimated that New South Wales will receive in the order of $110.8 million over three years to begin the process of reducing the dental waiting lists.
At the Hurstville dental clinic, the Director of Oral Health at South Eastern Sydney Illawarra Health, Dr Meredith, showed us around the two surgeries, and we met one of the oral hygienists. He explained that the surgery will be expanding by two chairs following building work. Mr Terry Clout, the Chief Executive Officer of South Eastern Sydney Illawarra Health for New South Wales, spent time with me and the minister discussing public health issues. What struck me most about both Mr Clout and Dr Meredith was their obvious dedication and commitment to public health care. Mr Clout talked about his experiences working in regional and rural New South Wales in New England and the Hunter, as well as in the mid-North Coast. They are both committed to reducing health disadvantage, especially in the regions where getting dental health care is not always as straightforward as it tends to be in the suburbs.
The government's funding will provide the foundation of the provision of dental services that will ensure that those most in need will get care when they most need it. Another government initiative is the allocation of $450,000 to non-government organisations to coordinate the provision of pro bono dental health services for those in greatest need. The government will increase the Voluntary Dental Graduate Year Program from 50 to 100 placements per year by 2016.
An important part of the government's funding, and well understood by Dr Meredith and Mr Clout, is the allocation of $77.7 million over four years to rural, regional and remote areas. The purpose of this funding is to encourage and assist dentists to relocate to areas of need. Relocation grants will be available to dentists to assist in moving costs and grants for the purchase and fit-out of dental facilities. Overall, I am very impressed with the quality of care provided by the Hurstville Adult Dental Clinic, and with the dedication of those who represent it.
The federal parliament has a moral and legal obligation to involve itself in the dental care of our nation. It is one of only eight referendums since federation that have passed. We have a mandate from the people as a federal government to involve ourselves in dental care. The people gave us that mandate. So the notion from those on the other side that this is an area that should be left to the states is bunkum. When you have a referendum, when you have a change to our Constitution that is so rare, you grab it. It is like the Aboriginal referendum, which the national government has used to assist Indigenous people in this country, to protect them from the states at times when the states were abandoning them and discriminating against them.
So I was very impressed with my visit with the minister to the Hurstville Adult Dental Clinic, and with the professionalism, the dedication and the passion of those professionals involved. I look forward to more public money flowing over the years to this area.
I rise to raise an issue of serious importance on the Gold Coast, and that is the ongoing issue of law and order. The concern that constituents in my electorate have is what appears to be an ongoing surge in people not abiding by the law and in particular what appears to be an ongoing turf battle between organised criminals, mainly outlaw motorcycle gangs. The reality is that on the Gold Coast we continue to see too many shootings and too many bashings.
In the last 48 hours there have been two further shootings on the Gold Coast and frankly I and I know the community have had enough. We are sick and tired of the way in which these outlaws conduct themselves and put fear into the community. In a tourism town like the Gold Coast perception is everything. At a time when Western Sydney is also plagued by these sorts of troubles, the reality is that people perceive the Gold Coast to be unsafe. That perception might as well be the truth and the reality is fewer tourists in a city like the Gold Coast. This comes on top of the fact that the Gold Coast is already less competitive when it comes to attracting tourists as a direct result of Labor's imposition in the budget of a further $600 million of tourism taxes on the industry.
In the last 48 hours, a volley of shots were fired on John Wayne Parr's Gold Coast gym. He is a kickboxing champion on Kortum Drive in Burleigh Heads, who owns the Boonchu Muay Thai Gym. Police are yet to make any connection and Mr Parr himself says he does not know the motive for the attack. That notwithstanding, we have had another random shooting of a small business on the Gold Coast. The night before, two 14-year-old boys were terrified when someone banged on the front door of their home. One of the boys looked through the window to see who it was and shots were fired, injuring through shrapnel one of the boys when the gunman saw a person—in this case, a 14-year-old boy—looking through the window. Only a matter of weeks before that, probably a mere 1½ kilometres or so from my home, two men were bashed, allegedly by bikies. One was so badly beaten with a baseball bat that teeth were found in the yard of that person's home. In addition to these attacks, we have seen continued assaults and violence by outlaw motorcycle gangs. There is no doubt that it is all tied directly back to the drug trade and those seeking to ply their trade in our city.
The simple reality is this: people should not have to tolerate this kind of lawlessness. What is required is a two-pronged approach. I note the new mayor of the Gold Coast, Mayor Tate, called for an additional 200 police for our city. I am exceptionally grateful that the new state LNP government has its priorities right and it has already committed to having an additional 100 police stationed on the Gold Coast. That is a step in the right direction. It is an important first step as part of retaking control of our streets and providing a very strong and salient message to all Gold Coasters that we will not tolerate this kind of lawlessness. But more is required. I think it is high time, frankly, that the federal government got its priorities right. It is high time that the federal government initiated a strike force and a dedicated squad of federal police, with beefed-up resources if need be, to deal with this issue in South-East Queensland, in Western Sydney and in other parts of the country where we continue to see this kind of violence seemingly taking place without any clear indication that there has been any increase in resources by law and order both at a federal and state level to deal with the issue.
How long must we stand by and watch the federal government sit on its hands? How long do we have to heed the calls of the police who say that they need more resourcing? What we need is a government, like this government, to start to get its priorities right, so we stop seeing the kind of waste that we have seen from this Labor government and start to have those funds apply to something meaningful that improves the quality of life for people in my electorate, in my city and across the nation. That is what I am calling for—a dedicated squad to tackle organised crime with specific focus on outlaw motorcycle gangs and the thugs that operate them, who in turn infect Australian children with the drugs that they try to peddle. It is high time that this government made that a priority.
Over coming weeks, councils across Australia will set their rates for the year ahead. With a price on carbon taking effect on 1 July, the community will quite rightly be asking what impact carbon pricing will have on their council rates. It is a question also being asked by local governments across Australia as they prepare their 2012-13 budgets. Already, exaggerated claims of significant increases to council rates, attributed to a price on carbon, are being reported in the media.
It is therefore important to look at the facts relating to the impact of a price on carbon on council rates. This issue can be complicated because councils each have their own priorities and local obligations. The issue is further complicated because in some cases, not in all, the impacts of a carbon price on landfill costs must also be factored in. I will address that matter separately.
The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales has examined this question for New South Wales councils and presented a detailed report on its findings. I have read that report in full. From my council experience, the findings of that report would apply equally to South Australian councils as to, in all probability, most councils around Australia. In summary, the report concludes that a carbon price of $23 a tonne will contribute a 0.6 per cent increase to council rates. That is about $3.30 yearly, or 6c per week—I repeat: 6c per week—and is less than the 0.7 per cent carbon price effect on each household estimated by Commonwealth Treasury.
The reason for the lower figure is simple. Councils rely on a local government cost index which better reflects council costs than does the National Consumer Price Index. Around 40 per cent of council expenditure is on salaries and wages. Because of the government household assistance measures, salaries and wages increases would not be impacted by a carbon price. That leaves around 60 per cent of council expenditure possibly subject to a carbon tax. A detailed breakdown of that expenditure by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal has not only identified the likely costs to each individual expenditure area but aggregated those cost increases. It concluded that 0.6 per cent is the likely increase to councils arising from a price on carbon.
Waste management costs vary greatly between councils and therefore each council will be impacted very differently by a carbon price. Waste facilities which generate less than 25,000 tonnes of emissions annually will not pay a carbon price on emissions and therefore waste management costs for councils using those facilities will not be affected. Waste facilities which exceed 25,000 tonnes of emissions annually will be required to account for those emissions and may incur a cost.
However, there are two important considerations with respect to that liability. Firstly, even if a landfill incurs a greenhouse gas emissions liability, that liability does not commence until 1 July 2013. The carbon price only applies to waste deposited after 1 July. Emissions from existing waste, referred to as legacy emissions, are not included for liability assessment. Furthermore, waste takes time to start decaying, and the government has set out rules which deem emissions in the first year as being zero. Therefore, there will be no carbon price liability for any landfill in the year 2012-13.
Secondly, landfill operators have the opportunity to capture greenhouse gas emissions and earn money. For example, landfills may be eligible for Carbon Farming Initiative carbon credits for the destruction of methane, which can be used to offset the carbon price or sold for a profit. Landfills that create electricity from captured methane are also eligible for tradeable renewable energy certificates, which can also generate income under the Renewable Energy Target scheme.
Because legacy waste emissions are excluded from any liability, it is expected that carbon farming credits from landfill waste will exceed liability on landfills in the period through to 2020. The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency have estimated that best practice capture of methane emissions can reduce the future carbon price liability to less than $8 per tonne, or around 13c per week, to each household affected by the carbon price. Ratepayers should be asking their municipal authority what it is doing to reduce landfill tonnage and what measures are in place to capture and reuse landfill emissions.
In summary, no carbon price liability will be incurred by landfill operators in 2012-13. After that, only landfills which exceed 25,000 tonnes of emissions per annum will incur liability, and all landfill operators have the opportunity to offset those liabilities by emissions capture and reuse strategies. Finally, a price on carbon will add an estimated 0.6 per cent to council rates, and the government has factored that increase into the household assistance measures. (Time expired)
House adjourned at 22:31
Recently, I was privileged to be on hand at the Woodhill State School in my electorate of Wright to induct and congratulate student leaders for the 2012 period. Woodhill is a small school which I am proud of and it has been operating for almost 130 years. The original school and teacher's residence were built on donated land by William Everdell at a cost of £208 9s. That was the cost of the entire school. The school first opened its doors in 1873 and was originally known as the Townsvale National School. That name was changed the following year to Veresdale Primary School before taking on its current title of Woodhill in the early 1900s—primarily because the surrounding area was given its name at the time the railway line was being built from Brisbane to Beaudesert. When it first opened its doors, the school had approximately 60 students. By 1974 that number had fallen to just 25. However I am delighted to report that things have picked up considerably and we now have around 180 kids enrolled at Woodhill.
To show how far we have come since Woodhill first opened its doors, I would share with you a few rules that the schoolteachers had to abide by back in 1872. Each morning a teacher would be required to bring a bucket of water and a scuttle of coal for the day's teaching sessions. Each male teacher could take one evening each week for courting purposes, or two evenings a week if they attended regular church. Female teachers who married or 'engaged in unseemly conduct' were dismissed instantly. Any teacher who smoked, used liquor in any form, frequented pool halls, or got shaved in the public barbershop, would be considered to have given good reason for people to suspect his worth, his integrity, his honesty and his intention. However after 10 hours in school, teachers could spend the remainder of the day reading the Bible or any other good book.
However it was not all prayers, coal and beards. The good news was that any teacher who performed their job faithfully in those days and without fault for five years would be considered for a pay rise of 25 pence per a week. You think things were tough back in those days; we can only imagine how tough it would have been on the poor students! However I would like to reassure the House that the current principal at Woodhill, Ms Shelly Lucas, takes a significantly more relaxed approach and attitude.
In conclusion I would like to congratulate Shelly for the fantastic work she does there with the kids. I offer her my best wishes for the coming year and obviously also this year's student leaders: school captains, Chelsea Dickson and Kayleigh Thompson; along with the vice captain, Reece Yunker; and house captains, Jessy Barnes and Jayd Halsey.
Other commitments prevented me speaking in the formal condolences to Lionel Bowen, so I am taking this opportunity to pay my respects to the late Lionel Bowen who passed away on 1 April this year aged 89. Lionel's passing sees the passing of another great Labor legend, but it was also the passing of one of the nation's favourite sons, a loyal and dedicated servant.
I knew Lionel over many years and, whilst I never served with him in this parliament because I entered in 1990 as he was leaving, my father served with him and I had frequent and active engagement with Lionel through those family connections as well as my days in the trade union movement. He was a humble yet forceful and passionate advocate. He was admired for his great integrity, humility, loyalty and commitment.
Circumstances created the qualities of individuals in those early years and Lionel grew up in the inner Sydney suburbs and during the Depression. His deserted mother was left to raise her extended family, forcing Lionel to leave school at 14. But he attended night school and then graduated from Sydney university in law. So those tough circumstances taught him the importance of dedication and persistence—qualities that became part of his trademark character throughout his life.
Despite studying law, politics was his calling. Lionel served across all three levels of government in a period spanning 42 years: in the Randwick council from 1948, including two terms as mayor; in the marginal seat of Randwick in the New South Wales parliament from 1962 to 1969; and in the federal seat of Kingsford Smith from 1969 to 1990. He served under two prime ministers, Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke, and was Bob Hawke's Deputy Prime Minister. But the portfolios he held were Postmaster-General, Minister for Manufacturing Industry, Minister for Trade and Attorney-General.
On his retirement, Lionel became chair of the National Gallery of Australia and, as Minister for the Arts, I also pay tribute to him in that respect. He was passionate on the importance of galleries and museums and their collections in telling Australia's story, and he saw the arts as a vehicle for expression and pride.
He was made a companion of the Order of Australia in recognition of his service to community. He was a lover of his family. He had a love of racing. But, most of all, he had a love of country. Lionel Bowen made an enduring contribution to the Australian community, and I offer my sincerest condolences to his wife, Claire, and all of their children and the extended Bowen family.
There has been recent public comment that the daily recital of the Lord's Prayer to mark the opening of our federal parliament should be abandoned or, alternatively, that the parliament should be opened every day with different prayers on a rotational basis, representing the wide variety of religious communities in Australia. Although I consider myself a Christian, I admit that I am not a regular churchgoer and I also admit that I only occasionally regularly attend the opening of our parliamentary chamber to recite the Lord's Prayer.
I understand that some might think that the daily recital of the Lord's Prayer is outdated, unimportant, an anachronism and does not reflect contemporary, multicultural Australia. However, these calls should be rejected, for they are completely misguided. We are a Christian country and the entire basis of our nation's relatively prosperous and equitable society, our respect for the rights of women and our acceptance of minorities, is directly related to our Judeo-Christian heritage and culture.
One of the traditions of our nation is the recital of the Lord's Prayer to mark the opening of our federal parliament. This should be retained. We do not simply change our traditions and heritage on a whim. And, just as we should not seek to remove either the Saint George's Cross or the Saint Andrew's Cross from our national flag, we should not seek to remove the Lord's Prayer to open our federal parliament.
The second issue I would like to raise in this limited time is the appalling situation that we are currently witnessing in Queensland, where four young girls aged 15, 13, 11 and nine, all Australian citizens, have been in hiding from federal agents, fearful that, if captured, they would be rounded up like cattle, handcuffed, sedated, and forcibly bundled onto an aeroplane and deported to a foreign country against their will.
Having read through the judgment of the Family Court, I have grave concerns that a great injustice will be done if these children are deported. Section 91 of our Family Law Act gives the Attorney-General the power to intervene in and contest or argue any question arising in any proceedings under the Family Law Act. Now that the proceedings are afoot in the High Court, where I understand an appeal will be filed today in this matter, I call on our Attorney-General to exercise the powers that she has under our laws to ensure these children are not deported and that their case can be fully reviewed. If these children, two of whom are teenagers, truly express the will that they wish to remain here in Australia, they should be able to do so.
I rise today to pay tribute to David Gough of Darbys Falls in New South Wales, who passed away earlier this month. David made a tremendous contribution to raising awareness about the importance of organ and tissue donation through his advocacy rides across Australia. He was moved to begin his advocacy work after his daughter, Melody, died in a car accident on Christmas Eve in December 2009. Melody became a multiple organ donor, ultimately saving the lives of three people through the generous gift her family decided to make.
I have heard from many of the people who were touched by David on his rides and have heard firsthand of the effect he had sharing his message and encouraging people across the country to talk about organ and tissue donation, as well as to register on the Australian Organ Donor Register. David's affinity with his fellow bikers led them to give him the moniker 'John the Baptist' because of the way he road from town to town spreading this important message. I am reminded of what David O'Leary, the President of Gift of Life, had to say in his tribute to David Gough at the recent memorial service. He said that David Gough was not just someone who had good intentions but someone who committed his time and energy to make a real and lasting contribution to the sector through his long-distance bike rides in rural areas. By meeting large numbers of people directly, and through the extensive media coverage he generated, he made a very real contribution. David's contribution was recognised and appreciated by others working in the sector and by all those he met, including those in very senior roles. Indeed, David was the recipient of the inaugural Terry Connolly Award for Community Awareness Raising at this year's ACT Chief Minister's Awards for organ and tissue donation awareness, arranged by Gift of Life in February, an award that was presented personally by Chief Minister Katy Gallagher.
The message David travelled Australia delivering is such an important one. Family members will always be asked to make the final decision on organ donation, and we know that when families have already discussed it the decision is immeasurably easier. David was due to travel to Transplant Australia's Transplant Games in September this year as part of their Journey of Hope campaign. I know that a number of the people David touched are already planning to pay tribute to David's legacy and ensure his important work continues into the future.
David is survived by his wife, Robyn, and his son, Tim. My thoughts are with Robyn and Tim at this time. David leaves an extraordinary legacy, one we should all be very proud of.
I have spoken often about the urgent need to upgrade the Bruce Highway through my electorate. I have grieved with the many families who have lost a loved one on this section of the road, I have lamented the inefficiencies and the delays that are caused by this road and I have certainly experienced for myself on a regular basis the dangers and difficulties of this section of the road. Motorists travelling on the dangerous Cooroy to Curra section have been cheated in the Gillard Labor government's budget, with not a single extra cent allocated towards this road over the next four years. Minister Albanese has frequently acknowledged publicly that this is the most dangerous section of the Bruce Highway. The RACQ said on budget night:
One in six deaths on national highways—
the whole national highways system—
occur on the Bruce Highway ...
They have identified this particular section, Cooroy to Curra sections A, C and D, as their highest priority for road upgrading. At the 2007 federal election, the coalition committed $700 million to begin the construction of the four-laning of this 60 kilometre section of road and we made a commitment to finish it by 2020. The Labor Party offered $200 million, but now it looks like not even that money is going to be spent. In the Nation Building Program, Labor offered $488 million, with a $125 million state government commitment to build section B of this upgrade, the road around the Traveston Crossing Dam. The Queensland government had promised to pay for it and build it themselves; that is why it was shovel-ready and chosen under the Nation Building Program. But, only a few weeks after the construction started, the Traveston Crossing Dam was axed. This project has continued and will be completed shortly, but in this budget the government has acknowledge that it is going to spend only $388 million on this road.
In the 2011 budget, Labor announced that it was taking $325 million off the Cooroy to Curra upgrade project and the Ipswich Motorway. The minister has refused to identify how much has been coming off each of these sections. He has refused to answer questions on notice. He has refused to allow his department to answer the questions before Senate estimates. We now know that at least $100 million has actually been taken off this road, so in fact people are doing worse than even the paltry amounts that were offered.
Too many lives have been lost and too many families have been touched by the horrid tragedies of the accidents on this notorious stretch of road. It is to the government's shame that it is not prepared to provide funding to see its upgrade.
Last week was a great week. It was a great week for the Western Corridor and particularly for all Ipswich Motorway users. After more than a decade of campaigning for an upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway, it took a Labor government to deliver it. That is the reality—a Labor government delivered it after more than 10 years and $1.76 billion of investment. The reality is that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon. Anthony Albanese; and the federal member for Blair, Shayne Neumann; and I officially opened a fully completed Ipswich Motorway. It is one of the most beautiful pieces of infrastructure in this country. It is one of the best delivered projects. It was six months ahead of schedule and under budget. That is proper road delivery. That is proper infrastructure delivery. That is the stuff that Labor does in this country compared to the bleating that we have from the sheep on the opposition side, who just carry on about roads but for 12 years would not deliver a road in their own electorates—not even one road.
The parliamentary secretary will refer to members by their title.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the member to withdraw his insulting comment.
Mr Husic interjecting—
You do not have the call. Parliamentary Secretary, I know we are taking your time. If there is less noise I will extend the courtesies to you, but I would ask that you withdraw that imputation.
I withdraw any reference to sheep.
No, I will sit you down. You will withdraw unreservedly.
I do withdraw unreservedly, completely, without reservation.
The parliamentary secretary now has the call.
This project is an example of good Labor government delivering really good infrastructure projects. We promised a project and we delivered it. We delivered it ahead of time, we delivered it on budget and we saved taxpayers' money.
This project is not just about the 90,000 road users on the Ipswich Motorway every single day; it is also about the people who live there. It is about their lifestyle, how they get their kids to school and how they go shopping. It is about the service roads and what we have done for pedestrians—linking communities once again. It is about cyclists being able to go up and down beside the motorway, not on the motorway. It is about making sure that there are real 21st century safety standards for all of the people who travel up and down the Western Corridor, through to places like Toowoomba, Warwick and Ipswich and back. It is for trucks and commuters alike. It is for everybody involved.
This is one the best projects in the country. It is an absolute star example of what can be done when governments at federal and state levels, but fully federally funded, work with an alliance group of contractors and with the community to deliver a fantastic project. We dealt with every single issue, every single concern, every single complaint to deliver a first-grade and absolutely first-class infrastructure project. It is just an example of what this Labor government can do. I am exceptionally proud of that. I am exceptionally proud that we delivered that immensely difficult project under full traffic conditions not only ahead of time but also ahead of budget.
Can I just remind people that all the way along, while this project was underway, the opposition, the Liberal and National parties, opposed it 100 per cent, but they had the audacity at the end of it to stand at the pulpit and claim some credit. Shame on them. I am very glad that the motorway is done and delivered by a Labor government.
I rise to talk about a failure of the Gillard government that again affects the people in need in the great state of Western Australia and that flies in the face of the role description of the relevant minister and his portfolio. As the patron of SIDS and Kids Western Australia, I attended a fundraising event on 3 May and was listening to 6PR in the car on my return to Perth. I heard the voice of Tina Gunter, a girl I had met through the Esther Foundation, talking on the Howard Sattler program about her experience with the naltrexone program, which is run by George O'Neil, called Fresh Start. I realised some funding had been withdrawn by the federal government for this highly successful program. It is the only one in Australia that actually takes opiate addicts off opiates—but then this government continues to fund programs that supply free needles to opiate users. Dr O'Neil's program had been dependent on the only $200,000 that is provided per annum for its counselling service by the federal government for over four years. The program run by Dr O'Neil has been universally recognised for its good work and recently even by Minister Plibersek, who wrote a letter to Dr O'Neil saying that the prevention pharmacology program was helpful. How then could Minister Plibersek work with Minister Butler to withdraw funding unexpectedly and out of the blue? As Dr O'Neil said in an email to me and the member for Curtin, 'You can't stop funding the only service in the country taking opiate addicts off opiates if you say it's a good service.' We see the Minister for Health withdrawing funding from a successful mental health program, and as Howard Sattler said, 'The minister claimed it was a state issue.' I ask the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing: since when has mental health become a state issue? If it is, what is your role, and why do you even need to have a portfolio?
Dr O'Neil has said that no-one from the Department of Health and Ageing with medical qualifications or any interest in relapse prevention pharmacotherapy has ever visited the program representing the minister for evaluation. The sudden decision to withdraw funding has affected counsellors employed and patients and is a 'very bad management style'. Dr O'Neil goes on to say that he would not have minded having to apply for funding and having appropriately trained people evaluate the program, but this never happened. I agree with Dr O'Neil and his recently published research shows that the program can reduce the risk of opiate overdose deaths post detox by 2,005 per cent. I urge the government to reconsider its decision which has clearly been made arbitrarily and with only the paper surplus in mind.
The Murray-Darling is the most important river system in this country. It is fundamental to South Australia's very existence. It is, quite simply, our state's lifeblood, and it is my firm opinion that the current 2,750 gigalitres that is outlined in the Murray-Darling Basin draft plan falls short of South Australia getting its fair share. There can be no doubt that history has favoured the upstream states when it comes to water allocation, and South Australia has too frequently been treated as a poor cousin in determining how to care for and how to share the river's resources. At times, what can only be described as arrogance and selfishness have been displayed in regard to our river. We need to be very clear that that bickering must stop now for the sake of the River Murray. South Australia have not actually increased the amount of water that we have taken from the Murray since 1969. We use just seven per cent of total extractions from the system. We need now to have our voices heard by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and ensure that their final report reflects the whole river's needs, an adequate return to water to ensure viability and to protect the whole river system, not just vested interests.
I have been proud to support the Advertiser's 'I heart Murray' campaign and also to put in a submission on the draft plan, advocating on behalf of my community for an issue that I know many, many people are very passionate about and that many of my local residents have been contacting me about. In particular, I have been arguing not only that we need an adequate return of water but also that groundwater must not be used as a way to compensate upstream irrigators for being required to manage allocations at a more reasonable and sustainable level. We also need to make sure that, as the constraints in the river system are being removed, we are reviewing the possibility of a return of more water going forward.
The people of Adelaide absolutely understand the importance of the River Murray and, as I meet with people in my electorate, they make it clear that they expect me to advocate for its future, as I have been doing since I was first elected in 2004. I made clear in my maiden speech to this parliament that I would stand and fight for the River Murray, to fight for its survival and to fight for its long-term future. Almost a decade later we finally have a chance to act in a real and a meaningful way. It is vital that this chance is not squandered in further political opportunism or fighting. I urge all members to put the River Murray first because it is vital for our whole nation.
In April, I had a very brave lady by the name of Miriam Sesay come into my office and tell me a very disturbing story about local youths who had abused and ridiculed her because of her racial origins on not one but two occasions. Miriam came to Australia as a political refugee in 2004 from Liberia in West Africa, after experiencing a life filled with frightening conflict. Miriam thought that she had left, as she described it, 'all the darkness behind,' when she came to Australia. It is a basic human right not a privilege to walk down the street regardless of your colour and background without being harassed and racially vilified.
In response to Miriam's experiences, I picked up the phone to my good friend and colleague Michael Keenan, the shadow minister for justice, customs and border protection, and asked him to come to Bonner and meet with my constituents at a crime forum to discuss Miriam's experiences. The forum provided a great opportunity for locals to raise concerns about crime and safety. It was also an opportunity for all levels of government, police and community leaders, schools, small business owners and residents to discuss future crime prevention strategies.
Residents raised concerns about the damaging effects of the spate of recent bikie gang violence in Queensland and the recent flood of illegal weapons and drugs that have hit our streets. Concerns have been raised about light sentencing by courts after police had done the hard work, taking criminals off the streets. Reduced Customs inspections of cargo under this Labor government has increased the risk of organised crime gangs importing guns and drugs. Many constituents afterwards told me that they were heartened to hear that a future coalition government would strengthen our borders to reduce the flow of guns and drugs to local communities. I want to thank the member for Stirling for caring about the people of Bonner, to come and hear firsthand the issues that individuals, families and community groups are concerned about.
The crime forum would not have been possible without community attendance and I thank all the Bonner constituents who have an active interest in the ongoing safety of our local community and for attending this forum to listen to others and, most importantly, to make their voice heard. My thanks also extend to the Superintendent Jim Keogh, a member for the crime forum panel, for his insightful and honest advice on the day; the Wynnum RSL, who hosted this most important community event; and, in particular, Mr Reg O'Malley, the president of the Wynnum RSL, and Jessica Walmsley, the functions coordinator of the Wynnum RSL.
I rise to highlight the resounding success of last week's Central Coast Innovation Summit. Attended by more than 210 people, representing industry, education, creative arts and enterprise, this was the second innovation summit to be held on the Central Coast. The keynote speaker for the event was my Labor colleague Senator the Hon. Kate Lundy, Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation. This year's theme, Creating a knowledge economy: the NBN, was selected as the topic by demand. This vital infrastructure investment is of particular importance to local businesses, who were very keen to hear more about the benefits of the NBN and superfast broadband, which is being fast-tracked on the coast. So great was the interest in the NBN from local industry that questions needed to be taken on notice for further consultation and discussion. The innovation summit attracted a range of high-quality speakers from the university, telecommunications and urban planning sectors. The innovation summit is a key contributor to the Central Cost innovation plan. We are one of 10 strategic regions around the country that are really investing heavily in innovation.
As a region, the Central Coast is somewhat of a pioneer when it comes to delivering an innovation plan. This really highlights the progressive nature of the Central Coast and our willingness to collaborate as a business and industry region. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the architect of innovation on the Central Coast, the chair of the innovation festival, Dr Anton Kriz. He is well assisted in the innovation plan project by the manager, Mr Frank Sammut. I also want to note very much the contribution of Mr Paul Budde. Paul is one of the pre-eminent telecom strategy experts in the world and he is working with the Central Coast broadband infrastructure group to deliver a world-class digital economy strategy. In relation to the summit and the event itself, can I congratulate Mr Chris King, who did a wonderful job as MC for the day which he does at so many of our fantastic local events. I certainly look forward to working with these outstanding leaders, who are recognised for their work at an international level but choose to live and work in the beautiful Central Coast. I also want to thank the sponsors for the event, TAFE, AusIndustry and RDA Central Coast. As I stated earlier, businesses on the Central Coast are very forward thinking and progressive. I look forward to working alongside the creators of the Central Coast Innovation Summit to achieve the outcomes of the innovation plan, because this will change the access to opportunities for people who want to live and work in our region instead of having to go to Sydney for jobs and better pay. The continued growth and prosperity of the Central Coast is reliant on business innovation and investment of national infrastructure, as has been delivered by the Gillard government.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
Previously, I was warning that there may be additional businesses and entities in the south-west, other than those on the government's liable entities list, which may have to pay the carbon tax. This is the monumentally stupid and now infamous carbon tax, the carbon tax the Prime Minister and Treasurer both said we would not have. I remember that in the lead-up to the last election any suggestion by the coalition that Labor would introduce a carbon tax was described by the Treasurer as 'hysterical'. It is a tax which clearly is not an environmental plan but is a wealth distribution scheme to meet Labor's politics of envy and division of Australians.
I note that 104 local governments have also been approached by the Clean Energy Regulator in its search for new carbon tax targets, and it expects up to 70 per cent of them will pay up. This list of 104 includes two in my electorate—Collie and Harvey shires. This means that the people of Collie and Harvey may well be paying additional carbon tax directly via their power bills or indirectly through increased transport costs on all their goods and may well be paying the carbon tax again through increased shire rates.
When it comes to transport costs, there are other carbon hits. Regional communities have food delivered in refrigerated trucks and they will be hit with the diesel carbon tax in 2014. The refrigerant itself used to keep our food fresh will also be hit by the carbon tax. One large trucking company has already estimated their annual carbon tax cost for refrigerants alone at $180,000. This cost will either have to be absorbed by transport companies, many of which are still finding business quite tough, or be felt by businesses and families. Every refrigerated truck taking food to Australian families will now be the carbon tax collector for the Labor government. As time goes by, I have no doubt we will be inundated by other examples of businesses, families and communities being hit by more carbon taxes.
This is the tax the Treasurer called the very mention of, in the run-up to the election, 'hysterical'. We were hysterical to even mention that the Labor government would do this. We were hysterical, yet here we have it. This again is the tax about which the Prime Minister said only days before the election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Let me tell you that rural and regional Australians know very well that there is a carbon tax and that they are going to pay disproportionately, particularly through transport costs. When the diesel fuel excise change happens, Australians who live in rural and regional parts of this country will pay disproportionately. Australian businesses, individuals and families will pay, and they will pay for the betrayal of this government. This is a budget of fake surpluses and smoke and mirrors accounting. This is the budget Labor has used to further divide the Australian people. As I said previously, business after business is going to be impacted by this tax. There are a lot of cool stores and cool rooms out there and there are a lot of farming businesses that will not be able to pass on that carbon tax. They will have to find some way within their businesses to absorb that additional cost. I see over and over again in my community that this will be a further impost on rural and regional Australia. It is clearly something that the government has given no consideration to—the additional impact of the carbon tax on rural and regional electorates like my own.
It is a pleasure today to rise to speak on the appropriation bills and the budget. Like many Australians, I am very happy with this budget because it is a very good budget. It is a very well-crafted budget and it is one that I know my colleagues are rightfully very proud of. The budget is good for the economy and it is good for Australians.
It says a lot about the values of this government and, indeed, the values of our Treasurer that even when we need to make tough cuts we are able to ensure that we increase assistance to low- and middle-income families and pensioners. It says a lot about the values of this government that even while delivering on our commitment to return the budget to surplus we are able to make a down payment on important social reforms such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
The disability insurance scheme is all about making life easier for those who have a disability and for their families and carers—decent people who often work very hard and give so much of their life to looking after their loved ones. The Gillard Labor government believe that, as a society, we should make sure that we do all we can to improve support and services to these people to make their life a little easier. It also says a lot about the values of our government and, indeed, about the economic nous of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that in these tough times we continue to make the long-term investments that we need in schools, in training, in education and in infrastructure. This is because we know that education is not the only key determinant of a nation's long-term prosperity but that education is the great enabler that opens up an individual's life path to better jobs, to higher wages and to improved health and social outcomes.
I also want to talk a little about the current economic environment. We can see that many economies in Europe face deep economic challenges as they struggle to deal with their sovereign debt crisis and restore growth. Developments in Europe have triggered volatility in global financial markets—the US share market is down by seven per cent since the start of May and the Australian market is down by eight per cent. We are not immune from this economic instability but, because we took action during the global financial crisis, supporting jobs through our stimulus package, we are in a very good position to weather what is happening abroad. While some sectors of the economy are hurting from a high dollar, we are doing very well as a nation. We have strong growth, low unemployment, contained inflation, a huge pipeline of investment, very low debt and we are returning the budget to surplus on time as promised.
Let us put these facts in context. Solid growth means that our economy is expected to outperform every single major advanced economy over the next two years. Our unemployment rate is 4.9 per cent. That is less than half the rate seen across Europe—10.9 per cent—and far below other advanced economies. And, we have a fantastic record of job creation with around 800,000 jobs created since Labor came to office.
I would like to take a moment to reflect on the government's record on jobs because it is a tremendous achievement. If we had listened to the opposition, who did not support our stimulus package, we would be in a situation where hundreds of thousands more Australians were out of a job. Around 70 per cent of the stimulus package was devoted to building infrastructure which will have a long-term legacy for our nation. In my electorate of Isaacs alone, over $108 million has been invested under the Building the Education Revolution program in improving the quality of education provided to students and generating jobs. This investment kept the construction industry going during 2009 and 2010 and into 2011, a time when there was a sharp downturn in other projects in the construction industry across Australia and in my electorate. I heard time and time again when I went to open Building the Education Revolution projects in my electorate not only congratulations from school communities on the lasting benefits to their schools of the buildings that were constructed but also congratulations from those involved in the building of those projects—tradespeople and people in the construction industry who knew and indeed said to me often, 'Were it not for this Building the Education Revolution program I would be at home with my feet on the couch twiddling my thumbs while I looked for work.' That is the difference we have made.
It is worth contemplating the difference that has been made by the stimulus package and indeed the difference that is made by that kind of economic policy in general. It is worth contemplating the waste that would have occurred had we not stimulated the economy. The waste I am talking about is the waste that comes with recession—failed businesses, lost jobs and long-term unemployment. The opposition loves to wallow in talking about waste, which occurs in every single human activity: it is always possible to point with the benefit of hindsight to some kind of waste somewhere in some project. But there are two kinds of waste. There is the first kind of waste, which I have just spoken of—lost jobs, failed businesses and long-term unemployment—and the other kind of waste, which is some overspending in some aspects of some projects and, even there, just to take the Building the Education Revolution program as an example, only a very small proportion of projects were identified as having generated some kind of waste. Given the choice between the two kinds of waste, I know the kind of waste that I would prefer. We stand for jobs. We have generated jobs, and we have also acted by getting rid of Work Choices to make sure that, when people do have a job, it is a secure and fairly paid job. That is what we stand for, and that is because we manage the economy in the interests of working people.
The list of economic achievements goes on. There is low inflation—it is well within the target band at 2.1 per cent in the March quarter; there are low interest rates—the cash rate is sitting at 3.75 per cent, lower than at any time under the 11½ years of the previous coalition government; we have very low debt—net debt as a percentage of GDP will peak at around one-tenth of the level of the average across major advanced economies; and now, as promised, we are returning the budget to surplus in 2012-13, ahead of every single major advanced economy. Our strong fundamentals together with our proven track record make us uniquely placed to deal with the worst that the world can throw at us. The budget gets our economic settings right because, by returning the nation's finances to surplus, we give ourselves a buffer to act in the future. We acted decisively to stimulate the economy after the global financial crisis by going into a temporary deficit and now, as the economy improves, we are allowing monetary policy to play a bigger role.
People listening to the bleatings of the opposition should bear in mind that this is a growing economy: it is in growth, and is going to continue to grow. Those indicators that I have just run through should come as a reality check to those opposite, who continue to talk the economy down at every opportunity. I see that the member for Indi is with us in the chamber. She is one of those who talks down the economy for partisan and temporary political advantage at every opportunity, ignoring the economic indicators that on every measure show the strength of our economy and the skill with which we as a Labor government have managed this economy in the interests of working people. The budget has been well received by Australians, and I think this is because at heart Australians are an egalitarian bunch—we understand, and indeed expect, that fairness will be at the heart of economic policy-making. I know that those opposite have no regard for fairness. When they have been in government they have shown that and also from opposition, with their rejection of those parts of the budget that they have thus far been able to bring themselves to express a view about—because one would not actually know, listening to the opposition leader's budget reply speech—such as the schoolkids bonus, something that will help Australian families with kids at school deal with the costs that they are facing. That policy, that measure, has been rejected by those opposite.
I think that emphasis on fairness is why people have been so supportive of the tough savings that have been made in this budget, and indeed people have been encouraged by the support that we have given to parents, to pensioners, to students and to the unemployed. As the Treasurer often reminds us, for many Australians it feels like it is someone else's mining boom. That is why our budget contains important measures to help households make ends meet. More than 1.5 million families will benefit from increases to Family Tax Benefit Part A from 1 July next year, with nearly half of those taking home an extra $600 a year. Again, we can say that, because of the rejection of this policy by the shadow Treasury spokesman, the member for North Sydney, who has rejected this increase in Family Tax Benefit Part A, those opposite simply do not care about the cost of living, do not care about those struggling to make ends meet in our society.
There is to be a new supplementary payment which will help the unemployed, students and parents on income support meet the costs of essential bills, worth $210 a year for singles and $350 a year for couples. This package, combined with the new schoolkids bonus, which will support over 9,000 families in my electorate, will provide around $5 billion in total in support to households, which will in turn support consumption, business activity and jobs across the economy. And of course this builds on the household assistance we have already announced as part of the clean energy future package that will see increases in family payments, allowances and pensions begin flowing over the next few weeks as well as tax cuts for all taxpayers earning up to $80,000 a year from 1 July through a tripling of the tax-free threshold—another measure which the opposition have made clear they are quite happy to take away; another measure which the opposition oppose.
I want to finish up before commending the bills to the House to remark on what has been another shameful and misleading scare campaign being waged by the opposition, who long ago departed from reality when it comes to economic growth—or, indeed, addressing climate change for that matter. But I am not going to talk about the scare campaign on climate change; I am going to talk about the scare campaign on debt which the opposition have been running. It is nothing more than a misleading attempt to garner some economic credibility, and I can understand why the opposition might crave economic credibility: because this is an opposition which would have stood idly by and let hundreds of thousands of Australians lose their jobs by failing to act when the global financial crisis hit. This is an opposition which have a $70 billion black hole in their costings—self-admitted.
Let's be clear: Australia's public finances are among the strongest in the world, underpinned by very low public debt, strong fiscal discipline and a return to surplus in 2012-13. We did the right thing going into temporary deficit to stimulate the economy after the global financial crisis; we acted to ensure that this crisis did not turn into a prolonged recession here, as it has in so many other nations. Australia's net debt peaks at around one-tenth of the average of major advanced economies. For the first time in Australia's history we have been awarded the gold plated AAA credit rating by all three global rating agencies—a status never achieved by the Liberal government in its 11½ years of government. And now, again by way of comparison with other countries, Australia is one of only eight countries in the world to have that AAA credit rating with a stable outlook from all three major rating agencies.
This is a very good budget. We are returning the budget to surplus, on time and as promised. It is a fair budget because we are spreading the benefits of the mining boom to help families on modest incomes and small business. And it is a budget for the long term because it gets us back in the black while continuing to make investments in the nation's future—investments in education, in training, in health and in infrastructure.
I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2012-2013 and associated bills—and how can one not comment on the previous contribution? It is pitifully embarrassing in some ways when we hear members on the other side talk about standing for jobs. There is only one job they are standing for and that is saving Julia Gillard's at any cost—whether it is at the economy's cost, whether it is at Australian workers' cost, it is to save that job. The previous speaker went on to talk about talking down the economy and criticised us for not being egalitarian. Well, while he is over there bagging the opposition for supposedly not being egalitarian, perhaps instead of just receiving the votes of the members of the Isaacs electorate, he might decide not to live more than 26 kilometres away and join them. Aren't they good enough to live amongst? It is not as if there has been a redistribution and his house is slightly outside the electorate. But that is the typical patrician arrogance of some members opposite, who talk about egalitarianism, who talk about the worker, but God forbid they live amongst them: 'We couldn't have that! We couldn't have leaving the leafy suburbs of East Malvern to live amongst the workers in Isaacs! But they can vote for me, they can put me in parliament—that's my entitlement, I suppose.' It is not just former union officials in this place who are used to an entitlement culture, it is also the patricians on the other side. So perhaps if he wants to be egalitarian, to live amongst your own people would be a good start, or even a little closer than more than 26 kilometres.
What do we see in this budget? The same deception, the same fraud, the same pretence to care about the Australian people and Australian workers as we have seen from the contribution from the member for Isaacs. We see a really amateurish attempt to con the media and Australian voters that somehow this government has all of a sudden become responsible. All of a sudden they are going to deliver a wafer-thin $1.5 billion surplus for the 2012-13 year. This is despite the fact that they have not produced a single surplus. This is despite the fact that they get all their figures wrong at every single stage of the prediction. And how have they achieved these cooked books of a budget surplus? It has something to do with raising this year's deficit from $23 billion to $44 billion by bringing forward spending and with having money for projects like the NBN off the budget.
When you do all those tricky measurements and manoeuvres of moving money into one year and pushing it out to forward years, of course you are going to get some pathetic wafer-thin margin. In fact, just by bringing forward two programs, the back-to-school payments and the local government grants, the government are artificially saving $1.5 billion. But what is the point when they are still borrowing $100 million a day? What is the point when the government are saying they have to increase the debt ceiling by $50 billion? If they were going to achieve a surplus, or if anyone believed they were going to achieve a surplus, they would not need to increase the debt ceiling from $250 billion to $300 billion. The reality is they do not believe it either. And when you do not believe what you are prosecuting, it makes it very difficult for anyone else to believe it. It is interesting that when the Treasurer—sometimes you have got to remember that Wayne Swan is the Treasurer; woe, what depths we have sunk to as a nation—was asked about why he would need to raise the debt limit if he, supposedly, is going to deliver a surplus, he said, 'Well, very simply, this is no big deal.' I have news for you, Mr Swan: $50 billion is a very big deal. The net debt, which is rising to $145 billion, is a very big deal. Your reckless spending is an enormous deal. Whether this Labor government is led by Julia Gillard or Wayne Swan or Bill Shorten or Mr Smith or Mr Combet or Mr Crean does not matter; it does not matter who leads the Labor Party to the next election. There is one fact for certain: they will not be the ones paying back the enormous debt they have amassed and squandered through their gross and base mismanagement. We have seen in 18 months this government's estimated deficit for this year blow out by $12 billion. Just like that, $12 billion. If $50 billion is no big deal, what is $12 billion to this government? In the last four years their cumulative record deficits have reached $174 billion. This is a government of records—record lows when it comes to accountability, record lows when it comes to good policy but record highs when it comes to absolute front and absolute mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars and borrowed funds.
We keep on getting told this is a great Labor budget. What is this great Labor budget doing? It is delivering the world's biggest carbon tax, rendering our manufacturers even less competitive against imports that will not have a carbon tax imposed upon them, and it is stifling confidence like you would not believe, at a time when companies should be taking advantage of the high dollar to bring in machinery that will set them up to be that bit more productive, that bit more competitive, at the next upswing in the economy. They are not doing that, because they just do not have any confidence to go out there and borrow money—let alone what this government's budget and its carbon tax are doing to confidence in the consumer market.
The Labor Party talks about scare campaigns. The opposition does not need to run any scare campaigns, because this Labor government is scaring the hell out of voters as it is. They look at you; they look at your record. They do not look at what you say. They look at what you do because you say there will be no carbon tax under a Labor government, yet there is; you say there will be a deal with Mr Wilkie on pokies, and there is not; and you say there are going to be budget surpluses, and everyone knows that is an absolute farce. The more this government neglects the wishes of mainstream Australia purely to stitch up yet another day, yet another week, yet another month, yet another 18 months in government, the more it will stand condemned. There must be some good people on the other side who know all of this. Where are they? It is their responsibility to stand up for good government because by their silence they too risk being condemned by the utterly unworthy incompetence that has debased the Australian parliament like never before.
As a member representing a rural and regional area, it pains me to see what this budget has done to rural and regional areas. We have seen the deferral of almost $1 billion for water savings infrastructure that would have meant farmers could upgrade, irrigators could upgrade and local businesses could have some confidence that there is this investment in important infrastructure. But that has been deferred. What this actually tells us about the government is that it does not really care about efficient and effective use of our scarce resources like water; it does not care about even more delays in dealing with the issues in the Murray-Darling Basin. It just shows you that the care factor is nil. And why wouldn't it be, when the Murray-Darling Basin is dominated by coalition electorates? It does not really care about the people who live there or the businesses—otherwise, the funding for this priority issue would not have been pushed to outward years.
We have also seen that this budget has the lowest road funding in a decade. Country people know that there are significant fatalities and that they, proportionally, suffer more from road fatalities. Safety on roads is a basic, fundamental expenditure that is required, not just for people to be safe but for them to move around and for commerce to operate. But this budget contains zero new spending on roads or rail in the 2012-13 year and, overall, expenditure on roads plummets from $6.2 billion in the 2011-12 year to $2.6 billion in the 2012-13 year, with at least $2.3 billion brought forward or deferred from 2012-13. That is a great disappointment to the people of my electorate. That is a great disappointment to rural people across the country—and to those living in our capital cities, particularly in the developing outer suburbs.
Where have the government cut money? Let us have a look. What is one of the basic responsibilities of a national government? One would have thought that having a functioning, viable defence force would be a basic primary responsibility of a national government. But what have we seen? Their waste and mismanagement, throwing billions down the drain, has meant that they have got to cut defence by $5.5 billion. That is a 10 per cent reduction in overall investment, and the biggest single reduction in defence spending since the Korean War.
We know that this government is going to cut 1,000 defence jobs, and it is up to this government to explain where those jobs will be, right across the country, and also to give a guarantee to the serving men and women of this country and their families that soldiers will not face increased risks from lower investment in the things that keep them safe, in soldier survivability and relevant equipment. You give that commitment, Prime Minister, because that is the least that our serving men and women and their families deserve.
But, then again, this is probably like other groups in the community that the Prime Minister does not like—she thinks: 'Oh well, predominantly they probably don't vote for the Labor Party, so who cares? We can cut money from defence.' That may be a bit of a cynical approach, but you know what? That is what people out there in the electorate of Indi tell me. That is what people out there in the electorates in the west of Sydney tell me. That is what people on the main streets of our capital cities tell me, because they cannot trust, they cannot have faith, and they are extraordinarily cynical about such a transparently Machiavellian government.
What else does this government do? It does actually harm an area that is extraordinarily significant to country areas: the health workforce program. Sixty-seven point nine million dollars has been torn out of the Rural Education Infrastructure Development Pool, Health Workforce Australia programs and the health workforce flexible fund. And why? Why have these programs been cut? No explanation has been given and, when we have the issue of an increasing, ageing population and when we have great demand for health services and health professionals, now is the time we can least afford to cut back on these programs. Country people need to travel. Country businesses need to use transport services and freight services. They are also going to be slugged disproportionately because the government has budgeted to increase heavy vehicle user charges by $160 million next year.
With all of the promises this government have made, with all of the money they are giving out, do you know what people are saying? They are saying, 'Please, get rid of this mob as soon as possible. We will take the money they give us, but we are not going to vote for them. What do they think we are—stupid?'
I just get amazed by the contradiction in all of this. The Liberals were higher taxing than we are. We have a deficit which was to keep people in jobs and we have a debt that is more than manageable and that the World Bank insists on us having. So I am just amazed that this is even raised. But they are not smart enough to know that they are trying to fool many of the people most of the time.
The budget handed down in 2012 by the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, will deliver a strong and fair future for all Australians. This budget is about spreading the benefits of the mining boom to all corners of our country by delivering much needed financial relief for families and businesses under pressure. The Gillard government understand the pressures on working families to make ends meet. That is why we are easing those pressures through tax cuts and increasing payments.
We are also boosting assistance to older people to support them in their retirement or while still working and have introduced new initiatives to help younger people support themselves while studying or learning a trade. This budget delivers a surplus not only for this year but for the next four years—a powerful endorsement of the strength of our economy, resilience of our people and success of our policies. Our economy is one of the world's strongest, which is a testament to Treasurer Swan's sound economic management. This budget will continue to put downward pressure on interest rates whilst also providing the vulnerable and less fortunate with more disposable income. A combination of these factors can only create increased confidence in our economy, which in turn will be good news for small business operators not only in my electorate of Bass but Australia wide.
From the firm foundations of a surplus budget the Gillard Labor government has announced new policies to spread the benefits of the mining boom. We understand that Australian families face many pressures. That is why we are delivering $47 billion in personal income tax cuts and tripling the tax-free threshold to benefit low- and middle-income earners. The $3.6 billion Spreading the Benefits of the Boom package is sharing the proceeds of the mining tax with families and small businesses. From 1 July all small businesses can immediately write off eligible assets that they buy for less than $6,500 and up to $5,000 for cars and utes. This will drive investment and improve productivity in small businesses around the country. This news is warmly received by the business community in my electorate.
The Tasmanian business community have also embraced the continued rollout of the National Broadband Network, being laid out as we speak. The NBN enables small businesses to reach out across the globe in a way that has never been available to them before. This enables them to grow their businesses, accessing new markets, opportunities and avenues for promoting their businesses and products both nationally and internationally. Many businesses in my electorate tell me they are taking orders, bookings and inquiries for their products through an ever-increasing capacity over the internet because of the high speeds and capabilities that the NBN provides.
Recently Senator Helen Polley, Senator Catryna Bilyk, Senator Carol Brown and I were in Scottsdale and we heard from local businesses there about how the NBN has assisted them in doing business more efficiently. I believe that technology has changed all of our lives for the better. We can now communicate with loved ones on the other side of the world or conduct business at any time of the day. We can find out news in an instant which would have previously taken days or weeks. In Australia governments and the community are embracing these opportunities as we roll out the National Broadband Network to homes across the country.
In the 21st century communications has become an essential utility, like electricity and water. Australian families rely on it and Australian businesses need it, yet those opposite see it as a cost, not an investment. They fail to see the opportunities it can provide. The Tasmanian Liberal state team have embraced the NBN. A former member of this place, now a Liberal member of state parliament, Michael Ferguson MP, claims that the opportunities of the NBN are tremendous. Without world-class broadband Australia will fall behind the rest of the world and our economy will suffer. Our businesses will not have the tools they need to compete with businesses around the world. Those opposite have a policy of putting communications towers on every second hill and 100-year-old copper wire as the communication model for the 21st century.
The great challenge for Australia is to harness the wealth from the current resources boom to improve our productivity and diversify our economy. The Gillard government is taking this decisive action to support those with a disability. To get the care and support they need and deserve, the budget commits $1 billion over four years to roll out the first stage of the NDIS, which I hope will be trialled in Tasmania. The budget also provides $515 million to address the immediate dental care needs of people on the public dental care waiting list. This is important because the current lack of universal access to high-quality dental health services has a significant impact on the health outcomes of Australians.
I was also pleased to tell my electorate that 15 per cent of the people in Bass will benefit from the extension of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. This will now include screening for people over the age of 60, in 2013, and over the age of 70, in 2015.
For families, the schoolkids bonus will include new cash bonuses of $410 for each child in primary school and $820 for each high school student. This replaces the Education Tax Refund: locally in Bass there are an estimated 1,250 families missing out on this payment. There are 6,900 families in the Bass electorate who expect to receive these new benefits. There are also more than 9,000 local families who will receive an increase of up to $600 on their Family Tax Benefit Part A payments. This is in addition to the supplementary allowances that we will be delivering to help with the cost of living for 9,646 young people, single parents and unemployed people in my electorate of Bass.
Also in this budget was $5.2 million for improvement of the Bell Bay intermodal terminal. This project will improve road and rail access to the Burnie intermodal terminal to allow it to manage expected growth. I look forward to this project and the opportunities it will create.
I also had the pleasure of making the pre-budget announcement of $6.8 million for St Giles to redevelop the Amy Road site to include paediatric centre implementation of modern e-health structures for people with a disability. The Gillard government is committed to helping Australians gain improved access to quality health care where and when they need it. This funding will go a long way to helping to meet the current and future demands of paediatric disability services right across Tasmania.
As a Labor government we will always manage the economy in the interests of working people. That means delivering a surplus while also making room for critical investments in health infrastructure. This is a big win for Launceston. Not only will this mean improved paediatric and disability services for all Tasmanians but the facility will mean more health professionals are attracted to the area. Ian Wright, the CEO of the St Giles Society, said that this means for the first time in 75 years St Giles will have purpose built premises that are family and workforce friendly and provide opportunities for increased professional and specialist collaboration.
The St Giles Society successfully applied for funding from the government's Health and Hospitals Fund. Their application was assessed by the independent HHF advisory board. This initiative is one of many projects being funded by the HHF in the 2012-13 budget to help regional health services networks manage the expected increase in demand for services over the coming years. This, together with $18.7 million for the Scottsdale Defence Science and Technology Organisation, demonstrates Labor's commitment to the north-east. Improvement of the DSTO had been under consideration for the past 15 years. It is now being funded by the Labor government. Between 20 and 30 new jobs will be created during the construction phase of the project and, for the most part, we hope with subcontractors from the north-east of Tasmania employed on the construction work. The works include the redevelopment of a food technology facility, upgrade to existing chemistry and nutrition labs and improvements in the site infrastructure and working areas. The redevelopment will result in a modern food science facility equipped to meet the future nutritional needs of the Australian Defence Force personnel and support their performance in highly demanding operational environments.
The redevelopment of the Scottsdale site is part of an initiative to establish a new centre for food innovation for which the University of Tasmania and the CSIRO are partnering with the Defence Science Technology Organisation. The north-east region has been particularly hard hit in recent years with a downturn in the dairy processing and forest industries and the closure of vegetable processing facilities. I believe this region has a bright future, thanks to projects such as this one and through our investments in irrigation infrastructure and the National Broadband Network.
The 2012-13 budget delivered a further $102.6 million to start, progress or complete road projects in Tasmania. Already, the federal Labor government has increased annual infrastructure spending per Tasmanian from $157 to $264. This is significant. After 11 years of Howard government neglect, we are acting. Some of the major projects that will go from drawing board stage to construction in the coming financial year are the North East Freight Roads package—federal contribution $34 million, including widening and realigning of the Bridport Main Road—$1.6 million to eliminate another 12 dangerous black spots in Tasmania and $38.7 million to assist councils across the state to maintain and upgrade their local roads.
Not only are we investing in infrastructure but also we are investing in skill development of our workforce for the future. The federal government is helping 260 workers across Tasmania to undertake further training to meet the skills of industry. Labor is negotiating with the Tasmanian government to provide HECS-style loans for local students studying for a diploma or advanced diploma, allowing TAFE students to study now and pay later. The federal government is negotiating with the Tasmanian government to provide subsidised training places for local people who want to gain new skills up to certificate III, and that will also roll out from July. This is great news for the north-east of Tasmania.
The Greater Launceston Plan will receive $320,000 in funding as part of the federal government's Liveable Cities Program. The funding will allow the region to plan for its future, taking into account future public transport, water and land use needs, the best placement for new employment and industrial precincts, population growth, demographic change and community aspirations.
The Labor government believes in the tremendous opportunities of the mining boom and that they should be fairly shared with all Australians. The mineral resources of Australia are owned by all of us, therefore the benefits from the resource should be shared by all of us. This budget does exactly that. It delivers much-needed financial relief for families and businesses under pressure. It will protect low and middle income Australians and our most vulnerable communities. Along with reforms like the historic first step towards a National Disability Insurance Scheme, aged care and the blitz on dental waiting lists, the Gillard Labor government is returning the budget to surplus on time and as promised. We will continue to support those most in need.
I too rise to talk on the Appropriation Bills 2012-13. It is no secret from the rhetoric used by the Treasurer and other members of the government that this is a budget that seeks not to unite but to tear apart. It does not seek to do anything to create wealth but just distribute wealth. As the Treasurer has admitted, this is a typical Labor budget. It is full of the usual Labor tricks, using smoke and mirrors that one has come to expect from this government. Labor has massaged the numbers to create the illusion of this microscopic surplus, pushing critical expenditure out into other financial years. What has become apparent is that Labor has unquestionably delivered another budget failure.
I wanted to concentrate on a number of areas but I wanted to start on my home state in Western Australia and the negative effects of this budget for Western Australia. Western Australia has all but been ignored by the Gillard Labor government in this budget, especially when it comes to the distribution of the GST. The Labor government is set to slash $11 million from the national GST pool over the next four years, including all federal payments. Western Australia will receive just 88c in the dollar on a per capita basis which is the lowest in the nation. Despite the fact that Western Australia has the fastest growing economy in the country and has created 50,000 new jobs in the last 12 months alone, anyone with an understanding about what is going on in the Australian economy will know that it is the strength of the Western Australian economy that is actually masking the weakness of the Australian economy in general. In comparison, New South Wales will receive 94c in the dollar, Victoria 93c and Queensland 98c in the dollar. Under this Labor government Western Australia faces its share of the GST plummeting to a measly 29c in the dollar within two years—a situation that the Western Australian government and all Western Australians do not believe is feasible to continue.
The larger than expected GST cut will have an acute effect on the state's economy, with only $656 million allocated for the next financial year. Labor are taking the benefits of Western Australia's mining boom away from the local community and local businesses, and are instead spreading it amongst a range of projects on the east coast. Tasmania and the territories are set to receive about $660 million worth of Western Australia's GST revenue this coming financial year—a figure that is likely to only increase in the following years. When asked by the West Australian why Western Australia had received such a small part of GST distribution, Treasurer Wayne Swan replied that he had 'spread the benefits of the boom to the sort of people who are actually under costs of living pressure'. I would like to say to the Treasurer on behalf of my electorate of Stirling, and the local families and local businesses that I represent, that they will be offended that he does not think that they are under costs of living pressure. It just strikes me as breathtaking arrogance to say that about these hardworking Australians.
Labor claim that this budget is about helping hardworking families, yet in the same breath this government are set to launch the world's biggest carbon tax, with dire consequences for local businesses and the families whom they support. Electricity prices are set to soar by 10 per cent and gas by nine per cent in the first year of this tax alone, a rate that many Australian households will not be able to afford. The Western Australian government have tried very hard to help Western Australian families as best they can by only increasing electricity prices by 3½ per cent, at a cost to them which was revealed in the recent state budget of $300 million.
The budget papers confirm that despite falling international prices, Labor's toxic tax will go up to $29 a tonne in just three years. At a time when families require all the assistance possible to deal with these sharp rises in daily living pressure, this government can justify spending an extra $36 million on taxpayer funded carbon tax advertising over the next two years. Of course, although it is carbon tax advertising, it does not once mention the carbon tax. I think most Australians would believe that this is $36 million that could certainly be better spent.
Predictably, Labor have stopped funding vital local programs in my electorate of Stirling. The award-winning Real Connections program was a great example of a local community working together to engage Stirling's young people and in return create a safer and more secure future for our neighbourhoods. Yet the Gillard Labor government have ceased to fund this great local program, knowing full well that this is a program that cannot continue without that funding. This is just another example of the Gillard Labor government's inability to understand what is important to my constituents. Another funding opportunity that the government never bothered to follow through on was the Reid Highway/Mirrabooka Avenue overpass, which this year was completed solely by funding from the West Australian Liberal government. Hundreds of local families in Stirling have raised this black spot with me and the need to improve it, and it was at one stage the worst black spot in Western Australia.
This year's budget demonstrates no plan the build a stronger economy, repay debt or create secure jobs. One of my biggest concerns for Stirling residents is that the budget papers forecast a rise in unemployment to 5.5 per cent. Last year's budget promised half a million new jobs over two years, but the government now expects that that target will be missed by 200,000 jobs. Meanwhile, the government is cutting $200 million out of the Job Services program.
My constituents in Stirling are under real cost-of-living pressures, even though the federal Treasurer does not understand or realise that—indeed, he has contemptuously said that it is appropriate for him to take money away from them to fund people who are apparently under real cost-of-living pressures elsewhere. Clearly the carbon tax, once it is introduced in the next 40 days, is going to contribute to that cost-of-living pressure. I am greatly concerned about what that might do, particularly for some of the vulnerable suburbs in my electorate—suburbs that have traditionally voted Labor, by the way. I am greatly concerned about what that might do because these are suburbs that have traditionally had entrenched disadvantage within them and contain many vulnerable communities, including many new arrivals to Australia, who have arrived under our very generous humanitarian program—the legal way—so I am very concerned about what this cost-of-living pressure is going to mean for those communities.
I wanted to say a few words about my portfolio responsibilities of Justice, Customs and Border Protection, particularly about Labor's gross mismanagement of these particular responsibilities. Australia's border protection and national security agencies have been systematically targeted by the Labor Party since the Labor government came to office. They are agencies that are already under unprecedented strain, and they are being asked to perform miracles with the resources at their disposal and the pressures that they are under because of the complete collapse of any semblance of an orderly border protection system in Australia. It is very difficult for me to understand why these agencies have been so systematically attacked by Labor at a time when those border protection pressures are so obvious for anyone to see. Yesterday we had two boats arrive here illegally. A day before that we had a record-breaking arrival of 175 people, yet Customs has had a cumulative budget cut by the Labor Party, since the government changed, of $750 million. It has also had significant personnel cuts. So their responsibilities are increasing dramatically, yet their budget and personnel are decreasing dramatically. Clearly that is going to make it impossible for them to do the job that is expected of them, which is to protect Australia's borders.
I am at a loss to understand why every Labor budget has done the same thing to this agency. As a result of the latest cuts that Customs and Border Protection will be subjected to under this budget, we are going to have fewer sets of eyes and ears checking for drugs and weapons at Australia's international airports and ports. There will be less cargo inspected and there will be fewer staff to patrol our borders. This of course is a great leg-up for criminals who want to bring contraband into Australia, such as illegal guns, drugs and precursors to drugs. It is one of the reasons we have seen such an enormous up-tick in illegal guns coming through our borders—because of the difficulty that Customs has in actually doing its job. Labor are failing to do what I consider to be a basic job for a federal government, which is to protect our borders from outside threats.
In this budget alone Labor are cutting another 190 staff from Customs. As I said, the cumulative total of these cuts, including that 190 personnel, is a whopping 750 staff since the government changed in 2007. With 314 illegal boat arrivals having come since the government changed in 2007, carrying over 18,000 people, it is really no wonder that Customs are struggling to do the job that is expected of them.
Customs are suffering from these budget cuts in their border protection responsibilities, but also money has been cut from passenger facilitation—which means that, when you are queuing up at an international airport in Australia you can blame the excessive queues and the difficulty that you are having in getting processed on these very significant budget cuts. A further $10.4 million was taken from passenger facilitation in this budget, at a time when passenger arrivals are to increase from 32 million to 38 million within the next four years. The $34 million hit that Customs has already taken has had the effect of reducing staff across primary Customs sites at eight major international airports, and the further funding cuts that have occurred in this budget are clearly going to make that worse. At a point when Customs continues to struggle, Labor have decided to take the scalpel to Customs in this budget. Due to the fact that I am running short of time, I will highlight some of the further cuts that have been made to this agency: $25.9 million cut from their overall budget; $8.7 million slashed from Customs and Border Protection enforcement programs; $2.5 million cut from trade facilitation; $7.2 million axed from the civil maritime surveillance response; and $3 million cut from Customs and given to ACLEI, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. I am deeply worried about the state of Customs under the Labor Party. You cannot keep increasing their responsibilities in this way by failing to control illegal arrivals into Australia and then savaging their personnel and budget and expect that they are going to be able to do the job to the standard that is expected of them by the Australian people.
Sadly, it is not just Customs that has been hit systematically by the Labor Party since they came to office. The Australian Federal Police, an agency that is also at the front line of dealing with Labor's border protection crisis, has also suffered both budget and personnel cuts under the Labor Party. Labor have cut AFP staff numbers at a time when the AFP is stretched beyond capacity and is dealing with unprecedented pressure to respond to the chaos on our borders and the chaos that is being created within Australia's immigration network, and to respond to the unfolding gang crisis we see on our streets, which has been facilitated in part by Labor's failure to manage our borders. Labor's response to this chaos is to cut a further $139 million from the AFP. In the last two budgets, Labor have cut 95 staff from the AFP and stripped a massive $264.5 million worth of funding, making it incredibly difficult for the AFP to do its job of enforcing national security. Labor have again broken their promise to create 500 sworn police officers, a promise which was made by Kevin Rudd in 2007 and which Labor keep on putting off in every budget cycle. Again, it has been put off in this budget; indeed, this year $25.9 million has been deferred from that recruitment of 500 police, and that money has gone straight into propping up Labor's dodgy surplus figures. In its prebudget submission the Australian Federal Police Association rightly prioritised the fulfilling of these 500 sworn police officers, and I am sure it will express its disappointment to the government about what their failure to fulfil this commitment will mean.
Perhaps the most astonishing thing the government have done in this budget within the policing portfolio is that they have seen fit to take $58.3 million away from proceeds-of-crime funding. As members will know, this funding is used. It is taken from criminals when they commit crimes under Commonwealth law and it is used for crime prevention programs, as a general rule, or in other ways that might help us prevent crime. Labor are taking that money and using it to prop up their surplus. They are taking directly from criminals in order to come up with a measly surplus that nobody believes they will actually hit anyway.
In view of the time, I will not go on about the other cuts that have been made within my portfolio area. But all Australians should be aware that this Labor government has systematically targeted national security agencies and our law enforcement agencies. This budget and these personnel cuts are going to have enormous negative consequences for those agencies in doing their jobs. This has been a terrible budget for my portfolio, and I commit the coalition government to having a look at doing what we can to reverse the damage when it happens— (Time expired)
The Treasurer's fifth budget, handed down nearly two weeks ago, was a decisive budget. It was a Labor budget, it was a clever budget and it was a budget firmly focused on the future. This is my second budget as the member for Canberra and I would like to congratulate the Treasurer for a budget that both supports and assists families facing cost-of-living pressures and returns our budget to surplus. The surplus will provide a buffer in uncertain global economic times—and times are indeed uncertain. The surplus will also give the Reserve Bank further room to cut interest rates and the surplus will allow us to protect low- and middle-income families and our most vulnerable communities. We will achieve this by delivering some of the biggest reforms for a generation, such as the $3.7 billion aged care reform package. This 10-year program will create a flexible and seamless system to provide older Australians with more choice, more control and easier access to a full range of services, when they want them and where they need them. It will position us so that we are able to meet the social and economic challenges intrinsic to an ageing population, particularly here in Canberra.
By improving our economic bottom line, we are also able to take the very first steps towards implementing the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The Gillard government will invest $1 billion to see this scheme launched in July 2013, one year earlier than planned. It is the most fundamental social policy reform this country has seen since Medicare. It will revolutionise disability services in Australia and give hope to the 400,000 Australians who are living with a significant or permanent disability. Under this government, we will start to see this change occur. There will also be a $515 million blitz on public dental waiting lists. This funding will help to boost the public dental workforce and improve infrastructure for dental services in regional, rural and remote areas.
Aged care reform, the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the dental waiting lists blitz are only possible because of the strength of the Australian economy and the capacity of this government to return the budget to surplus, despite global pressures which ripped $150 billion from government revenues. This made our job tougher but it did not deter us.
As someone who is deeply committed to education and understands the ability of education to empower and transform, I am particularly proud to see such unwavering commitment to education in the budget. I again welcome the new school kids bonus policy, which will replace the underutilised education tax refund and help families afford to pay for the additional costs which always come up throughout the year. The school kids bonus will see a cash payment of $410 for each child in primary school and $820 for each child in secondary school, paid directly to families. Around 6,750 families in the Canberra electorate will benefit from this bonus. It is a wonderful initiative, one I was pleased to be at the announcement of in the neighbouring electorate, your electorate of Fraser Mr Deputy Speaker Leigh, earlier this month with the Prime Minister and the minister for families.
The parents I have spoken to since then are incredibly supportive of the game. They know it is going to be a huge benefit, particularly when it is time to pay for new school shoes, textbooks or computers. The government is replacing the education tax refund with the school kids bonus because around 80 per cent of families were not receiving their full entitlements under the education tax refund. Because the school kids bonus will be paid automatically and upfront, it will mean that Canberra families will not need to keep receipts for months and months—it is a guaranteed payment. Canberra families will receive the full amount every time so that, if they lose their receipts, they will not lose out. Canberra families will not have to pay out of their own pocket and then wait months to be paid back, and Canberra families will not have to bother about the paperwork.
This is just one of the ways the Gillard government is helping families in Canberra who have school-age children to make ends meet. I know it will go a long way to taking some of the pressure off families in my electorate who do everything they can to ensure their children get the best possible education. I am also pleased to see the Gillard government invest further in maths and science, subjects which attract some of our best and brightest students to the ACT. Labor are keen to see an increase in the number of students studying maths, science and engineering, and to help achieve that goal we are investing $54 million in a package that will address some of the key concerns raised by the former Vice-Chancellor of the ANU, Professor Ian Chubb, in his Mathematics, engineering & science in the national interest report. This investment will build on the $8.9 billion investment in science and research in this year's budget and will help address the issue of emerging skill shortages in sectors such as engineering, which are highlighted in Professor Chubb's report. This investment will also help us discover ways to encourage more students into undergraduate maths and science courses, which previous HECS and HELP subsidies just were not addressing.
Health is of course another area Labor is deeply committed to, and it shows in this budget. There is $1 million to begin the construction of the Eccles building at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the ANU, and Labor will also be investing around $1.3 million in the establishment of a chair in plastic craniofacial surgery here in Canberra. Again, I was proud to be at the announcement of a major budget initiative with the Treasurer and the Minister for Health when the $49.3 million investment to extend the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program was revealed. This investment by the government will significantly reduce the burden of bowel cancer on Australians and their families. Now more than 12,000 suspected or confirmed cancers will be detected through free screening, and between 300 and 500 lives will be saved each year as a result of this investment.
According to the latest census data, 10.3 per cent of people in Canberra are over the age of 60 and will therefore be eligible for this screening, so it is a great boon to Canberra. This is also in addition to the $15 million already committed to the ACT's GP superclinic by Labor. It is a superclinic that will spread across Canberra, across the ACT, with one of the clinics down in my electorate in Calwell.
I move now from health to healthy lifestyles. When it comes to getting active, Labor is delivering for the Canberra community. At a grassroots level, more funding will be put into the highly successful Active After-school Communities program for the 2013 school year. I had the great pleasure of seeing this program in action just recently at an after-school basketball event at Tuggeranong stadium. It was clear that the kids were having a lot of fun, almost as much fun as their mentors, and it is a great way for kids to stay active and get involved in community sport, particularly after school. So I have no doubt that the $39.2 million in the budget to extend this program will be money well spent, particularly here in Canberra.
Labor is also investing in professional sport here in the ACT, with $2.5 million going towards new broadcast-quality lighting for Manuka Oval. This funding will be matched by the ACT government and it will attract new opportunities such as the 2020 and international cricket matches and preseason AFL games.
There is also substantial money in the budget for the National Capital Authority, which has a special place in the life of Canberrans and in the nation. Labor is investing $11.9 million to help support the NCA's role in the development of our national capital. This budget commitment is in response to the 2011 Canberra: a capital place report, by Dr Allan Hawke. Canberrans are proud custodians of our national capital, but at the same time Canberra has grown over the years to become a living community with its own identity. The role of the NCA is to find a balance between the two and work productively and collaboratively within our community. Therefore this funding is greatly appreciated, and I look forward to continuing to work with the NCA, particularly in the lead-up to Canberra's centenary next year.
As well as funding for the NCA, our national institutions also received a funding boost in this year's budget. Just from being around town and talking to the heads of a number of these agencies, I know they are very grateful. There is supplementary funding of $39.3 million in the budget for our pre-eminent institutions to help keep them strong. This additional funding will allow our institutions to expand their capacity to open up their collections for community, education and research uses. Canberra's collecting institutions are recognised internationally as some of the very best, and I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to the delivery of their programs and services. This funding includes $7.7 million for the National Archives of Australia, $6.7 million for the National Library of Australia, $5.5 million for the National Museum of Australia, $5.3 million for the Australian War Memorial, $4.3 million for the National Gallery of Australia, $3.4 million for the National Film and Sound Archive and $1.9 million for the Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House. A further $2.7 million will allow for the transition of the National Portrait Gallery to become an independent statutory authority from July 2013, bringing it into line with other major national cultural institutions. This will give the gallery well-deserved recognition as an iconic national institution. These funding decisions continue to highlight the importance of Canberra to the Gillard government, particularly as we approach our 100th birthday next year.
This is also a budget that continues to deliver vital infrastructure to Canberra as well as funding for the Black Spot Program which makes our roads safer. The budget will deliver a further $21.4 million to start, progress or complete further road projects in the ACT. Then there is $144 million in funding for the Majura Parkway, and we have also contributed $18.5 million for the Monaro Highway duplication. And there is $1 million going towards eight black spot upgrades in the ACT. This money will help fund safety improvements such as better traffic signals and roundabouts—because we do love our roundabouts here in Canberra. A number of those upgrades will be taking place in my electorate.
Finally, this is a budget designed to support small business, including the 17,600 small businesses in the Canberra electorate. Labor's initiatives for small business will encourage investment and help businesses that may have fallen on tough times. The $6½ thousand instant asset write-off scheme, which I really love, will help small business by supporting cash flow and encouraging businesses to invest. And there is the loss carry-back initiative to help companies through tough times and encourage them to invest and grow. Small business will also benefit from the Small Business Advisory Services program, which will be extended for another four years, thanks to $27.5 million in funding.
There is a lot in this budget that Australia can be proud of. There is a lot in this budget that Canberra can be proud of. It is a clever budget and it highlights the clear plan Labor has for Australia's future which includes a stable economy with a modest surplus. However, I was disappointed to see some of the tough decisions in this budget, although I acknowledge these tough decisions are what will get us to a budget surplus. A reduction in Public Service staffing levels, even though it will only take us back to 2009-10 levels, is of course disappointing. For the past two decades I have been a fierce advocate for our Public Service. That is why it is hard to hear the news in the budget that around 1,500 Canberra based positions will be lost, albeit through natural attrition and voluntary redundancies. It was disappointing because I, like my Canberra colleagues, fought extremely hard to prevent any cuts to the Public Service in the lead-up to this budget. But I take heart in the knowledge that it could have been worse—much, much worse. Under a coalition government it would be much worse. They are the ones who brag about cutting 12,000 public servants and they are the ones who have not ruled out cutting 20,000 jobs and razing whole departments.
So, yes, there are tough decisions in this budget, some that disappoint me as the member for Canberra, but I do believe that Canberra knows the alternative would be a lot worse. And I do believe that there is a great deal that will benefit Canberra as a result of this budget. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is a budget that both supports and assists families facing cost-of-living pressures and it returns to a surplus. These are the hallmarks of this government's fifth budget and these are the economic decisions on which we should be judged. I commend the bills to the House.
This is a budget that is based on spin and deception. This is a budget that achieves a meagre surplus based on sleight of hand rather than sound economic management. The Treasurer said this is a Labor budget, that it is 'Labor to its bootstraps'. And he is right. This is a Labor budget that breaks promises and makes new ones. This is a Labor budget that increases taxes and makes no genuine attempt to rein in spending. This is a Labor budget that reintroduces class warfare and the politics of envy. This is a Labor budget that does not seek to grow the economic pie but, instead, to reallocate its pieces. As we saw in last year's budget, the debt ceiling is being increased. At the same time as the Treasurer seeks to convince Australians that the budget is in surplus, they are increasing the credit card limit of this country by another $50 billion. This shows that not even the Treasurer thinks that he will deliver a surplus and by hiding the increase of the debt ceiling in Appropriations Bill No. 2 the parliament does not get a chance to debate this measure independently of the budget. According to the Australian Office of Financial Management, there is currently about $227 billion worth of Commonwealth bonds on issue, about $221 billion of which is factored towards the current $250 billion debt ceiling. This government's excessive spending has required them to raise the debt ceiling to more than three times the Keating Labor government's previous record deficit of $96 billion that took the coalition government nearly a decade to repay. I say excessive spending because this government is spending more than $100 billion a year more than the last Howard-Costello budget. To put that in perspective, that is a 40 per cent increase in the size of spending over a four-year period when inflation for the same period has been 13 per cent. The reason members of the coalition speak about debt is that the coalition knows what it meant to pay off Labor's debt when we were last in government. We are the only party capable of repaying debt and generating a real surplus.
Only weeks ago the Prime Minister was promising that there would be money in this budget for a national disability insurance scheme. The funding announced in this year's budget showed that this announcement was a cruel hoax on those families who were waiting for a real national disability insurance scheme. Because of this government's poor record on the delivery of programs, the coalition have extended the invitation to create a joint committee of the parliament to be co-chaired by the disabilities frontbenchers from both sides of politics. This would provide non-partisan cross-party support for the oversight and implementation of the NDIS because an NDIS should be owned by the parliament and by the nation as a whole.
Why raise the NDIS straight after Labor's record levels of debt? Because the interest payments on that very debt are reaching an alarming $8.2 billion and this $8.2 billion interest bill would fully fund a fully implemented national disability insurance scheme. That is the demon of debt, that the interest bill that comes with it restricts the ability of future governments to deliver services. Until a coalition government is elected and the debt is repaid, the interest bill will be reducing the ability of those governments to deliver to the Australian people. I will speak more on the Pacific Highway later in my contribution, but $8.2 billion would cover the cost of the complete duplication of the Pacific Highway. Just one year's interest bill would complete the duplication of this dangerous road.
One of the real concerns about this budget is that, as I said, it is a budget bill on sleight of hand. There are a number of accounting tricks that have been used to manufacture a surplus for next year. The first of those is to bring forward spending from next year into this year, blowing the projected budget deficit from the original projection of $12 billion to $44 billion. I ask you, Deputy Speaker, would you believe a Treasurer who predicted $12 billion and delivered a $44 billion deficit when he was promising a $1.5 billion surplus? It is a very skinny margin indeed. Ironically, the plan to spend this money early will increase the interest paid on the debt to fund it, as the money is being borrowed for a longer time. The Australian taxpayer is again paying more for the failings of this government.
The second accounting trick that the government has relied on to claim a surplus next year is to have massive cuts in the range of government programs for the 2012-13 year only. Effectively what the government is doing is appropriating next year's funding in this financial year or pushing it out into 2013-14. As the shadow Treasurer pointed out last week at the National Press Club, the coal sector jobs package will cost $220 million this year, $10 million next year and, miraculously, $220 million in the year after that. Once again it is a sleight of hand. The best way that this government could support coal sector jobs is by dropping the tax that was not mentioned in the budget speech, the tax that it does not want to name, the carbon tax. The Energy Security Fund is another example of a 12-month spending freeze, with spending going from $1 billion this year down to $1 million next year and $1 billion the year after that. The third and largest trick the government has played to create a surplus is to take key expenditure items off budget. The NBN and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation are off budget and NBN spending, for example, of $5.8 billion is not included in the calculations of the current forecast surplus.
Although the promise of the 43rd Parliament was transparency, this government has done no such thing with spending in this budget, and the NBN is a clear example. If the government wanted to be transparent with its spending, it would have included the cost of the NBN on budget. If the government wanted to be transparent about the cost of the NBN, it would have asked for a cost-benefit analysis of the project, rather than pretending it was trying to create a project that provided value for taxpayers' money over and above what was spent. We will believe that when we see it. As highlighted by Tony Abbott in his recent budget reply speech, the $50 billion for the NBN would have been sufficient to duplicate the Pacific Highway, Sydney's M5, the road between Hobart and Launceston, build the M4 East in Sydney, the Melbourne Metro, Brisbane's cross-city rail, upgrade Perth airport and still leave $10 billion to upgrade faster broadband.
The government's budget was also a major disappointment to North Coast residents with regard to the Pacific Highway. In the lead-up to the Treasurer's speech there had been leaks about what funds were being committed. For example, we had the member for Lyne posturing about expending political capital in order to deliver the highway funding. This was nothing more than political theatre from the member for Lyne who has betrayed his constituents by propping up this incompetent government, a government that hinders the stability of our economy and threatens the very standing of this parliament.
On budget night we found out that the devil was in the detail with regard to the additional funding for the Pacific Highway. Importantly there was no additional funding next financial year to accelerate the highway. The fact only confirmed what I have been saying for some time, that the 2016 deadline for this road will not be achieved. It is a reality that has been evident for some time, but denied by this government. According to the New South Wales government's most recent Pacific Highway update, as of the 29 February 2012, 346 kilometres of the highway are completed dual carriageway, about 60 kilometres are under construction and 121 kilometres have received planning approval and are now being prepared for construction; about 50 per cent of the final highway length of 664 kilometres is now dual carriageway. Anyone who believes the remaining 318 kilometres will be completed by the end of 2016 is not being fair dinkum with North Coast residents.
Back to the budget and the devil being in the detail. The budget does set aside $3.6 billion for a nation-building program between 2013-14 and 2016-17 to 'enable further major infrastructure projects'. The government only suggests 'this funding could be allocated towards the Pacific Highway duplication'. However, that funding is conditional on the New South Wales government's funding contribution. We have heard a lot of talk from the member for Lyne and Minister Albanese about Pacific Highway funding, but unless this is an unconditional commitment to the road this is nothing more than hot air.
The Pacific Highway is the most important road project in the nation. It is essential that this funding be quarantined for the highway. North Coast communities want governments to stop the bickering and get on with the job of duplicating the road. They are sick of political power plays that have become a hallmark of the former state Labor government with the likes of Joe Tripodi, Michael Costa and Carl Scully when they were state minister for roads. I thought the House of Representatives had moved on from the situation when the current federal minister honoured the funding commitment set aside by the Howard government and provided additional funding for the Kempsey bypass which was welcome indeed.
I believe that all levels of government should be committing the maximum amount possible to get this dangerous road duplicated as quickly as possible. I am already on record saying that the maximum amount of funding should be targeted towards black spots with the worst accident records and getting the trucks off the main streets of our local communities. In my view the next project which should receive funding commitment is the Warrell Creek to Urunga section where 27 people have lost their lives in the past five years. Whilst there is a commitment for Nambucca Heads to Urunga, that needs to be extended further south down to Worrall Creek, to take the traffic out of the main street of Macksville and to bypass the notorious Macksville bridge, which is now decades past its use-by date. There needs to be bipartisan support for completing this highway just as quickly as possible.
Kempsey Hospital is an important piece of medical infrastructure in my electorate and I would like to note that there was $40 million from the Commonwealth to fund the upgrade of Kempsey Hospital, which is being matched, dollar for dollar, by the state. This funding is long overdue and I would certainly like to acknowledge those in the Kempsey community who have worked so hard to push for this upgrade. Whilst I am not in a position to recognise everyone, I would like to note the energy of former Kempsey shire council mayor John Bowell, the current mayor, Liz Campbell, the medical staff of the hospital and the wider Macleay Valley community. Just four years ago I launched a petition on this issue with John and Liz and nurses Di Lohman, Jennifer Clarke, Jo Hensler and Linda Weir. In no time we had some 4,400 signatures from across the shire, and I tabled the petition in the parliament later that year. Whilst it has been a long wait, the Kempsey Hospital upgrade will certainly be a welcome increase in the capacity to deliver medical services to the people of the Macleay Valley. I think it is a project which will be certainly welcome for years to come.
But the real concern in relation to this budget is, as I said, that it is a budget bottom line by a sleight of hand, it is a budget bottom line that depends on very optimist forecasts, it is a budget bottom line that, with the Treasurer's past performance, you have no confidence will be achieved. There is no confidence that he will actually achieve it. This is a Treasurer that has delivered some of the biggest budget deficits in our nation's history. To think that miraculously through shuffling the money around he can come up with a surplus does, I think, certainly defy credulity. I think that people have a right to certainly suspect that this Treasurer will not be able to deliver. He has not delivered in the past and he is unlikely to deliver this time. He is certainly quite happy to shackle this economy to a devastating carbon tax, a carbon tax that can only depress economic activity, a carbon tax that can only make the budget outcome worse, a carbon tax that is so reviled by the Australian people that he did not even mention it in his budget speech, a carbon tax that those on the other side of the chamber do not want to mention. It is about time that the government faced reality and looked towards repealing the carbon tax.
We in opposition cannot save them from themselves, but certainly their voters are very unhappy. When you walk down the street of any town in Australia, what is the number one subject that comes up? It is the carbon tax: the impact of the carbon tax on 'my cost of living', the impact of the carbon tax on 'my business'. There is the fact that people have lost confidence in the ability of this government because primarily of the broken promise on the carbon tax. This carbon tax is not good for Australia. This carbon tax is not good for the Labor government. It is a major factor in the revulsion that is out there in the electorate as a result of this broken promise on this carbon tax. There is the ridiculous nature of the tax, of imposing a far greater level of taxation on this country than is imposed anywhere in the world. It is about time the government came to its senses, listened to the opposition and looked towards repealing this tax. It is a tax that is only going to drive Australia further into debt. It is a tax that is only going to drive up unemployment. It is a tax that is going to deny young people opportunity. It is a tax that is even going to tax you to dump rubbish. It is an amazing tax. It is a tax that only Labor could come up with. So incompetent has been its implementation that we have councils who do not even know whether they are going to have a tax liability or not. Forty days out from the implementation of the carbon tax they still do not know which council it applies to. This is a budget that is not going to take Australia forward. This is a budget that is just going to muddle on in the Labor way, as we have seen from this current administration.
I warmly welcome the budget and congratulate the Treasurer for spreading the benefits of the mining boom—not just to all corners of our country but to the communities in my electorate, in Ipswich and the Somerset region—and for the much-needed relief that families and businesses will receive in this budget. The infrastructure spend, the roads spend and the assistance that is going to go to households and individuals who are pressed by cost-of-living pressures are all very important. The budget does say a lot about where the priorities of this Labor government are for middle- and low-income earners. It is a statement of our beliefs, our values, our ethics.
Those opposite do not quite get that. Those opposite wax on about dire financial Armageddon, but the truth is that our economy remains strong, with growth of 3.25 per cent of GDP and unemployment of 4.9 per cent. In my electorate unemployment is 4.7 per cent; it used to be double the national average during difficult times and now it is below the national average. Inflation is at 3.25 per cent and the tax to GDP ratio is the lowest for many years: from 25.1 per cent under the previous coalition government, when we came to office, down to 23.8 per cent this year. We have a government deficit to GDP ratio about one-tenth of that of OECD countries. We have made $33.6 billion in savings in the budget and yet paid out $5 billion in new payments to middle- and low-income earners.
All this is being done in the context of the kick-starting the NDIS with $1 billion and aged-care reform with an extra $3.7 billion, which is being rolled out for much-needed reform as a result of the Productivity Commission recommendations for both a national disability insurance scheme and aged-care reform. Apart from that there is the $1.75 billion partnership we have undertaken with the states through the COAG process just before the budget in April 2012. All of this is in the context of the loss of about $150 billion to $160 billion as a result of the global financial crisis, something that those opposite never seem to mention. We have done this to provide assistance to low socioeconomic areas, areas of disadvantage and disability. For example, 150,000 more university students are studying in places like the University of Southern Queensland and the University of Queensland Ipswich campus. More students than ever before are doing tertiary and TAFE studies as a result of this government's initiative. We have got more people working now—11.5 million Australians are in the workforce. We have created on our watch 800,000 employment positions.
This is in the context of what we have seen with our fellow Western nations—the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Germany, other countries in western Europe, Canada and New Zealand—where they have lost 27 million jobs since the global financial crisis. Growth in our economy is back, whereas in a lot of countries in the Western world they are still dealing with negative growth and their economies are much slower. These are facts that cannot be denied, and that is why we have received a AAA credit rating from all three major international rating agencies.
The coalition never gives us credit in relation to that, but those are the facts about our economy. At the same time we have brought in a minerals resource rent tax which will make a difference in states like mine, Queensland. In this budget there is money set aside for one of the projects that is in my electorate that we are funding under the Regional Development Australia Fund through the minerals resource rent tax. That project in my electorate, funded to the tune of $2 million in this budget, is the Somerset Civic Centre in Esk. Construction is already underway. I thank the Somerset Regional Council for their consultation with the local community about that project and for the financial contribution they have made to that project. It comes as a result of the fire in the Lyceum Hall a few years ago. There was only one place in the Somerset region, pre BER funded school halls, where the people in the region could meet, and that was in the Lyceum Hall in Esk. As a result of the fire there has not been a place like that. This project will bring employment and a flourishing of the arts in the Somerset region. The Esk community is an older community but it is the government administrative heart of the Somerset region and a civic centre will make a big difference. The funding is in the budget. Those opposite are against this type of funding because they voted against the funding source for this particular funding.
Further, we have given $54 million recently to the Queensland government Main Roads Department. Jeff Weeks, the district manager in our area, tells me he has the funding for the Brassall interchange, at the intersection of the Warrego Highway and the Brisbane Valley Highway in Ipswich, which is much needed not just for my electorate, Ipswich and the Somerset Region, but also for the Lockyer Valley, Toowoomba and Brisbane. This funding has been provided. Again, that is an example of this government listening to the mayors of South-East Queensland, the businesses of South-East Queensland and also the people of South-East Queensland who have been urging for that particular thing to be undertaken for many years. It was the No. 1 priority for the mayors of South-East Queensland at the last federal election, but those opposite could not find it in themselves to make a commitment to it. Then, when it came into this parliament, the coalition voted against funding for the Blacksoil interchange.
Recently we saw the opening of the Dinmore to Goodna section of the Ipswich Motorway. Mr Albanese was there at the sod-turning of that project and he was there at the opening with my good friend the member for Oxley. Together we campaigned for that road-funding project, again supported by the councils of South-East Queensland. Of course, the coalition opposed funding for the Dinmore to Goodna section of the Ipswich Motorway for three federal election campaigns in a row. But it has now been opened and there is recognition of that funding in this budget. At $1.76 billion, this is Queensland's largest ever federally funded road project. There are six lanes from Dinmore to Goodna, service routes down the side north and south, and it is a great funding project. It has made and will make such a difference to the lives of the people of South-East Queensland, but those opposite did not have the wit or wisdom to support this project and have campaigned against it repeatedly.
Also in my area, the Ipswich City Council continues to get funding. There is $6.55 million for the council as Roads to Recovery funding. There is a record amount of $1.3 million for the Ipswich City Council's road funding projects this year. In our time in government, the Somerset Regional Council has also seen an increase of about 400 per cent in Roads to Recovery funding for that region. There is $3.2 million for Roads to Recovery across the cycle from 2009 to 2014. There is $653,000 for the Somerset Regional Council in this budget. We will deliver more and more funding through this budget and beyond with the Regional Infrastructure Fund, comprising $6 billion in funding targeted at states like mine, Queensland. We have large infrastructure demands in rural and regional areas and mining areas, but of course we know that those opposite, whether it was in relation to the Blacksoil interchange or other projects on the Bruce Highway or the Capricorn Highway or others, voted against the funding.
For my local area a tremendous amount of assistance has been provided in this budget as part of our clean energy package but also as part of the schoolkids bonus that we just rolled out. We are seeing 23,500 local pensioners benefiting from our historic pension reforms, including the biggest increase we have seen in pensions in 100 years. Some 23,500 local pensioners and more than 900 local self-funded retirees are receiving additional assistance in this budget. There is $338 a year in pensions and $510 for couples as part of the Household Assistance Package. We are seeing 4,310 local families receiving an additional $600 annual carers supplement, boosting their assistance.
We are seeing a lot of difference in terms of family funding as well. The schoolkids bonus benefits 11,000 local families to the tune of $410 a year for each child in primary school and $820 for each child in high school. That adds up to about $11 million worth of assistance for families in Ipswich and the Somerset, in my region. All up, 19,400 local kids and schools will benefit from the schoolkids bonus. Currently 2,100 families in my electorate who are missing out on the education tax refund will benefit from the schoolkids bonus. It is a shame, a tragedy and a disgrace that those opposite failed to support this legislation through the House of Representatives. But I also think the benefits we will see will be increased in superannuation. Forty-three thousand local workers, whilst we roll out the benefits under the minerals resource rent tax, will see increases in superannuation from nine to 12 per cent. That is an enormous amount of assistance to families, and it is this government and previous Labor governments which have built the superannuation scheme in this country—a $1.35 trillion funding pool opposed length and breadth every time by those opposite, whether it is this opposition or other incarnations in previous years, when the likes of Hawke and Keating were bringing forward superannuation reforms that gave people dignity, respect and financial security in retirement.
We are also seeing important funding in help for local businesses. We are seeing local businesses receive the benefit of the $6,500 immediate asset write-off. I had the benefit of speaking at one of those forums recently. It was put on by the Business Enterprise Centre Ipswich Region, and that was an important function. I went there and spoke to quite a lot of businesses in relation to what we are doing and the $5,000 asset write-off. One of the things also added to the benefits is the capacity to roll forward losses in relation to that and carry forward, and I explained that to them. I was pleased to see the Minister for Small Business speak on that particular small business futures initiative—a BECA initiative. He spoke online to people there, and I spoke beforehand. Once again we see the benefit of this.
We would have liked to give tax cuts to corporate Australia and 10,700 local businesses, but the party of Menzies—the party that parade, pose and preen as the party of business—could not bring themselves to actually vote for a tax cut for small business. They could never even bring themselves to vote for it. We knew they could not. They said they would not. They are on the record. This is a party that seem to oppose every savings measure that we want to do, says that they will give every tax cut that we want to give and says that they will provide financial assistance but will oppose every revenue source that we bring into this parliament. It is not voodoo economics they are talking about; it is magic pudding economics for those opposite. This is the party that have a $70 billion crater in their costings, and we only discovered a $10.6 billion hole in their costings because of a minority government situation and the fact that there were negotiations between the Prime Minister and the Independents and the Leader of the Opposition and the Independents.
But guess what. These are the people who cannot bring themselves to vote for good economic policy that helps families. In my electorate they are insulting those 11,000 families by saying to them that the mums and dads in Ipswich and the Somerset region cannot be trusted with money, because they will spend it on booze, gambling, the pokies and all kinds of stupid things. But they cannot bring themselves to be consistent, and I find that amazing about this mob opposite. You have the Leader of the Opposition saying he is going to support an NDIS. I had a forum last week at Focal Extended with the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. It was supported wonderfully. We had to explain to people there that, while the Leader of the Opposition says one thing, his shadow Treasurer will not support an NDIS, going by the words he provided at the National Press Club. So they will say one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience. They will make it up as they go along. The coalition should support these budgetary measures because they will make a difference not just in the lives of businesses but in families across the length and breadth of this country, including in Ipswich and Somerset. (Time expired)
I also rise to speak on the appropriations bills before us. These appropriations bills, of course, form this year's federal budget. They were not just a missed opportunity, but irresponsible given the economic situation that we find ourselves in. Our high-level numbers still look reasonably healthy in unemployment and growth prospects, but these cloud underlying weaknesses and there are significant storm clouds on the horizon. When you take out Western Australia, for example, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria are all close to zero or negative growth. Retail has flatlined, manufacturing has flatlined and is laying off workers week in, week out and housing approvals are at their lowest levels for many years. Meanwhile, when you look at the situation overseas, it looks quite dire. Greece is facing a political and economic crisis which will have implications for the finance sector across the globe. Many China analysts are predicting that their growth is slowing. And America, while it seems to be recovering, is still not fully out of the woods yet.
This is the context of this year's budget, where we have economic insecurity at home and storm clouds on the horizon abroad. It is because of this that the budget is particularly irresponsible, because it further undermines economic confidence, does nothing for cost-of-living pressures and increases employment insecurity. At this time under these difficult economic conditions we should be doing everything we can to make the economy stronger in order to create wealth. This means running budget surpluses, curtailing government expenditure and, where possible, reducing government taxes so that there is a healthier environment for businesses to thrive. But in fact this budget does the opposite. Let us go through and look at some of the top-line figures.
To start with, the budget continues the government's spending spree. They would have you believe that this budget was all about fiscal consolidation. That was the mantra from the government this year. But when you look at the figures they tell a different story. The budget papers actually increase expenditure by $2.2 billion over the next 14 months—an extra $2 billion in the next two months alone and an additional expenditure of $0.2 billion over the following 12 months. On a cash basis there is an additional $8.7 billion of expenditure next financial year. The government talk about fiscal constraints but clearly they are not delivering in this regard, because the bottom line is that they simply cannot control their expenditure.
When you look at the overall aggregate expenditure, the government is now spending an unbelievable $100 billion a year more than what it inherited in 2007. That is a 40 per cent increase in government expenditure from five years ago, when inflation was only 13 per cent. What has that extra $100 billion a year delivered? Do we look around the country and see that all the freeways have been fixed, that there are new rail lines in place, that the port bottlenecks have been addressed? Do we see the Rowville rail finally built after all these years or the Eastern Freeway connection to the Tullamarine? No. We do not see any of those things. We do not even see those under construction at this stage. Rather, expenditure has been out of control and the quality of expenditure has been as poor as the overall volume of expenditure.
We have had 20,000 additional public servants with that extra money. We have had pink batts put in hundreds of thousands of people's roofs and then ripped out of hundreds of thousands of people's roofs. We have had school halls built at twice the price as they could have been built. We have had billions extra spent on border control. We have seen waste after waste of expenditure. That is the legacy of this additional $100 billion per annum. This is the travesty: that we have so little to show for all of this additional money which the government has been expending. We have so little to show for all the additional taxpayers' funds.
We have talked about the expenditure side. When you look at the revenue side there are another six new taxes in this budget, bringing the number of either new or increased taxes since the government came to office 4½ years ago to a grand total of 26. Next year residents will be slugged an additional $39 billion in tax compared with this year. That is the fiscal consolidation—an extra tax slug of $39 billion for next financial year.
And, of course, the company tax—dare not speak its name—promised for so long failed to materialise on budget night. The government made a big song and dance about this, saying it was going to be delivering tax cuts to all of these companies and small businesses. The member for Deakin, who sits in the seat adjacent to me, wrote to every business in his electorate, two days before the budget, claiming that there was going to be a company tax cut in the budget. And, of course, it did not materialise. It was another broken promise from this government.
We have looked at the expenditure and at the revenue; now let's get to the debt, because this is the granddaddy of them all. As you would be aware, over the last four years we have had the four biggest government deficits in Australian political history. This government continues that pattern. The debt ceiling will increase, incredibly, to $300 billion. It has gone up to $200 billion, then to $250 billion, and in the fine print of these budget papers it shows that they need to increase the debt ceiling by an extra $50 billion to $300 billion. This shows the farce of the government's claim to be in control of their expenditure and running surpluses. Clearly, if they were running surpluses they would not need to increase the debt ceiling to $300 billion. Net debt will climb to $145 billion, an increase of almost $40 billion since last year's budget.
By 2015-16 the government will spend $8 billion a year just on interest repayments. That money just disappears. It does not go towards anything. That $8 billion a year could build eight tertiary hospitals around Australia. It could build the Rowville rail link four times over, year in, year out. It would build the connection from the Eastern Freeway to the Tullamarine Freeway, in Melbourne. But that $8 billion will be gone next year and the year after that and the year after that, just on paying the interest on the debt. That is the price of Labor's legacy of waste and reckless spending.
It took the coalition almost a decade to pay off the $96 billion of debt we inherited back in 1996. It is now $145 billion, and still growing, and Labor is still in power. How many years is that going to take us to pay off once we get back into power? I do not know. Certainly, at the rate of the surplus the government claims it will deliver next year, it will take 100 years.
Let me make a couple of other points on the specifics of the budget. First, the carbon tax. At the end of the day this budget was a carbon tax budget. It may not have been mentioned by the Treasurer in his speech and it may not be mentioned in the $37 million of ads that are running non-stop at the moment, but the 2012-13 budget was very much a carbon tax budget. This carbon tax will increase electricity prices by 10 per cent in the first year alone. It will increase gas by nine per cent in the first year alone. According to the Victorian Treasury it will cost 24,000 jobs in Victoria alone, including 500 in my electorate. It will increase government rates by an estimated three per cent across the board, according to the Municipal Association of Victoria. That is an extra $1.5 million in the municipality of Knox. Over the next 40 years—and this is perhaps the most astounding figure, and it is in the government's figures—the carbon tax will cost the economy $1.3 trillion, which is the equivalent of an entire year's GDP of this nation, gone on the carbon tax. That means we will have to work for an entire year, every single man and woman in this country will work for a year, just to pay the carbon tax. That is what they are doing. It is an incredible figure and it is the government's own figure—it is not ours. These price increases that I have been talking about are just the start, because the tax will increase—it is legislated to increase from $23 to $29 over the next three years, and that is forecast to continue to go up and up, all the way to $135 by 2050.
There are a couple of other items I would like to touch on. Firstly, the NDIS. On this side of the chamber we are very supportive of the NDIS. We have called on the government to make this a bipartisan commitment and to have a bipartisan team look at that and oversee its implementation. We were pleased to see that at least some money was put towards it in the budget—$1 billion. What I am disappointed about is that the Productivity Commission recommended $3.9 billion. So there is a $2.9 billion shortfall. I believe that the government is raising the expectations of the disability sector and it will not be able to deliver on those expectations.
Secondly, the schoolkids bonus. The government, day in day out, have been saying that we do not support providing additional assistance for families to pay for their school education costs. That is wrong. We do support that. We supported the existing education tax offset program. In fact, we took to the last election a policy to increase the education tax offset program to $1,000 for a secondary school child and $500 for a primary school child. But, importantly, we insisted that there be a strong nexus between the program and what the money is spent on. That means that an individual simply had to collect their receipts and they got their money back through the tax system. It is called 'accountability'. I know it is a word which the Labor government have difficulties with, but on this side of the House we think it is important. It is important for the taxpayer to ensure that their money is going towards the stated purpose and it is important that the recipients of the benefit use the money for its stated purpose as well. 'Accountability' is an important principle on this side of the House. We just wish the government would pull out the dictionary and work out for themselves what that word means, and apply that term to more of its government programs.
Finally, school funding. There were big expectations about this budget's delivery on the Gonski review. We had heard that the government was going to be legislating for the next quadrennium of funding for nongovernment schools and government schools. But when you look at the figures, it does not deliver on the additional $5 billion, which the Gonski review recommended. In fact, it does not even deliver on $1 billion. It does not deliver on $500 million. It delivers over the forward estimates only $5 million—that is, Gonski has been scrapped. It will be another broken promise. It will be another case where expectations are set up in a government sector and with millions of parents, and those expectations will not be delivered. In conclusion, this is a missed opportunity. This is an irresponsible budget. It is based on increased taxes and on spending which is out of control, and it will simply increase government debt, which future generations will have to pay for.
I am very pleased to be able to speak to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and related bills, or the budget bills, as we know them. I am particularly pleased to be speaking to them because I know that many of the measures in the budget can best be described as providing accountability—being accountable to the needs of at least the people that I represent in the federal seat of Calwell. To me, that is largely what accountability is: it is responding to the needs of the people that you represent in this place. As I have said many times, Calwell is ranked among the 10 most socioeconomically disadvantaged electorates in Australia. So I welcome, and I know my constituents welcome, the measures that were introduced in the budget, because they are measures aimed at alleviating the pressures and, in particular, the issues that are associated with social disadvantage.
The budget will widely benefit my constituents because it does address the real issues that my residents talk to me about in the daily conversations and contact that I have with them, and I want to concentrate on some of those areas that have been areas of concern and angst in the electorate for some time. In fact, the whole area of dental care and its affordability is one of the issues that have been a matter of concern to me, on behalf of my constituents, since the time that I became the member for Calwell.
I also want to talk about the National Disability Insurance Scheme that is being implemented by the government. I have a very high number of constituents who are going to benefit from this insurance scheme and, as far as they are concerned, it has been a long time coming. It is not a con job, and it is irresponsible and cruel to describe the National Disability Insurance Scheme as such.
The other area that my constituents constantly raise with me—of which I am also aware because I have children and they are at school—is that raising children and paying for schooling is very expensive, no matter what age bracket you are in and particularly if you are in the lower socioeconomic age bracket. In addition, as an extension of schooling and getting kids through school, there is the whole concept of children's future prospects and opportunities. The budget addresses this issue of training opportunities for young kids—I think especially of those young people in my electorate—and, at the other end of the spectrum, for mature residents who either want to re-enter the workforce or have lost their job. A considerable number of people in my electorate, as a result of Qantas's announcement yesterday, have lost their jobs, with some 400 jobs lost from Melbourne airport. These are people who are going to need to find alternative employment. They are lucky; they are in a highly skilled area and they may not need as intensive retraining as others. Nevertheless, they are people who have to either find other jobs or re-enter the workforce in different ways.
This year's budget does have a very firm focus on providing a better future for the people in my electorate. It also has a focus on creating jobs and providing training opportunities. Very importantly, it introduces some significant tax cuts and substantial superannuation increases. In relation to tax cuts, I cannot emphasise enough the importance to lower income earners of lifting the tax-free threshold. In fact, we have tripled the tax-free threshold from $6,000 to $18,000. This is not a small piece of tax reform; this is a major piece of tax reform, and it is one that is going to have an immediate impact on people who live in my electorate. I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are some 58,000 taxpayers who will receive a very welcome tax cut on 1 July. For about 48,000 of those, it will be at least $300. And, in my electorate, some 5,000 residents will not have to pay tax at all as a result of the tripling of that threshold. If anything contributes to alleviating the cost and the burden of living expenses, it is this measure. More importantly, it provides some equity in the tax system. So, as things stand, the average wage earner in Calwell will, it is estimated, pay about $1,200 less tax than they did in 2007-08 as a direct result of Labor's tax cuts. This will apply to low- and middle-income families.
The other area which causes angst in my electorate is the whole issue of the ageing population and the pressures that come with that. Pensioners—and there are many elderly pensioners in my electorate—will benefit from one of the biggest ever increases to the pension. Singles will receive an increase of $154 a fortnight and couples an extra $156 a fortnight. Self-funded retirees are also not ignored in this budget. Singles will receive an extra $338 a year and couples $510. Thousands of my constituents will also get a boost to their retirement nest egg as a result of the government's move to increase superannuation contributions from employers from nine per cent to 12 per cent. For the average worker in my electorate—and it is always very important to see the impact of the budget through the prism of the impact it has on your electorate—this will mean an extra $108,000 put away for their retirement. That is no insignificant amount of money.
My electorate has one of the largest multicultural ageing populations in Australia. Calwell has two groups in particular—the Italian migrant community and the Greek migrant community—who were amongst the first to come here in the post Second World War migration. These people are now ageing and they are ageing in great numbers. Last Saturday, I had the opportunity to represent the government at the National Institution for Social Assistance, an Italian organisation which administers the Italian pension for Italian residents in Australia. Among the 250 people who were there, the main discussion was about the needs of an ageing Italian community here in Australia.
These are hardworking Australians who have dedicated their working life to building this country. They came here in the post Second World War immigration program, which was implemented, incidentally, by Australia's first Immigration Minister, Arthur Calwell. They have integrated well—yes, they have. The Italian community, the Greek community and the Turkish community, now in their third generation, have integrated well. These once new Australians have now grown old and, although they have effectively built this country, they now in their twilight years have needs which the government must be sensitive to and must be responsive to. This budget commits $3.7 billion towards aged-care reform. This funding will support people so they can live independently at home for as long as they choose and so they will not ultimately be forced to sell the family home in order to meet their needs. This is very important to migrants in particular—they value their family home.
These measures are very good, solid Labor policy. They are the reason I am a member of the Labor Party. This budget reflects my accountability as a member of parliament to the needs of the people who live in my electorate. I can tell you that this particular measure has gone down very well in my electorate and I can also re-affirm that the committee I chair, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, in its very broad-ranging inquiry into migration, has picked up the need for government to tailor its aged-care policy to suit, and to be sensitive to, the needs of a very large ageing migrant community.
I did say that the whole issue of affordability of dental care has been on the table for as long as I have been the member for Calwell, so I am very pleased that the measures in this budget address the availability of affordable dental health. I have received a number of letters from my constituents in relation to this, so I would like to read from a letter from Ms Maria Kowatsch from Attwood, who wrote to me just before the budget. I think she sums up very well the concerns of the electorate. She wrote:
I currently work as a dental assistant, and found that there were many people who struggle with dental treatment and sadly end up crying on a dental chair because they cannot afford to get proper treatment.
This is someone who works with people who are wanting dental care. She said:
I have done some of my own research and found millions of people in Australia, in fact one in three, many of whom are elderly, disadvantaged, say they can't afford to go to the dentist. This creates a preventable burden on the health system. An estimated 500,000 people are on waiting lists for public dental care with average wait times of 27 months and in some cases higher than five years. More than 60,000 avoidable hospital visits are caused every year by dental problems.
This epidemic of dental neglect, which could be avoided through regular dental health checks, has a profound effect on the lives of many Australians. It affects their ability to talk, to enjoy food and maintain adequate nutrition, and to sleep. It can prevent people getting a job, renting a house or securing a loan. Importantly, it also affects their self-esteem. It complicates other health issues, making people more likely to end up seriously ill.
If the government were to bring dental care into Medicare, it would mean oral health is treated like any other part of the body.
So it is with great pleasure that I can say to my constituent Ms Kowatsch that she has been heard by this government.
This year the Labor government moved to allocate $515 million worth of measures to improve dental care across Australia. This money is aimed at improving dental care services and reducing waiting lists. The intention is to lay the foundation for a new way of providing dental services, ensuring those most in need will receive care when and where they need it. This means that a large number of people in my electorate are going to be very happy recipients of a program that will tend to their needs.
Unfortunately I am running out of time. On the National Insurance Disability Scheme, as I said earlier, it was cruel to suggest that it is some sort of con job, and I know that the opposition has suggested that. I have worked for years with Brite Industry in my electorate. This is a wonderful organisation, especially the parents of Brite, that assists people with disabilities in low-skilled employment. Those parents that I talked to for years always talk about their angst and concern about the future for their children and how they will be able to sustain some form of lifestyle. It is just amazing that we are able to be accountable to the needs of those people and that we are able to respond and hear their calls for government to act in the area of public policy that has been neglected for a long period of time. The $1 billion scheme which will roll out over four years and provide support to about 10,000 people with permanent disabilities is a scheme that is widely welcomed and much welcomed in my electorate. I welcome it and want to congratulate the government on having the courage and foresight to implement it. Any suggestion that it is not worthy or that it has shortcomings is just sour grapes from an opposition that did not have the fortitude or the courage to do something about this issue when they were in government. At the very least they can acknowledge that we are heading in the right direction for vulnerable Australians.
My reaction to this budget and that of my constituents can only be described as disappointed. They and I are not swayed by smoke and mirrors nor the prospect of a meagre surplus to compensate for four years of irresponsible spending. Nor are they persuaded by handouts: if Labor has not been able to manage a surplus for four years during a mining boom, they very much doubt it can be achieved in the next year. What they have seen from this government is a massive accumulation of debt, and they are very concerned about what debt is doing in Europe—in Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland—and worry about it happening here.
Accumulating debt is not necessarily a bad thing as long as it is serviceable and as long as the funds so raised are spent judiciously, wisely and fairly across all regions of the nation. What the past few years have seen, however, is a lack of prudential management and good governance. So many programs, like the Pink Batts program and the prolific BER spending, without good fiscal control have seen so much of these precious borrowed funds wasted. Commonwealth investment can yield enormous benefits if spent wisely.
Tonight I would like to outline some important opportunities in the division of Mallee which I have aspirational hopes could be recognised. Mallee has nine proactive municipalities, including the Horsham, Mildura and Swan Hill rural city councils and the Hindmarsh, West Wimmera, Yarriambiack, Buloke, Northern Grampians and Gannawarra shires. The division of Mallee has recently grown in the redistribution from 70,694 square kilometres to 73,879 square kilometres. This has included a city in Stawell and the surrounding towns of Halls Gap, Great Western, Marnoo and Glenorchy. Mallee is bordered by the Murray River in the north, the South Australian border in the west, the division of Wannon in the south and Bendigo and Murray in the east—an area more than one-third of the geographic area of Victoria.
Our ambitions are similar to many other places outside our capital cities—fair access to age and child care, mobile telephone service and internet broadband access, protection of water users' and irrigators' water rights, a fair deal for irrigators under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, improved transport infrastructure, health, education and a greater emphasis on trades training. But it goes further than that. We have plans that need investment and a system that encourages people to be entrepreneurial and removes bureaucratic barriers to enterprise, none of which has been seen in this budget.
The following are some of the aspirational opportunities in Mallee. Our long-term vision must include a standard rail gauge link from Geelong right up through Mallee to the transcontinental rail line to properly connect Victoria to the national rail grid. The Mildura Development Corporation has welcomed the Victorian government's support in seeking some $5 million of Commonwealth funding for a full feasibility study—not in the budget. There is enormous passenger and freight potential for the whole of Victoria under this proposal, described as a strategic corridor of the AusLink National Network. The project could significantly boost economic development opportunities not just for Mildura but for the nation. It would reduce rail congestion through Adelaide by 50 per cent and save up to 32 hours delay at Dry Creek, Adelaide for trains awaiting reconfiguration. It would access the world's largest mineral sands deposit between Mildura and Broken Hill, which are estimated to be 1.8 million tonnes per annum by 2014. Iluka's richest deposits are in Ivanhoe, New South Wales. It is currently not feasible to deliver to their Hamilton processing plant by rail. In addition, inland Australia would have direct access for produce, livestock and minerals to the ports of Adelaide, and the Riverland region in South Australia could have direct access via Mildura to east coast cities and international markets. It is not just about Mallee. International freight gates at Broken Hill, Ballarat, Geelong, Horsham and Mildura would complete the connectivity configuration of rail freight identical to the successfully implemented projects in France and Saudi Arabia.
Passenger rail opportunities, including a Darwin-Melbourne link, would also be provided and give a significant boost to the tourist industry in Mildura, Broken Hill, Alice Springs and Darwin and would greatly assist the reopening of the Mildura-Melbourne passenger train. And there would be a significant reduction in greenhouse emissions by taking trucks off the road. I have long supported the need for Murray River crossings. The ancient timber bridge at Swan Hill is long overdue for replacement. We are still using the bridge constructed in 1896 more than 100 years later. Swan Hill is a main commercial administrative centre and a popular tourist destination, and a new bridge would enhance economic activity. Horsham and Stawell are on my list of concerns. The Western Highway bypasses have been deferred in this budget until 2014. Budget allocations to be spent this year, next year and the year after have been deferred in preference to spending on the western suburbs of Sydney. That is political and very disappointing to my constituents. The Western Highway is a federal highway and these works would improve interstate traffic flows between Melbourne and Adelaide and reduce congestion and bottlenecks, particularly for the city of Horsham. It is a 6.5 kilometre section of the highway and passes through residential and commercial areas, schools and highly congested pedestrian areas. It is of concern that Horsham will continue to grow as a regional centre, and investment in this highway is due now, not later.
While focused on the Wimmera region of my electorate, can I ask the House to spare a thought for Wimmera irrigators, who want to sell off all their combined 28,000 megalitres to the federal government at a fair price. The Wimmera is in the Murray-Darling Basin. So much of this money could be reinvested in the district's economy and create jobs and opportunities.
Another aspirational project I have supported for decades is improving interpretive weather radar. Such radar exists at Mildura, but there is a huge black hole between Mount Gambier and Yarrawonga. The Wimmera Development Association has proposed that the Bureau of Meteorology establish a new Doppler radar in the centre of the Wimmera-Mallee region which would return an investment of $7.7 million in increased grain productivity. Improved weather resources are a key element in emergency control, aviation, water resource forecasting, flood monitoring, and social and community planning. Such a project is vital for agriculture and horticulture.
Another disappointment in the budget was the lack of commitment for vital upgrading of the Swan Hill District Hospital, despite a very expensive submission. Swan Hill deserves funding for major project works for this hospital. Whilst we are grateful for the small amount of funding for the Warracknabeal Hospital and the Sunraysia health services, the harsh reality is that it was Swan Hill city's turn. The health services face functional issues arising from poor design and old infrastructure. An increasing need for high quality acute and subacute health care, residential aged care and mental health and community health services in the Swan Hill region is exacerbated by depleted infrastructure. It is Swan Hill's turn and we are very disappointed not to have been included in the government's program and in this budget.
Seven of the nine municipalities in Mallee electorate are under enormous cost pressure due to serious flooding in late 2010 and early 2011 when above average seasonal rainfall flooded too many of our towns. This did enormous long-term damage to roads and bridge infrastructure and eroded council assets generally. Work continues to repair and replace patched up assets but this is incurring an excessive level of borrowing from all of my municipalities and they need assistance. I would be grateful if the government would consider extending the Roads to Recovery program to give these councils some confidence. The damage to many local roads is substantial and impedes social and economic activity, especially the carriage of farm produce in good condition to grain terminals and livestock markets.
Also, I have championed the cause for water reform investment. The piping of the Wimmera-Mallee stock and domestic supply system gives me a great deal of satisfaction for the role I played in ensuring its funding. It is a $1 billion project entirely contained within the division of Mallee. I am proud of that. But there is still much more to be done. That project has given water security and confidence to an arid part of western Victoria.
The Robinvale and Woorinen projects—old soldier settlement districts—are now completed and are modern water supply schemes, but the Sunraysia irrigation modernisation project is becoming urgent to bring irrigation water delivery up to acceptable efficiency and environmental standards, and it is long overdue. Full implementation of pressurised irrigation water on demand means less water is required to grow a crop. Less water more often provides reliability and opportunity for investment in alternative crops. Applications can be matched closely to daily plant requirements and the latest irrigation and plant nutrition technology can be utilised with almost zero groundwater discharge. It is good for salt control and good for productivity, resulting in a healthier crop, higher production per megalitre, ability to adjust and manipulate production and reduce production overheads and, as I have mentioned, to reduce salinity—a huge challenge in north-west Victoria.
Such expenditure would help kick-start the regional economy, which has endured a decade of drought and then floods, and low commodity prices for traditional crops for too many years. Most horticultural cropping properties have already invested in an on-farm irrigation system but need a supply system in order to compete with their competitors on international markets. The existing supply system in the Sunraysia of the Mildura region can only be described as primitive.
Long also I have championed the cause to make the Mallee the solar power capital of the nation. The one thing we can offer is reliable sunlight. More reliable sunlight is an issue for this form of renewable energy. Mildura's TRUenergy 180 megawatt Mallee Solar Park project is being facilitated by the Mildura Rural City Council, the Mildura Development Corporation and the Victorian Department of Primary Industries Office of Solar Power. I would like to see that project reach its full fruition. The estimated cost is around $700 million and possibly between $250 million and $300 million support by the Solar Flagships Program is needed to make it a reality. The opportunities provided by such an investment are enormous for an arid, dry and struggling region, which is much of my constituency. At this point the application has been submitted to the Solar Flagships Program for federal funding and we wait patiently.
The items I have mentioned are all headline items. There are so many more I could refer to about the aspirations of this division of Mallee, but the people out there are like me—we just want to create jobs, more opportunity for prosperity, to build the infrastructure we need and deserve, to provide better health and education and to enhance quality of life. We want a tax system that rewards hard work, not one that unfairly penalises those who create wealth, and then to distribute it through employment. That is the way the economy is supposed to work, rather than government interference to adjust wealth. We want a world-class education system and we want secure borders. We want better regional health services and a compassionate welfare system which expects personal responsibility as well as provides a safety net.
It is with a great deal of pride I acknowledge all those in the federal division of Mallee who put enormous energy into ensuring this part of the world achieves its full potential. Far removed from Canberra and federal budgets, it is sometimes forgotten that such communities deliver the nation's wealth. I am proud of their determined resilience and it is a great honour to represent them in this place. They deserve proper recognition so that they can reach the goals they set for themselves in being part of a very productive region of Australia. Their hopes and aspirations deserve to be achieved. I commend them and report to the parliament their disappointment as this budget misses the mark in terms of their interests.
The budget is that time of year when government members talk about how fantastic the budget is and members of the opposition talk about how rubbish it is. It is a bit of a ritual really, but underneath all the heated rhetoric there is a lot to be learnt. I would argue that this is the time of year when the government gets to express its values in a real and practical way. In terms of the vernacular, it is where the government gets to put its money where its mouth is. Spending and savings measures are set out in the budget papers in black and white. It is an obligation upon government, I would say, but it is not an obligation upon members of the opposition. They can say all sorts of things about what they would like, and in the budget debate they can speak for an entire 30 minutes without mentioning any numbers, as we saw a few weeks ago.
Something that really is remarkable about this budget is that it is being delivered in difficult circumstances. We have a patchwork economy and enormous international uncertainty, particularly uncertainty associated with the European debt crisis and how that could lead to contagion around the world, and how it will affect us here, a long way from Europe, but we are still connected to those markets. We have declining tax revenues, which is a matter that is not always picked up by those on the other side. The tax as a percentage of GDP is as low as it has ever been in the last 20 years. Despite these circumstances, the Treasurer has managed to pull off something that is quite remarkable.
We have been able to do this because of the strict fiscal discipline that we have imposed upon ourselves. They include: the budget rules that any new spending must be offset by a commensurate savings; the growth in real spending should be limited to less than two per cent of GDP until the budget returns to surplus over the cycle; and our determination to return the budget to surplus in accordance with the needs of the economy at this point in the cycle. What is remarkable about the budget is that we have been able to deliver what we said we were going to deliver against all of those backgrounds. We have navigated our way through the troubled waters and delivered real benefits to working people—benefits like the National Disability Insurance Scheme, a $1 billion investment for the commencement of that scheme, which will make an enormous difference to families in my electorate and families all around the country because no longer will people be discriminated against on the basis of how they acquired their disability. The federal government will say that we have an obligation to assist irrespective of how you obtained that disability.
There is the enormous commitment we have made to backing in the reforms recommended by the Productivity Commission inquiry into the aged-care sector. Over $3 billion, closer to $3.8 billion, is going to be invested to aged-care reform, which includes an additional 40,000 home care places. $290 million is going to be invested into addressing what is the real epidemic of our generation, the epidemic of dementia, and how we deal with the growing occurrence of dementia in our communities. We are providing over 30,000 residential aged-care places with new fairer placement options for people in the aged-care sector. And there is an additional $1.2 billion to build our aged-care workforce.
In addition to that we have delivered a $5 billion package for assistance to families. You will not hear many on the other side of the House, those in opposition, saying much about this, and there is a very good reason for that. They did not support it, they voted against it and, if they ever find their way into the Treasury benches, they will be repealing the benefits. They are benefits like the $1.8 billion increase to the Family Tax Benefit part A which is delivering up to $600 per annum per family. There are also benefits like the $2.1 billion that we are spending for improved assistance for families with schoolkids, the schoolkids bonus. There will be $410 for every primary school child and $820 for every secondary school student. You will not hear support from those on the other side for this. Or maybe we will be surprised about this and maybe you will find some courageous voices that disagree with their leaders and will argue against the abolition of this much-needed money to families.
Of course, that builds on the work that we have already done with the increase in the childcare rebate to 50 per cent and the Paid Parental Leave scheme of 18 weeks paid leave at minimum wage, which is a long overdue reform and introduced by this Labor government because we are committed to it. In addition to these two important areas—assistance to families and assistance to the aged-care sector—there is $1.1 billion in extra spending on supplementary allowance for job seekers and those on youth allowance of $210 for singles and $350 for couples per annum. The member for Forrest talked about needing a tax system which creates incentives to get people to work. Nothing could be more important than that in the reforms to the tax system that we have put in place in this budget. Everybody earning under $80,000 a year will be receiving a tax cut. The thing I am most proud of is the incentives we are putting in place for people who are earning under $18½ thousand. These are part-time workers, single mums, mums returning to work, students who are attempting to support themselves as they make their way through university or higher education. This is typically the group of people doing part-time work and earning less than $18½ thousand a year. We are ensuring that one million people out of our eight-million-strong workforce will be removed from the taxation system. They will not pay tax, and that is a great Labor reform.
There is $500 million for dental health. This is long overdue. Those opposite abolished the Commonwealth dental scheme. We are putting $500 million as the first instalment in our efforts to overhaul and provide Commonwealth assistance under a Commonwealth scheme. The majority of this $500 million is dedicated to an assault on public dental health waiting lists.
For someone like me this is not a sexy issue, but the budget also puts aside funds for bowel screening. If you come from a family with up to four generations who have either had or died from bowel cancer, you would welcome this new initiative whereby we are providing free bowel screening for everybody over the age of 60. It is my sincere hope that we are able in future years to bring that down to at least 55 and even earlier for people in high-risk categories. It is an important Labor reform which adds to our other healthcare reforms.
When you look at all of this and listen to the carping and negativity from those opposite you have to scratch your head. You can imagine if these guys had been guests at the wedding in Cana they would have said to Jesus, 'That water-into-wine trick wasn't too bad, but what's for desert?' The budget contains magnificent reforms, increased benefits for families, tax relief, an injection of funding into the dental health scheme, all on the back of other great Labor reforms, and they are carping and carrying on, looking at the hole and not the doughnut.
The budget initiatives mean a great deal to constituents in my electorate. I mentioned the schoolkids bonus. This is a massive injection into the Illawarra and Southern Highlands economy. I estimate it is a $27 million annual recurrent injection of cash directed at low- to middle-income households. It means a great deal to those families and a great deal to an economy which is struggling in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and a high Australian dollar and what that means for manufacturing and associated industries. I am pleased that there are about 11,000 families in my electorate of Throsby who will receive the additional $600 or $300 from family tax benefit part A increases. There are around 4,700 families with kids turning 16 over the next five years who will get up to $4,200 in extra family tax benefit payments if their kids stay at school. An incentive to keep children at school is good for the households and it is good for the children. We know there is a direct link between children who stay at school and their later life opportunities, their propensity to be in full-time employment once they leave school.
I am pleased that in the 2012-13 budget there is $2.2 million for the Roads to Recovery program which provides funds directly to local governments to work on local road priorities. There is an assignment of $20 million in the budget for the Maldon-Dombarton rail link, to get the engineering work up and ready so that it is shovel-ready. I hope that the money is delivered through the minerals resources rent tax, which those in the opposition parties have voted against—they oppose taxing the superprofits of some of the wealthiest mining companies in this country to provide infrastructure to regional areas like my own and their own, I dare say. What is really good about this budget is that it does not stand alone. It builds on the great economic and social record of this government. Not enough is said about the social record of this government. We aim to build a strong economy, but that is not an end in itself. An economy is not an end in itself. The end in itself is what that delivers to ordinary Australians, to all Australians, in terms of their wellbeing, their standard of living and their lifestyle. When you are in a position to say that in the four years since you have been in government over 800,000 jobs have been created, you can say your priority is creating jobs, and the surest way to lift a family out of poverty is to ensure that people are working and that there are jobs for that family in that region.
We have copped some criticism about the absence of any great narrative within the budget about the carbon price. Let me fill that gap. This is an important reform, a difficult structural reform. But it is one that we have put in place in a Labor way, and that is a way that says, 'We understand that a change is coming down the track.' There are two options. The coalition option is to either deny that climate change exists or go and find yourself the biggest damn bucket of sand and stick your head in that bucket of sand. That is the coalition way—stick your head in that bucket of sand and pretend that this stuff is not happening. We reject that because we understand that that does great damage to the Australian economy and to ordinary working people as well. If you do not prepare yourself for massive economic change—and this is the lesson of the 1970s and early 1980s—the working people of this country will suffer. We are preparing ourselves for that massive economic change and we will be doing it gradually, and providing assistance to households and businesses along the way. The proposition of the coalition is to reject climate change and stick their heads in a bucket of sand but throw a few bucks around to pretend that they are doing something along the way—the few bucks are $1,300 per household per annum. The coalition are literally proposing to tax poor people and redistribute that money to rich people in the name of reducing our carbon pollution. It is absolutely perverse.
I was very interested to hear the member for Forrest and the contributions from many other coalition members in this debate on the importance of infrastructure—courageous contributions, I have to say, from the former government that actually went backwards when it came to spending on infrastructure and that left us with a $42 billion national infrastructure deficit. We have gone a long way to filling that deficit, with over $36 billion in projects around the country. We have rebuilt one-third of the national freight network. We have doubled the spending on roads to $27.9 billion—something for which you never get any credit from the National Party. We are spending more money on roads in National Party seats than they ever did or ever proposed to do. Ours has been a remarkable achievement when it comes to commitments to infrastructure.
We have managed to do all of this at the same time as reducing the tax to GDP ratio. The opposition talk about high-taxing governments, but one of the things that they are very embarrassed to admit is that, in the 12 budgets that were delivered by the coalition, the tax to GDP ratio was 23.4 per cent—whereas, under this government, it is nudging 21 per cent. We are a low-taxing government and have provided great social reforms in the interests of ordinary working people. I can only reiterate what I said earlier: if those opposite had been at the wedding feast at Cana, they would have said, 'Jesus, great trick with the water into wine, but what's for dessert?'
This is the fifth time we have had this Treasurer walk into the chamber and deliver a budget speech and this will be the fifth time the figures do not add up. They have never added up before and they will not at the time of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in December, and they will not any time between now and September 2013, when the final figures for the financial year ahead come in. To arrive at the $1.5 billion surplus claimed by this Treasurer, we have seen trickery with the movement of expenditure forward into this financial year or delayed to a following financial year. I will speak of those matters later in my contribution; however, I will take the opportunity to deal with the Treasurer's constant smokescreen and the facade he puts up about the reasons why he has inflicted upon this nation the four biggest deficits in history. He says it is the GFC and the reduction in revenue receipts. Strangely, he never talks about the waste that he has allowed, so let us go through how badly this government have stuffed up and inflicted generational debt on this nation. Speaker after speaker on the government side can announce how proud they are of the government's record, so I will talk about the highlights of the Rudd-Gillard government because they have had some truly magic moments since late 2007. These great efforts have, of course, created a projected net debt of some $147 billion, which will take some two generations of the Treasurer's projected surpluses to pay off—two generations where our children and our grandchildren will live under the handbrake that this government have installed on our economic vehicle.
Before speaking of these specific matters I would like to cover an example of the Treasurer's lack of credibility to set the scene. It stems from his pathetic failure in question time today after being asked on two occasions about the Labor government's border protection policy, which is defined by 314 boats and over 18,000 people arriving. He called our policy a failure, and what a joke that was. During the Pacific Solution, from September 2001 to June 2007, 1,637 were detained at Nauru or Manus Island. The former Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, said in a media release on 8 February 2008 that 705 of those detained came to Australia. That represents 43 per cent of the total of those detained. In those years we averaged less than three boats a year. When later asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the second question what sort of failure the Treasurer was talking about given that we had averaged three boats a year compared to the Labor government's two a week, the Treasurer said, 'I can certainly confirm that virtually all those people they sent to Nauru came to Australia.' So, according to the Treasurer, 43 per cent, which is what the former minister said, is virtually all. No wonder every budget prediction he has uttered has been completely inaccurate. Today the Treasurer misled the House. Today he specifically said words that are not true. It is consistent with all his past work.
On the government's mismanagement of our borders this has resulted in cost blow-outs beyond even this government's pathetic forecast of almost $4 billion, and no doubt that figure will rise. If the Labor government had left a working policy alone then the NDIS could have been paid for and 400,000 Australians with profound disabilities would have been assisted instead of just 20,000 over two years. Then there was the $1.7 billion in blow-out costs and billions of dollars wasted when value for money was not achieved due to the lack of administration of the BER program. The set-top box program cost taxpayers $308 million and there are estimates that the same result could be achieved for just $50 million—another wasteful fiasco from this government. Then there was $1.7 billion wasted in the Labor government's home insulation scheme, which was linked to four deaths and 200 fires. And what about a billion dollars in consultancies since 2007—a record to be proud of, to be sure! $300 million was wasted on the Green Loans fiasco, and they should stand up for that one too. And the school computer program blew out by $1.2 billion. Then there is the waste associated with the failed GroceryWatch, cash for clunkers, Fuelwatch, the stimulus cheques to dead people and pets and other such wasteful efforts. These examples show that this is a government that, despite having the entire public service at their beck and call, cannot administer and implement programs. It is not a record to be proud of, particularly when we must remember that every dollar that is generated in taxes comes from the productive people, businesses and areas of this nation and its economy.
My point is that this government has had challenges and the Howard government also had challenges. The difference is how you meet the challenges and also provide what the people of the nation need. The reality is that if a government makes hard decisions and manages the nation's finances carefully then maybe you cannot afford to do everything you would like to. I recall on several occasions the member for Blair speaking about what I believe was the Ipswich Motorway and how the Howard government never spent the money but the current government has. Clearly, if you are not afraid to borrow $100 million per day, as Labor does, you can do such things. If you are prepared to saddle debt on our children and grandchildren then you can do it all, but it is not right to do so. The Treasurer and the Labor government have shovelled money out the door, living beyond the means of this country, and will impose generational debt as a result. Having spoken about this government's disgraceful effort in waste and mismanagement, I will now turn to this budget. It comes as no surprise to those on this side of the House that the government has been asking itself many questions in question time as a method of promoting their pretend surplus. The government members we have heard from have been trying to create the view that the government will be returning the budget to surplus and that this somehow means it now has some credibility in economic management. But we all know that this year's budget, like all Labor budgets, will be full of smoke, mirrors and spin. There are three main things that the government has tried pathetically to advance in the budget—the urgency of returning the budget to surplus, boosting productivity and the transparency of costings—which are all problems and mistakes that have been created by this government due to its actions of reckless spending, broken promises and policy backflips.
This Labor government desperately needs to return the budget to surplus to try to stop it losing face even more. As the previous coalition speakers have stated, this government has lost the respect of the Australian public. It is no longer trusted to run the country in a competent manner. This government has no economic plan. It is driven by self-interest. The government is willing to say and do anything, including deals with the Independents, simply to remain in power. But what the government does not understand is that the Australian public are smart people and can see straight through the smoke and mirrors. They can see through this government's actions of artificially moving spending out of next year and into this year and the year after. The government is trying to deceive the Australian public, shuffling money and taking spending forward or back, out of 2012-13. For instance, it is spending over $1 billion each year on the Energy Security Fund, except in 2012-13, when the government is spending less than $1 million. The government is hiding other items, such as the bulk of the NBN Co. expenditure, a real $100 billion black hole.
It is well understood in the Australian community that, despite claiming a surplus, the government still does not have a plan to repay the debt, build a stronger economy or protect jobs. The Treasurer's mixed messages regarding the budget show that Labor's No. 1 priority is to create the illusion that it can be trusted, when really all it is doing is reinforcing the confusion and the crisis of confidence throughout the community. The fiddling of the figures and the methods such as the raising of the debt ceiling from $250 billion to $300 million are further proof that this government cannot be taken seriously. To further emphasise that point, this government expects Australians to believe that it can turn around a 2011-12 budget blow-out of $44 billion to a $1.5 billion surplus. It blew out to double what the government told us, yet now the government expects the citizens of this nation to believe its $1.5 billion claim.
I question whether the government believe it themselves. They obviously do not, because of the increase of $50 billion in the government's credit card limit, to $300 billion. This historic deception, this generational illusion makes no sense and is without logic. The Treasurer says that, despite allegedly reducing expenditure by more than $45 billion from this current financial year to the next, he still needs an extra $50 billion on the credit card. No-one is buying the fiction, Treasurer.
Regardless, the government has no credibility, and history has told us that what it says and does are more often than not two completely different things. So it will come as no surprise to anyone on this side if in another 15 months from today it is revealed that this budget has not actually achieved a surplus. It will come as no surprise because there has been a $20 billion deterioration in the budget this year and the government is expecting that by September 2013 it will have delivered a surplus of $1.5 billion. It does not make sense. It has created this position through active and popular spending habits, and anyone with the slightest understanding of economics can see that it clearly does not add up—not to mention the fact that Labor has not delivered a surplus since 1989-90.
The government's lack of credibility also relates to the problems with productivity. While in opposition they were very happy to sit back and criticise the Howard government over productivity figures and then make bold claims about how they would increase productivity if in government. However, this is just more Labor spin, as figures released by the ABS have revealed that Australia is now less productive than it was 10 years ago. According to the ABS, productivity has regressed by 2.1 per cent in the last 10 years. An article titled 'Productivity takes Swan dive' published in the Australian in December last year says:
This situation is in stark contrast with the preceding 12 years under the Howard government, when labour productivity rose at the average annual rate of 2.9 per cent.
As usual, the Treasurer tried to come out and reassure the public:
You can't read too much into productivity figures for a single quarter or even a couple of quarters.
The average Labor productivity growth across the full Rudd-Gillard term has slumped dramatically compared to when we were last in government. So Labor were happy to criticise the Howard government on productivity figures for a quarter or even a couple of quarters and claimed that they could do things so much better, but that is at odds with the current situation—declining productivity, a pretend surplus and a government that has lost the trust of the public through saying one thing and then doing another. Labor inherited a $20 billion surplus and $70 billion of net worth, and have run up deficits of $167 billion since being elected in 2007. This equates to $4,878 of debt per taxpayer, and to pay for this debt Labor are still borrowing $100 million every day. The interest payments on their debt will be running in excess of $20 million a day by 2014-15. And yet the Prime Minister cannot understand why the Australian public have lost faith in this government, a government so out of touch with the views of Australian residents.
Residents in my electorate of Cowan are sick of this government introducing new taxes in a bid to get more money to make up for their waste and mismanagement. They are sick of their hard-earned money being collected by a government whose mentality is to tax and spend. Labor's solution to every problem is to tax it and increase the cost for Australians. Since 2007 this government has announced over 20 new or increased tax grabs, including the carbon tax and the mining tax, which were both huge hits to Western Australia. How can introducing the mining tax, which is aimed at making Australian businesses and industries less productive and less competitive in global markets, help increase productivity? Or how can an economy-wide carbon tax, the biggest carbon tax in the world—which will not result in changes to world temperatures—increase productivity? As Winston Churchill said, a nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
Labor has an appalling record in forecasting its budget and economic numbers, and an equally poor record in forecasting its economic growth figures. I believe Australians will remember this government for massive debt and deficits, unrestrained borrowings, new tax grabs, mismanaged programs and, above all, pure incompetence. The coalition is an alternative government for the Australian people. We have policies and economic management strategies that will provide hope, reward and opportunity to all Australians. We will not take the easy path, trying to buy people with cash giveaways and cutting key programs and funding sources to create a budget surplus. We have a strong economic record and the knowledge and ability to get this country back on track. We will also not have a record which takes growth in defence spending back to the levels of the 1930s. There can be no doubt that the Treasurer delivered not a surplus on budget night but just the hope for a surplus. The Australian people know that this Treasurer has never come close to delivering what he predicted on each of the four budget speeches so far.
On Monday night, the government backbencher, the member for Fowler, categorically declared that a surplus had been delivered by the government. He said 'we have delivered a surplus budget'. The reality is that this government has nothing but red ink against its name and to claim otherwise is untrue. In September 2013 the final figures for the 2012-13 financial year will be in and only then will the final truth be known. I do wonder, however, what the MYEFO will reveal. I suspect the government will be in a lot of trouble in seven months time and the attempted spin will be fascinating. Perhaps when the government realise their failure to control their spending again, what we will see is the change of Prime Minister that everyone knows is coming, and a quick election before the deception is obvious.
The government claims that this budget is about a surplus, support for families, productivity and transparency but in reality it was only ever about smoke, mirrors, spin and politics. Unfortunately for you, the Labor government, the people of this great nation know that, too.
The member for Cowan's contribution shows exactly what is wrong with the modern Liberal Party. It was an absolute litany of negativity; not a single positive acknowledgement that Australia by world standards today is a miracle economy; not a single acknowledgement that we have unemployment beneath five per cent—and he leaves now because he does not want to hear the good news. Every day in the chamber when unemployment figures come up do we hear a single 'isn't that great' from the opposition; a single 'Hear hear!, Terrific work, having all these Australians in work'?
Never! That litany of negativity, the constant chipping and undermining of confidence in Australians and of Australians' confidence in themselves and in our economy at a time when, if you look around the world, you see how important are confidence and stability, is incredibly unpatriotic. It is incredibly damaging to Australia's sense of itself. I do not expect the opposition to agree with us on a whole range of policy settings. I know they have other priorities: they do not want to help disabled people, they do not want to invest in school education—
Rubbish!
You do not want to support the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
You know that's not true.
You do not want to invest in health, you do not want to invest in education, you do not want to support moving the poorest workers out of the tax system and you do not want to invest in a whole range of things that are priorities for Labor governments. What I do not expect is this talking down of Australia, talking down our success as a nation in keeping people employed during the global financial crisis. They talk down our success: look at our debt as a proportion of our GDP compared with other nations, where in many instances it is 10 times higher.
What is that, Minister?
The member opposite asks: why is that? Why do you want to talk down Australia's chances or why is it that our debt is so much lower than other nations? The answer to both of those is perplexing.
The approach we have taken in the health budget gives a good illustration of the approach that this government have taken in this budget as a whole. We have made sensible, targeted, defensible and clinically appropriate savings so that we can fund the things that are priorities for us as a government and for us as a community. This government will spend $74.5 billion on health and ageing in 2012-13, which is a $20 billion increase on Tony Abbott's last budget as health minister, which was $51.8 billion in 2007-08. In this budget we have made new investments in areas of need, including over $500 million—$515.3 million—in a better dental scheme; $475 million for 76 projects through the Health and Hospitals Fund, investing in communities right around Australia; $49.7 million to expand the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program, initially to five-yearly screening for the target age group, moving eventually to two-yearly screening; $233.7 million to continue the rollout of a secure, national, personally controlled e-health record, which will make such a difference to patients and to clinicians; $713.5 million over 10 years for primary, allied and dental Indigenous health services in the Northern Territory, investing in an area where many Australians know that some of our most disadvantaged Australians live; and $3.7 billion to build a better aged-care system. To do that, of course, we have had to make savings. When we have looked for those savings we have looked at the areas where, with clinical advice, we could make a responsible, targeted cut. We have saved $96.5 million by capping benefits under the extended Medicare safety net to discourage excessive fees and prevent misuse of Medicare to pay for cosmetic surgery, $47 million by requiring practitioners performing diagnostic services such as X-rays to have minimum qualifications and $104.6 million through price reductions to Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines. We are also looking at private health insurance policies that subsidise what are called 'natural therapies' and making sure that government subsidies are only paid where those natural therapies are determined to be effective.
Turning in more detail to dental health, delivering more affordable oral health and improving access to dental services is a major priority for this government. In fact, one of the first things I mentioned in my first press conference as the health minister was that it would be a priority for my term as the health minister. $345.9 million will be spent as part of this package on delivering services for the 400,000 people who are currently on dental waiting lists in the states and territories, making sure that those people who have been waiting for much too long will get the care they need sooner. Of course, other people will join those lists.
We will need to do more in the future and work with the states and territories to continue to invest in this area, including through, for example, our $35.7 million investment to increase the number of placements available on the Voluntary Dental Graduate Year Program from 50 to 100 by 2016; $45.2 million to introduce a similar scheme for oral health therapists, offering 50 places per annum from 2014; $77.7 million over four years for relocation of infrastructure grants, because we know that there are some communities around Australia where even if you have money in your pocket you cannot see a dentist because there simply is not one; and $10½ million over three years allocated for a national oral health promotion campaign. Today, we have once again a rising number of children with caries. Some people will tell you that that is diet; some people will tell you it is soft drink; other people will tell you it is too much bottled water because the kids are not getting fluoride in their water; and others still will tell you that as parents we have simply lost the habit of teaching our children to brush their teeth and spending the time every morning and every evening supervising. I can tell you: it does not happen in our house unless it is supervised. I have one who is a tooth-brushing avoider. Another investment is $450,000 over three years for a pilot program to support pro bono dental services to improve access for disadvantaged Australians. We know that many dentists are doing pro bono work right now. They are working with homeless people, with women and children in shelters who have left home because of domestic violence, and with refugee communities. They need a bit of help organising that and making sure that the bookings are organised and that people are going to turn up. We should reward that initiative and decency by supporting that effort.
I also want to talk a little about bowel cancer screening. Bowel cancer is a terrible cause of death and illness in Australia and it is a very preventable cause of death and illness. Bowel cancer is the cancer that is picked up early. It is very treatable and has a strong recovery rate. From 1 July 2013 people turning 60 will be invited to join the program. From 1 July 2015 people turning 70 will be invited to participate in the program. That means we will have five-yearly screening in the target population group, from the age of 50 to 70. Around five million Australians will be offered free screening over the next four years. In offering the screenings, we also need to make sure that people take up that offer. It is a very simple process. Returning that test can, literally, be life saving. We have noticed that there are some communities that have lower test return rates than others and we will have to work, in particular, with those communities to make sure that people take the test and return the screening kit. That program will be an additional $49.7 million over the next four years. By making this investment, as I said, we will also commit to moving to two-yearly screenings for all of those Australians aged between 50 and 74, which will then meet the National Health and Medical Research Council recommendation on screening.
There is so much great stuff in this budget when it comes to health, but I want to speak for a little while about the rural and regional health facilities and buildings. The government is committing $475 million in this budget for 76 health construction projects around Australia, bringing the total investment in the Health and Hospitals Fund to $5 billion. Much of it has been spent in rural and regional locations. It includes, in this most recent round of 76 projects, fantastic projects like redeveloping and continuing hospital and multipurpose health services in regional areas like Broken Hill, Bundaberg, Griffith, Hillston, Kempsey, Lismore, Peak Hill and Warracknabeal, as well as new and upgraded facilities to support additional dental services in places like Cranbrook, Murray Bridge, Narrogin, the Pilbara and Kimberley regions and Yamba. There is also additional funding for the Royal Flying Doctor Service, an aircraft-patient transfer facility, mobile oral health facilities and staff accommodation.
I was lucky enough to go to Lockhart River in Aurukun with the Royal Flying Doctor Service just last week and to see the absolutely marvellous work the Royal Flying Doctor Service does, to meet with CRANAplus—the remote area nurses and allied health people—and, most particularly, to meet with the marvellous community leaders and health professionals in Aurukun who are doing fantastic work in their own community, as well as people from outside that community. They are visiting and providing services and really doing brilliant work, and not just in the health area. I was so impressed by what they are doing in community policing as well, and what they are doing in the revolution that has happened in the school at Aurukun. They have gone from low attendance rates to great attendance rates and from low literacy rates to vastly improved literacy rates because of the leadership of their elders—their community leaders.
We are also investing in increasing the numbers of doctors, nurses and other health professionals who can be trained in areas like Broken Hill, Ulverston and Katherine by providing those training facilities and by providing accommodation. We know that medical students who train in rural or regional areas are much more likely to go back to those areas when they are practising. That is our long-term commitment to addressing some of the workforce shortage issues that we have in rural and regional areas.
The other area of important investment in this budget is $233 million which will continue the rollout of our national secure personally controlled e-health records to make sure that we provide better treatment and safer and better health services for patients, along with more convenience and the ability of health professionals to communicate better and more securely for the benefit of their patients. From July this year, Australians who want to will be able to register to create a personally controlled e-health record, which will give them a lot more security when it comes to managing their own health care. It will also make sure that, wherever they are in Australia, if they need to get access to their medical records or check the medication they are on they will be able to access that information. It will also help parents keep track of the immunisation records of their children, for example. We have made good progress in the last two years in the development of the e-health system. We are taking a moderate, staged, incremental approach. It is a little different to how some other countries have done it, but we think it is a more sensible approach when it comes to the rollout of an e-health system.
This budget is one that I am profoundly proud of. I would have loved to have time to talk about some of the broader issues, not just in my own electorate but across Australia, but, in conclusion, I just want to say that this is a budget that is full of Labor values. It takes the benefits of the mining boom and makes sure that all Australians—those Australians who have felt like they have not been participating in that prosperity that we share as a nation—can participate in that prosperity. We are investing in services and investing in support for low- and middle-income families—those who need it most.
It is sad to reflect that nowadays Australia is led by a Prime Minister whose electoral game plan is to engender class warfare to save her own political skin and with a simplistic view of Australians as either billionaire businessmen or worker battlers. That was evident in last week's budget, which abandoned 350,000 tourism business owners, 90 per cent of whom own struggling small businesses and fit into neither category. They are the backbone of the tourism market and hospitality industry, doing our nation's heavy lifting. Australia needs good government that supports investment, rewards enterprise and restores confidence, a confidence that has been crushed by the indifference and indulgence of the Gillard years. Yet the budget delivered on 8 May cancels the undertakings that the government had previously made to business for real tax relief.
Tourism expenditure is mostly a discretionary spend and is a price-point sensitive market. Yet since coming to power in 2007 Labor has made it more expensive to visit Australia through a series of cash-grab measures and has made it less attractive through reducing service provisions. It is not surprising that Australia has fallen from fourth place, when the Howard government left office, to 13th last year in the World Economic Forum's travel and tourism competitiveness index. These measures have been introduced at the same time as the tourism and hospitality sectors have been doing it tough. We have seen anaemic growth in many of our largest markets for inbound tourists exacerbated by a strong dollar. We have struggled to compete with new and highly competitive destinations in our region and we have survived the impact of natural disasters such as the Victorian floods, the Western Australian bushfires and Cyclone Yasi. Tough times for tourism are nothing new.
Just as the Howard government rose to the challenges of the collapse of Ansett, the SARS virus and 9-11, so an Abbott government will keep faith with the tourism market. We will restore its competitiveness and tackle the widening trade-tourism deficit. This will include repealing the Gillard carbon tax, with its disproportionate impact on the tourism and hospitality sectors and their energy intensive businesses. The sector are appalled that, despite employing almost one million Australians, they were not awarded any direct industry-specific compensation beyond the Great Barrier Reef visitor levy reduction for marine tourist operators, for the select few. Tourism and hospitality will also benefit from a future coalition government putting government finances in order to relieve interest rate pressure, reducing burdensome regulations and tackling the sector's 36,000 worker shortage.
Recent treatment of the tourism and hospitality sector leaves any observer knowing that Labor thinks tourism is a luxury, an unnecessary part of the services sector, less deserving of help than Australian steelworkers, who received $300 million in carbon tax assistance. To those opposite who think along these lines, I say to you that the service sector, as in many Western economies, represents 80 per cent of our economy, and tourism is one of the most important parts of the service sector. Tourism's contribution to Australian gross domestic product is $73.3 billion or 5.2 per cent of the Australian economy. That is twice the contribution made by agriculture. In Australia tourism directly and indirectly employs 907,100 people, representing 7.9 per cent of total Australian employment. That is four times the mining sector but, unlike mining, accommodation and food are shrinking. Arguably tourism is most deserving of support because it is one of our best economic multipliers. For every dollar generated in tourism, an extra 91c is generated elsewhere in the economy. What is good for tourism is good for Australia. What is bad for tourism is bad for Australia.
The tourism sector is doing it tough. Australians now spend in excess of 132 million nights abroad each year. During its peak in the Howard years, Australian tourism generated a trade surplus of $3.584 billion. Next year the sector will have a trade deficit of $8.7 billion. Yet, although the sector was already stressed, in the 2012 budget Labor has failed to provide adequate carbon tax compensation for tourism. To be clear, the tax stands to destroy 6,400 jobs in tourism, mostly in regional and rural areas. Labor has reduced Tourism Australia's budget by 6.2 per cent or $8 million in real terms. Labor has increased the passenger movement charge by 17 per cent, from $47 to $55 per passenger, and now CPI indexed. Labor has passed on $118.1 million in costs related to AFP security at airports, which will increase ticket costs. Labor has announced cuts to Customs staff, potentially increasing tourist wait times at airports. Labor has undermined its own six-day-old policy, announced on 2 May, to attract investment for new hotels with its managed investments trusts tax. Budget measures applied this year, as every year, cannot focus on any portfolio in isolation. The totality of Labor's economic mismanagement has consequences that must be paid for. Australia's net debt, now over $140 billion, dwarfs the $96 billion debt left to us by Keating. Over the past few months we have all noted that Labor's policy is to encourage illegal boat arrivals at Christmas Island, but there is no support for the profitable cruise ship industry's access to Sydney's Garden Island. Because of Labor's failed policies, including our ballooning asylum-seeker costs, we now face an economic crisis.
Through these bills, Labor now seeks to extract even more money from the industry least able to withstand this punishment. Nothing demonstrates this more clearly than the massive hike to the passenger movement charge. The PMC is a departure tax paid by all passengers departing Australia. The government has announced that the PMC will rise from $47 this financial year to $55 in 2012-13. The price of air tickets will increase by $8 per passenger. According to the Tourism and Transport Forum, this will mean a family of four from New Zealand, Australia's biggest source market, will pay more than NZ$280 just to leave our country, reducing the amount of money they spend while they are here. It will lead to a reduction in economic activity that will threaten jobs. It will collect as much as $1.04 billion by 2015-16, and this is the equivalent of $2.85 million per day. For example, a one-way fare of $69 is the equivalent of 1,667 people flying from Sydney to the Gold Coast every hour, filling more than nine Jetstar planes.
Of this $1.04 billion, Tourism Australia will receive only $134 million, in 2015-16. For every dollar given to Australian tourism, it is robbed of a further $8. This tourist tax hike in itself will not solve our outbound tourism crisis unless it is matched by investment. As the coalition's staycation.org.au campaign highlights, since the Australian dollar reached parity with the US dollar in 2008 Australian tourism has been hurting. Australians, who traditionally make up three-quarters of our visitor economy, have been leaving our shores in droves, and the 2012 budget has not helped. In fact, the government's reduction of Tourism Australia's budget by more than 17 per cent in real terms since 2008 has served to hasten the industry's decline.
When Labor reformed the PMC in 1994-95, the rationale was to cover the cost of Customs, Immigration and quarantine, plus funding to cover short-term visas. Since then it has steadily grown from its $27 per passenger base. Under the Howard government, moderate increases were applied to cover the cost of the then Australian Tourist Commission and the See Australia First campaign, and to boost screening at airports for foot-and-mouth disease. Under the Rudd and Gillard governments, two more increases have been made, the first with no rationale or explanation given. Then, this year's budget announcements included earmarking only 10 per cent of the increase for an Asian marketing fund.
Where this tourism tax is concerned, there are important differences between the Howard era and the Rudd-Gillard era. The coalition can look tourism operators in the eye and justify its increases. Labor can do so for only 10 per cent of one of its increases. Labor cannot point to an original rationale for the PMC and then link it to its tourist tax hike. In this budget, Labor will allocate $7.9 million for SmartGate passenger facilitation, whilst at the same time cutting $10.4 million from passenger facilitation. This is a Labor con job, giving with one hand whilst taking even more with the other.
They are also cutting 190 staff from Customs, which will increase passenger processing times at our airports. It is reasonable that there should be some measures of cost recovery in maintaining our immigration program, and this should be reflected in the PMC. When Labor introduced the PMC, $8 of the total $27 covered short-term visas. Now, because of Labor's inability to manage our borders, this government expects tourism to pay the price. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship's operational costs are through the roof because of illegal boat arrivals, up over $800 million between budgets. That is $4.7 billion since the 2008-09 budget. Some in the industry ask, 'Why are we still paying for the See Australia campaign?' The obvious point here is that, under the coalition, as the PMC went up our funding for Tourism Australia also increased. Conversely, PMC increases have continued under Labor whereas their funding for Tourism Australia has decreased. The tourism sector understands their obligation to maintain their $8 per ticket share of disease management, but this should not be used as an excuse to hide Labor's waste and mismanagement in other areas.
The aviation sector cannot withstand the endless hikes on top of the $6 million cut to the en-route subsidy scheme and paying for baggage screening that have already been announced. In five weeks time these rising costs will be exacerbated by the arrival of a carbon tax. The Tourism and Transport Forum submission on the impact of a carbon tax stated that it would 'kill off up to 6,400 jobs, mostly from regional and rural Australia' and mean also that the net beneficiary would be outbound tourism.
Recently the coalition has highlighted that the government's reduction of the Great Barrier Reef visitor levy to offset the carbon tax impact shows that they have begun to 'pick winners' and that that was at the expense of marine park authority research and reef management. In this budget the government has topped up funding towards the Great Barrier Reef Foundation to make up for its reduction in the reef visitor levy. I say to the Prime Minister: stop this money-go-round and drop your carbon tax! 'Picking winners' like reef tour operators ignores other marine tourism operators, like the Spirit of Tasmania, who have announced they will pass on an extra $3 per passenger per journey and an extra $6 per passenger vehicle per journey. The Spirit of Tasmania’s announcement follows similar ones made by airlines which mean that a family of four holiday from Perth to Cairns will cost an additional $24 in airfares.
We simply do not know the full cumulative effects because Tourism Research Australia has been prevented from undertaking carbon tax modelling. The Treasurer pre-announced his tax loss carry back measure as one to help businesses that were suffering in the two-speed economy. Yet the conditions applied to the $700 million tax carry back fillip mean that those in the 'fast lane' will be eligible but for those hoping for relief only incorporated companies or those businesses taxed as companies are eligible. Even then, only those that have made a profit in one of three years can apply. The reality is only 24 per cent of all businesses are incorporated. Tourism and hospitality is a classic small business sector: 90 per cent of these businesses employ less than 20 people. The ATO found in 2009-10 that 35 per cent of companies were trading at a loss. And since 2008 a great many tourism businesses have been posting consistent losses.
This measure is a mirage. On 2 May the Minister for Tourism launched the Australian Tourism Investment Guide, a policy to attract investors to build new hotels in Australia, and I applauded the move. Yet on 8 May the budget includes a management investment trust withholding tax that has made such investments less viable for many overseas investors. Tourism Accommodation Australia has referred to legal advice recommending 'that non-residents holding Australian assets through MIT structures consider whether an MIT remains the most appropriate structure for their investment'.
Secondly, the Treasurer also announced the removal of the 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax for offshore individuals, meaning it is now less attractive for offshore individuals to invest in, say, strata title hotel developments. The news comes as a further blow to the Minister for Tourism, Martin Ferguson, whose ability to deliver for the tourism industry has been called into question with his government's decision to increase the PMC despite his repeated, separate assurances that this would not happen.
Since the crisis in outbound tourism in 2008 this government has treated the tourism and hospitality sector as the country's 'cut and come again' magic pudding. The cuts outlined in this budget will mean many in-bound tourists will choose not to come again. This government needs to realise the importance of the tourism and hospitality sector with the million people that it employs and reward it appropriately, not put in the way barriers that will stymie growth and stymie opportunity. This government needs to follow what the coalition will do, which is to restore reward, hope and opportunity.
What a pleasure it is to be able to speak to this latest chapter in the story of the economic management of this country by this government and talk about matters of weight and importance to this country instead of the muck that we have been wallowing in in the last two days in the other chamber. The story so far is a great one indeed. This government has navigated the worst economic crisis in our history since the Great Depression. It has managed the exit from two wars that we inherited from the coalition, the worst floods and fires in our history, the collapse of ABC Learning, the swine and equine flu challenges and all to great success, so what we see at this point in time is the greatest alignment of macroeconomic indicators in the country's history, an alignment that was never seen under the coalition, never matched by the coalition and, in many cases, not matched in Australia's history.
What are they? We now have interest rates of 3.75 per cent, never matched by the coalition. Since the election of this government, if you have a $300,000 mortgage you will be saving $3,000 a year on that. Inflation is around 1.6 per cent and unemployment is 4.9 per cent. I would like to indicate that in Eden-Monaro, the unemployment rate is in fact 2.8 per cent, which is a wonderful achievement that we have pulled together to achieve as a team effort. We have also delivered record terms of trade and record investment. There is a $490 billion investment pipeline in the wake of claims by the coalition that our mineral resources rent tax and other measures would dissuade investment. These are record levels of investment, so it gives the lie to those claims.
We also see, for the first time in Australian history, the major credit agencies—Fitch, Moody's, S&P—rating us at AAA for the first time in our history. This was never achieved by the coalition. Our very, very low levels of debt compared to the international community and all comparable developed countries make us the envy of those countries at 9.6 per cent. If you look at some of the historic figures, during the First World War it was 50 per cent of GDP and 140 per cent of GDP in the Second World War. Many times in our history it has been around the eight, nine or 10 per cent mark. We are on track with our sound fiscal policies and economic management to amortise that debt to bring it down to 0.5 per cent in due course.
This magnificent record of achievement, an unparalleled record of achievement, is a tremendous narrative. It is also part of how this government is achieving the economic reform so necessary for the future of this country—those dead years, Rip Van Winkle years wasted under the Howard government with the boom when we were not investing in the very key measures that were necessary to avoid the impacts and distortions of the mining boom which can create the so-called Dutch disease effect. The things that needed to be done then and were not done are being done now: the investment in infrastructure, the investment in innovation, the investment in skills. A good example of that in my own area is three new trade training centres in Eden, Bombala and Bega; the expansion of the facilities of the Queanbeyan TAFE; and the investment of $3 million in the Wollongong Access Centre facilities in Batemans Bay, offering new vocational and trade training opportunities to the kids in our region. This is contributing in itself to the new apprenticeship levels and jobs in the area that has got us down to that 2.8 per cent unemployment level. We are also taking the benefit from the massive investment in infrastructure and projects.
What also amazes me is that we hear a lot from some members of the coalition who claim to represent rural and regional Australia, but all we saw during their years was the vacation of services from rural and regional areas. They would look at a country school, and what would they do? They would give it a flagpole. My area is a great example of what is happening in rural and regional Australia: $100 million has gone into the 70 schools in my region. When I travel around the 70 schools the parents, the teachers and the kids have nothing but praise for what this transformation of our educational landscape has delivered.
Hear, hear! You won't read that in the Murdoch press.
Absolutely, we did not read it—in fact, we read the opposite. But what we are seeing now is the kids in the country schools getting the same quality of education as kids in the cities for the first time, because new technology that has gone into those schools accompanying the BER—interactive whiteboards, connected classrooms that were not there under the coalition and were not invested in by the coalition—is enabling those kids to get courses, training and teaching that they were not able to get before.
Added to that is the $332 million coming in to Eden-Monaro in investment in our health. When I surveyed my electorate, I had an overwhelming response, over 7,000 responses, and 99.9 per cent of the top priority listed in the survey was health. People in rural and regional Australia suffered the denigration of those services over many years of neglect under the coalition. The billion dollars that was ripped out of the system by Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was health minister is now being redressed by this government. I have seen the investment in primary healthcare facilities with the surgery in Bombala Street in Cooma, the surgery and facilities at the MPS in Bombala, the Queen Street private health facilities in Moruya, the mobile dental services on the coast, the dental surgery in Dalmeny, the brand new primary health service in Tuross Heads and countless facilities benefiting from our after-hours service injection of funding. Now we are seeing the GP superclinic fully operational and functioning in Queanbeyan. There is funding in this budget for the GP superclinic in Jindabyne. We will see next year the work commence on the $170 million new regional hospital in the Bega Valley, servicing our region with state-of-the-art facilities. This investment is magnificent, overdue and highly necessary in a neglected region like mine. This is what rural and regional Australia is getting from this government.
There are other benefits in this budget. This is a budget that delivers for low- and middle-income earners and for all Australians but also delivers some of the big visionary reforms that we were looking for to move this country forward to those new frontiers in disability issues and in aged care. We now have $1 billion towards the National Disability Insurance Scheme and a $3.7 billion funding commitment towards the reform of our aged-care sector, particularly to look after those long-suffering aged-care workers who have really been behind the door in terms of proper wages and conditions over many years. This is historic. It adds to the other historic measures in the improvements in our pension funds with, on a 100-year scale, an increase that we have never seen before, the introduction of the Paid Parental Leave scheme and the mining resource rent tax that finally gives Australians a fair share of the resources that they only get one chance to get the benefit of. These things are historic.
We are also seeing the measures that the health minister announced just earlier here to encourage the health workforce and deal with the health workforce shortages that we have. I will not go over those, but certainly they are having an effect. Just a week or so ago, the health minister was with me travelling around the electorate announcing a new $31 million scheme to really tackle that health workforce issue in our region with new facilities and training facilities and student accommodation in places like Moruya, Bega and Cooma. This is addressing the issue from every end of the spectrum.
Also in this budget we are delivering on the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program that the minister talked about. For the 16.1 per cent of people in Eden-Monaro who are over the age of 60 this will be a very important preventative health matter and one that I know they will welcome, along with the $500 million dental health blitz which will improve dental facilities in rural and remote areas. These are things that people in rural and regional Australia salute and welcome.
The Paid Parental Leave scheme has been taken advantage of by 790 local families in my area. The pension reform that I mentioned is benefiting 27,100 local pensioners in Eden-Monaro, with them receiving an extra $154 a fortnight if they are a single pensioner or, if they are couples on the maximum rate, an extra $156 a fortnight combined. We have seen the carer supplement improvements and the senior work bonuses that are benefiting 27,100 local age pensioners in my area who can now keep working and still earn up to $250 a fortnight and not affect their pension. This is a welcome reform for them and it helps us to encourage the retention of skilled and experienced people in the workforce. We are also receiving benefits through the family assistance payments, the Family Tax Benefit Part A and B injections and the single parent funding. Also my 48,000 local taxpayers getting their tax cuts on 1 July have seen three tax cuts in a row delivered to them now, which has greatly improved their circumstances. In fact, the wage earner in Eden-Monaro now pays $1,200 less tax than in 2007-08 as a result of those tax cuts.
Plus the interest rate cuts.
Absolutely. The interest rate cuts have also enabled them to better deal with cost-of-living pressures. We are also seeing the superannuation benefits that are coming from the mineral resource rent tax, 41,500 local workers are going to see their superannuation guarantee increase from nine per cent to 12 per cent, and the benefits for the 18,200 small businesses in my electorate who will be able to take advantage of the loss carry-back program, the $6,500 asset write-off and the $5,000 vehicle write-off. Many of them have already talked to me about how they have utilised those provisions and how they took advantage of the 50 per cent write-off during the GFC. Many businesses have retooled, re-equipped and taken advantage of those provisions in other ways, as they have all around Australia.
Mr Gibbons interjecting—
Now the school kids bonus will help my lower-and middle-income earners deal with the cost of putting their kids through school, not, as the Leader of the Opposition abused them, by wasting that money on poker machines. That was an insult to them of the worst and highest degree. They were certainly not impressed with his attitude to providing them with assistance with the costs of education.
Mr Bruce Scott interjecting—
There are 8,250 families in Eden-Monaro, who are expected to receive a total of $400 a year for each child in primary school and $820 a year for high school kids. For the parents of our 14,500 local kids this will certainly be very welcome.
Honourable members interjecting—
I mentioned that infrastructure is a key issue. We need to unclog the arteries of this country and improve ports, airports and roads. This budget delivers on the $60 million Bega bypass. It is 40 years since this project was first announced and the land corridor provided for this project. Now, finally, it is to be delivered. The main construction phase of the bypass will commence next month. We have also seen $3,822,000 delivered in this budget for the Roads to Recovery program, which is vital for the struggling councils in my region. We have also seen of course $2.5 million going to heavy vehicle safety road stops. It is important for the virtuous circle that we try to create in our country towns to make sure that their local amenities and sports facilities are dealt with too. We have invested heavily in such projects right around the region.
It is also part of the vision that we have for rural and regional Australia that we are delivering on the NBN and the clean energy future package. It is an exciting time for Eden-Monaro, which is seeing over $1 billion of investment in renewable energy projects. We have the Infigen Capital Wind Farm near Bungendore, which has 60 turbines. Infigen is going to add another 40 and is going to build a 50-megawatt solar farm there. We have a $700 million wind farm project being built around Boco Rock, near Nimmitabel. ActewAGL is drilling a geothermal sweet spot near Nimmitabel. We have Carnegie Corporation doing a wave energy project off the port of Eden. Its first test-buoy will go in next year. Of course, we have Snowy Hydro, the grand-daddy of them all. The Frontier Economics study that the New South Wales coalition government commissioned indicated that our region would be one of the top four in the nation to benefit from the clean energy future package and that there would be 2,300 new jobs generated by that package. My region understands that benefit. It understands that the future of the region is being preserved by the investment in a cleaner environment and our securing a clean energy future plan. The NBN also is so critical to rural and regional economies. I have a $200 million timber precinct investment from Dongwa, a Korean company, going into Bombala.
Opposition members interjecting—
Dongwa intends to build a particle-board-manufacturing capacity that is incredibly and totally dependent on the NBN, because of the state-of-the-art equipment it intends to put in. The coalition intends to rip that opportunity out of rural and regional Australia by denying it the NBN. That is a complete betrayal of rural and regional Australia.
Eden-Monaro will not accept having this bright, shining future be ripped from it by a coalition so ready to sacrifice our opportunities and avoid the hard decisions. My community are not that timid, narrow-minded, defeatist, cowardly people the coalition believes them to be. They are ready to reach out and embrace the future with imagination and courage. Eden-Monaro is ready to show leadership. It is a shame that the coalition is only ready to lurk in the shadows, fostering confusion, fear and despair.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Before I call the member for Maranoa, there has been far too much static coming from both sides of the chamber, which is making it very difficult for the chair to absorb the valuable contributions that are being made in this chamber tonight.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the protection, because I do want to make this contribution after what I just heard from the parliamentary secretary and member for Eden Monaro. His speech was very comprehensive. We heard a great deal about the rorts being put into Eden Monaro through the regional grants program. While I know that not one cent has gone west of the Great Dividing Range in Queensland, we have heard about multimillion dollar after multimillion dollar of regional rorts going into Eden Monaro. And this is what I am really surprised by: not once did we hear the words 'carbon tax'. I must read the Hansard tomorrow—I may stand corrected and will make a correction if I am wrong.
This budget did nothing for the real economy of our nation. A budget must address business confidence in this nation. I travel extensively in my vast electorate of Maranoa and small business after small business have said they have no confidence in investing in the future. They do not feel they have a future and any confidence will be dampened down with the introduction of the new tax announced in this budget—the carbon tax to begin on 1 July.
The other thing this budget did nothing about was addressing issues very dear to my heart: the city-country divide and the equality of access to health and education. Research papers which have been written show the numbers out there are quite alarming and are getting worse and worse. I will touch on that later.
This government is very good at introducing new taxes such as the mining tax and the carbon tax. With the huge global uncertainty out there at the moment, Europe is in a fragile state and the American economy is trying to recover from massive debt and record unemployment. But this government wants to smash the very economy that creates jobs and wealth for all Australians by introducing the carbon tax, which will cascade through the system. At every point when people purchase a product—food, electricity, registration and fuel for their car—the carbon tax will have a cascading effect. It will hit every element of our economy. It is not rebated to businesses like the GST at each point of sale. It will be passed on to the next level and consumers will have to pay.
We are the luckiest country on earth. In this global uncertainty why would any government want to hit the very economy that is going to be so important to an improving economy in the future? Is it any wonder that Australian people have no confidence in this Prime Minister? Workers are certainly worried about their jobs, but we know that this Prime Minister is only interested in her job.
The government are predicting a $1.2 billion surplus in the 2012-13 financial year. This time last year they were predicting a $12 billion deficit, which grew to $23 billion and now is $44 billion. If they cannot get last year's figures right, how can we possibly believe that in the forthcoming financial year there will be a $1.2 billion surplus, when they were out by $21 billion in the last financial year? It is just fanciful.
We also know that this government is great at spending money. Also included in the budget papers was a facility to increase the borrowing capacity of the Commonwealth from $250 billion to $300 billion. Try going to your bank and saying: 'We've got to increase our debt,' when you have had deficit after deficit. In fact, this government has not brought forward one surplus. They do not know how to spell the word, I am sure.
Didn't you read the budget papers? $1.5 billion.
Now they are trying to say that in the next financial year there will be a surplus of $1.5 billion. Really! Just look at the record. I say to taxpayers out there, the hard working Australians, just look at the record and that will tell the story. The carbon tax will have a very real impact on my electorate—and not only my electorate but also right across Australia. Look at the impact on outback tourism, a significant part of the economy particularly at this time of the year. Southerners from other parts of Australia get out of the frosty plains of the cities and towns and come to western Queensland to see the wonderful weather and tourist attractions that we have out there. But it will cost them more to get there, whether they come by bus or plane or drive in their own vehicle. When they get there the accommodation will be dearer, so it will cost them more to travel. Outback tourism is a significant part of our economy in western Queensland.
Food producers are at the start of the chain of food production in this country. They will not be able to pass on the increased cost of electricity when they pump water, or grow food or fibre or cereal grains, as they do in my electorate. A few weeks ago I was in Stanthorpe looking at the possible site for a new dam which has been on the drawing board for over 20 years. It is a significant salad vegetable production area in Queensland, particularly in the summer months because it has a moderate climate. Those producers will not be able to pass on to the consumer the increased cost of producing that food. They will have to absorb it or not grow it. One of the concerns they raised with me, and others who were with me at those meetings, was that perhaps it would be cheaper to import it from overseas where the Australian carbon tax would not impact on the cost of producing basic food items.
I have two councils—Western Downs Regional Council and the Maranoa Regional Council. They have been identified as great big polluters and they are going to have to pay a carbon tax. Who will pay it? The councils will pay it but who will pay it ultimately? The ratepayers—the pensioners, the senior citizens, the businesses whose costs will be driven up. It is not rebateable. Will the farmers be compensated for the increased cost of production? This government seems to say that what it pays upfront is a compensation for the increased cost of living for a household. But no, the farmers will have to absorb it.
We talk quite often about a two-speed economy in this nation but what we are is two nations in this country that we all so love. We talk of the horizontal fiscal equalisation distribution of the GST revenue to the states. What I would like to see is some horizontal fiscal equalisation of that money, when it is transferred to states, to across the states, to the rural and remote parts of Australia. One particular priority for me is the area of health. The other day I was looking at the work of John Humphries from the Monash University School of Rural Health. To put it this way, if I were to hold up two photos of two newborn babies, identical in every way except that they lived in different Australian postcodes, they would show the difference in postcodes meant a difference of up to seven years in life expectancy. That is because one comes from rural and remote Australia compared to one living and growing up in the capital cities. The Monash University study showed that life expectancy in Australia decreases as remoteness increases. As I said, it is a differential of up to seven years, merely on the basis of the postcode of where you were born and grew up and lived. That paper also went on to say that life expectancy is increasing 20 per cent faster for urban Australians than their country counterparts. So, the lot for those who live east of the Great Dividing Range—anywhere between Port Douglas and the mouth of the Murray River—is that you have a greater chance of living another seven years. For those who live in urban Australia it is rapidly increasing; yet there has been no significant increase for those who live in rural and remote Australia. That is an issue that all levels of government have to address.
I think the big thing here really is access to education, specialist services and primary health care. We need to make sure that we can bring more services to those people who live in rural and remote Australia. Those figures should ring alarm bells for every level of government in this country. I repeat that number: a child born today in rural and remote Australia, just by virtue of the postcode where they were born, has a life expectancy seven years less than if they were born in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane or anywhere east of the Great Dividing Range, which is a great divide. It divides this nation into two nations, not one. That is an issue that has to be addressed and it is one of the great passions that I have.
I also want to talk about the issue of access to post-secondary education, because that is another area where we have a great divide. The participation rate in post-secondary education—
You should welcome our skills package.
I will come to that. The participation rate in 1996 for students from rural and remote Australia was 18 per cent. By 2006 it was 21 per cent. In metropolitan Australia in 1996 it was 28 per cent and in 2006 it was 35 per cent. For those students from remote Australia the participation rate was one per cent. The member on the other side might scoff at this, but I represent a rural and remote electorate and I am passionate about the great divide that exists in this country. We have two nations, not one. I can put it another way. If you look at the population aged between 15 and 64 in Australia today, 27 per cent of them live in regional and remote areas, whereas 19 per cent are higher education students. But look at the participation rate. In 1996, 18 per cent of students from rural and remote Australia participated in post-secondary education. By 2006 it was 21 per cent. In metropolitan Australia the participation rate was 28 per cent in 1996, it rose to 35 per cent and it is still escalating.
What does that tell you? That assistance for students who live in rural and remote Australia so they can afford to access post-secondary education is the issue that must be addressed by government. The parents do not have the ability to send all their children away—these figures confirm it. Governments at all levels have to address this issue. Urban Australians have subsidised urban transport to access university or TAFE colleges. They can live at home and they can have a job if they remain at home. But those who live in rural or remote Australia have to leave home to gain access.
It is an issue of equality of access in the areas of health and education. It is an issue I am passionate about and we as legislators have a responsibility to make sure that we do more than has been done in the past, because the gap between rural and remote Australia and metropolitan Australia in the area of health and life expectancy and in relation to access to post-secondary education is widening. We talk of horizontal fiscal equalisation for the distribution of GST revenue to the states. Tasmania gets more than Western Australia, and we all agree that we should be a Commonwealth sharing in the common wealth. But when some of those funds go to the states why can't it be applied to ensure that your geographic postcode has no bearing on your life expectancy or your education opportunities? Today it does—the postcode where you were born, where you live and where you grow up.
People say, 'They choose to live out there.' Well, that is where their job is. That is where the great wealth of this nation is generated—in the mining sector, in the agricultural sector by the food producers of this nation. They live there and they produce this wonderful food for us, which is so often taken for granted in this country. My time is just about up—in fact it is—but I just want to say that it is a passion of mine, the inequality between people living in rural and remote Australia and those who are living in metropolitan Australia. The gap is widening. It is something that the government did not address in this budget and it is something that I will have on my agenda in the lead-up to the next election. (Time expired)
I first welcome the comments by the previous speaker, the member for Maranoa, insofar as he was saying that skills are important. Skills are important for the life chances of Australians right around the country, so I hope that the member will recognise the huge investment that this government has made in this budget in skills, in particular by allowing anyone in this country who wants to obtain a certificate III to have a government subsidised place. That is of critical importance because we know that people who have a certificate III can ensure that they have a better earning capacity. So I think the turbocharged investment in skills, which will be industry led, which has industry involvement, which will open up training opportunities right around this country, should be supported by the member opposite. We are turbocharging when it comes to skills and postsecondary education. It is a pity that he did not acknowledge that huge investment that we have made in the budget, but I have to agree with him on that one point, that skills are important in this country, and I am so pleased that this budget is delivering it. It is a pity that he could not acknowledge that.
Anyway, I rise today to support the 2012-13 budget. This is an incredibly responsible budget and it is also a Labor budget, a budget that builds on our strong economic management. The Labor government have shown that, at the time when it is needed, during a GFC, we will act to support jobs and that when conditions get better and growth returns to trend we will return the budget to surplus to ensure the future prosperity of our nation. Not only are we returning the budget to surplus on time, as promised, but we are also acting to spread the benefits of our strong economy more fairly by delivering relief to families and businesses who are feeling the pinch.
Probably the members on the other side are a little bit embarrassed. Especially, I think, the members would be a little bit embarrassed that, despite the Leader of the Opposition talking a lot about the difficulties people are facing, when it comes down to it, when he has the opportunity to look at fairness and look at helping families, he squibs it. It took this Labor government to set in this budget the long-term foundations with which we can really make the most of the opportunity that will be presented by the Asian century and ensure our lasting prosperity.
The other part, as I said, is that this is also about delivering a fair and balanced budget that looks at those who are doing it tough. This is in direct contrast to the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech. Once again there was a lot of fanfare and a lot of theatrics; no detail. It added quite a lot to the bulging $70 billion black hole but, most importantly, was a real kick in the guts to Australian families who are struggling to make ends meet, by saying no to education payments for parents who are putting their children through school. Obviously it is very disappointing that the opposition oppose that, but we are not going to let the opposition stand in our way of delivering for Australian families.
This budget puts us on track for a $1.5 billion surplus in 2012-13. We are returning the budget to surplus, as I said, on time and as promised, despite global uncertainty ripping an estimated $150 billion from government revenue. We are doing it ahead of every single advanced major economy. I think this is very, very important, because we hear a lot from the opposition but they fail to recognise, when they compare us to the rest of the advanced economies in the world, that we are doing extremely well. This has not been by luck. This has been through having a government that is actually willing to act and willing to deliver. I am very, very pleased that we have been working very hard to return the budget to surplus. Returning the budget to surplus does a number of things. It gives us a buffer in times of continuing global uncertainty but it also provides maximum flexibility for the Reserve Bank to cut interest rates further if they deem it necessary. So I think that, while most of the rest of the world is still grappling with the fallout from the global financial crisis, we are seeing our economy continue to grow. Indeed, our economy is seven per cent larger than before the global financial crisis. Once again, we often see a lot of negativity from those opposite, which I think is a little bit of envy, because, at a time when countries around the world are struggling with huge unemployment and are facing recession, we on this side of the House, in government, are creating jobs. More importantly, the envy from the other side comes from the fact that, while they were in office, they could not get a AAA credit rating from all three major global rating agencies. They could not manage that. Even their great hero Peter Costello could not manage that.
Was that nine surpluses in a row, or 10?
The member opposite is talking about nine surpluses in a row. Of course, $100 billion of that was excess revenue from the mining boom. And what did they do? They squandered it. They would have had a lot bigger surpluses if they had actually used that money in a constructive way. They had rivers of gold which they squandered, and that is why, I have no doubt, all three international rating agencies at one time never, ever offered a AAA credit rating.
Our government's management of the economy is doing that well, and that is why we have seen Wayne Swan get the gong that Peter Costello could never get from Euromoney magazine. It is why we got the AAA credit rating from all three major global rating agencies, something, once again, that Peter Costello could not get. He is feeling a bit grumpy at the moment; I have seen the media reports and I have no doubt that, since he may be taking his anger out at a number of different Liberal Party people, he is a little frustrated because Wayne Swan is achieving what he could not do.
He wants to come back! He wants Kooyong's seat.
I think it is a bit tough for the member for Kooyong to have to make way for Peter Costello. I think it is pretty rough. He probably wants to come back and see if he can get back.
We understand that in this country our economy is ticking over on a macro level. There is, as many have said, a patchwork economy and that is why this government is not just saying, 'Mining companies that are doing very well—you just keep your money and we'll just let everyone else suffer.' We have had a lot of criticism from the opposition about this. They have said, 'Don't bring in a mining tax; don't do this; don't do that,' and we have heard them talk about the patchwork economy as well and how we need to do more. Well, when you look through all the details, the opposition offer nothing to address fairness in this country. In fact, they plan to vote against the company tax cut to help companies across this country. I just cannot believe we are in a situation where, as the member has quite rightly put it, the Liberal Party vote with the Greens to oppose a tax cut. Once again, it has taken this side of the House to look at the patchwork economy and say, 'There are some areas that are doing very well but there are some areas that are struggling, so we're going to help out.' Of course, it is opposed by those opposite. They oppose helping businesses with a one per cent tax cut, and they are against helping families by opposing the schoolkids bonus.
I want to talk a little bit about the schoolkids bonus, because I believe that this is so important. I was at the Hallett Cove Shopping Centre on the weekend, and I actually had parents come up to me and say: 'Thank you to the Labor government that is delivering this; this is important money that we need to help our students. More importantly, we are insulted that the Liberal Party would say that we would just waste this money.' I had a number of parents come to up me to say that. I personally think it is insulting that the opposition thinks that parents will just waste this money and that they will not spend it on the kids.
When you ask the opposition why they think this and why the baby bonus is different, the answer that comes back from the Leader of the Opposition is, 'It just is'. That is not a good enough answer for Australian families. Australian families want to know why the Leader of the Opposition and all of those opposite do not trust them—do not trust them to spend the money on their kids. They are very disappointed, and I know that that message from the opposition was a disappointing message heard loud and clear by families in my electorate—
The Nationals don't believe it.
Around 11,200 local families are expected to receive this new cash payment just in my electorate, and that will assist them greatly. A number of other family payments have been announced in this budget, and I am very pleased that 15,000 families in my local community of southern Adelaide will receive assistance of at least $300 and up to $600. In addition there is the supplementary allowance that was announced to help young people, single parents and unemployed people who are currently receiving allowances to manage unexpected living expenses. Once again, we are helping those who are doing it tough.
While this has been a difficult budget because we are bringing it back to surplus and are doing the responsible thing, a couple of things we have done mean a great deal to people in my electorate. The first is the injection of funds into the dental health care scheme. After the Liberal government was elected in 1996, the first thing they did was cut the Commonwealth dental scheme. This made it difficult for many people on low incomes, on payments and on pensions, to access dental health care. I am proud of this budget because it provides a boost to funding to ensure that we can reduce the waiting list for people on low incomes.
In Noarlunga, in my electorate, as a result of federal government investment we have done a lot to improve dental services. As a result of having the GP superclinic at Noarlunga we have been able to triple the number of dentist chairs at the Noarlunga dental service. This injection of funds will affect the lives of so many people. When the opposition cut the Commonwealth dental scheme they failed to understand that dental health is really important to general health. They completely ignored that and said that the Commonwealth would cut its funding. I have seen some awful situations of people with significant dental problems who, because they did not have a chronic disease, were not considered worthy of adequate dental treatment under the coalition government's scheme. This is an issue that is raised with me on a very regular basis, and I am pleased that this measure is in the budget.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme is another budget initiative that is about fairness. Of course the Leader of the Opposition said he was in favour of it, but he then sent the shadow Treasurer out to backtrack significantly on their commitment. So on this issue the Leader of the Opposition says yes but the shadow Treasurer says, 'Well, we'll see'—and, of course, the shadow finance minister said it was just an aspiration. While they might deliberate on what they want to do, this side of the parliament is delivering. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is beginning with trials in four locations and will ensure that, no matter how you got your disability, you will be provided with adequate services to ensure that you can live a fulfilling life and achieve your potential. That is critically important, and it makes me proud to stand here as part of the Labor government.
This is a very important budget—it delivers to families, i t shares the wealth of the mining boom, i t deliver s not just to vested interests and it help s those who are doing it tough —and I commend it to the House .
As we would all recognise, it is the time in the night for little children to be going to bed and we have just heard one of the great fairytales, told to us by the member for Kingston. It starts with this story that once upon a time there was this Treasurer who promised a surplus. No-one on this side of the chamber and certainly no-one from the broader Australian community actually believe a single word this Treasurer says when it comes to the word 'surplus'. Keep in mind, we are talking about a Treasurer who has delivered record deficits four years in a row. Even the Treasurer himself does not seem to believe he can deliver a surplus, because last year I remember speaking in the House and I challenged the Treasurer. I said: 'I'll bet you $1,000 that you will not deliver a surplus in the next financial year. I'll bet you $1,000 and I'll donate that to your favourite charity if you can actually deliver a surplus. Of course, if you can't deliver that surplus, you'll need to make a donation of $1,000 to my local surf lifesaving club.' I am afraid the Treasurer would not take the bet. He did not have the courage of his convictions, because this is a Treasurer who simply cannot be believed.
I want to raise several issues tonight in relation to the budget, particularly the impacts they will have on my community in Gippsland. My concern particularly relates to an aspect of the budget that the Treasurer cannot bear to name—that is, the carbon tax. Overall, I believe this is a disappointing budget for regional Australia, particularly for my electorate against the backdrop of the government's Contract for Closure scheme, part of its so-called clean energy future package. There is already a crisis of confidence in my electorate, particularly around the Latrobe Valley, and it is directly linked to the uncertainty that this government has created through its reckless decision to legislate for what is the world's biggest carbon tax. We have already seen job losses in the Latrobe Valley and there is a very real prospect of more to come. I know the government likes to use the high Australian dollar as a defence and the reason that these jobs are being lost. Of that assertion, I simply ask: why on earth would you make it harder? When we have a high Australian dollar, while there are difficult times facing many factories, some parts of the agricultural sector and certainly the power-generating sector, why make it tougher for Australian manufacturers to do business? Why make it harder for them to compete on world markets?
I believe that regional Australia already makes an amazing contribution to this nation. We heard the member for Maranoa speak previously about the great contribution that regional Australians make in their day-to-day lives. But they are desperate for a government to show real leadership on this particular issue. The carbon tax debate is followed very closely in regional communities, particularly in my community of Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley. As I have said to the House before, my community is at the absolutely pointy end of this debate. For them it is not some abstract argument. It is about their jobs. It is about the lives they lead today. It is their hope for the future, the opportunities that they can provide for their children in the future and the role that they can play in helping this great nation be even greater in the future. The fundamental problem that this government has relates to its carbon tax broken promise. This Prime Minister will simply not recover in the eyes of my community, because of that fundamental breach of trust. That is the simple fact of the matter.
They all voted on that, did they, Darren?
No.
No, they didn't! That is the answer to the question.
No, they did not vote because before the election the Prime Minister said there would no carbon tax. So you are right, Parliamentary Secretary, they did not vote on that because your Prime Minister promised no carbon tax. She ruled out a carbon tax and then she did a black flip.
No, they did not vote on that either, Darren, and you know it.
That is what you will not admit.
Mr Sidebottom interjecting—
Order!
You will not admit that.
You have got to be joking.
Order! The parliamentary secretary is defying the chair.
I sat in the chamber today and I listened to the Treasurer say, 'We'll support the Australian workers every day of the week.' I am almost physically sick when I hear those mealy-mouthed assertions from a Treasurer and a Prime Minister, who simply refuse to stand up for blue-collar workers in my electorate. Those opposite can roll their eyes as much as they like. This government says it is governing in the interests of working people. But this government wants to shut down power stations in my electorate and that will result directly in more than 500 job losses, with flow-on effects to thousands more. There can be no denying that. The Contract for Closure policy is directly aimed at shutting down 2,000 megawatts coal-fired power stations and the most obvious targets are in the Latrobe Valley. I do not think that any member can deny that. This government wants to kick out power station workers—kick them out of their jobs—particularly in the Latrobe Valley, if this contract for closure scheme progresses in the way that the government wants it to progress, and it will devastate the Latrobe Valley.
I say to members opposite: the Latrobe Valley power station workers do not want the household assistance package; they do not want transition plans; they do not want these so-called promises of new green jobs—they want the jobs they have got today. They want to keep the security of the job they have already. They do not want it taken away from them by the government and its carbon tax. I think that it was appalling that the Treasurer in his budget speech could not even bring himself to address the words 'carbon tax', so it is no surprise at all that when it comes to actual assistance for regions affected by this policy, he was silent on that issue as well.
The great hypocrisy of this position is that right now throughout Australia we are mining coal, loading it on ships, sending it to China, India, Korea and Japan. We are sending millions and millions of tonnes every year and as far as I know when it gets to those destinations it is burnt in coal-fired power stations. If one minister can come to my region and explain to me why it is okay for a Chinese, Indian, Korean, and Japanese power station worker to have a job burning Australian coal, but it is not okay for a bloke from Morwell to have a job burning Australian coal—if one minister can come to my electorate and explain that to me—then perhaps I will see the light when it comes to this carbon tax policy. I have had a lot of ministers come to the Latrobe Valley. There have been a lot of visits. But there is not one cent on the table. As things stand today, there is not one cent on the table from all those ministerial visits when it comes to this issue of transitioning to the so-called 'carbon constrained future' that this government is imposing on the Latrobe Valley.
The classic example relates to the budget in terms of Latrobe Regional Hospital. Latrobe Regional Hospital had a major bid before the government in the lead-up to this budget process, and I acknowledge that it was not significant. It was $65 million. I have had the opportunity to visit the hospital with the board chair, Kellie O'Callaghan, and the state member, Russell Northe, and there is no doubt that the staff at Latrobe Regional Hospital are doing a great job in difficult circumstances. The facilities are in need of a desperate overhaul and I think that the staff and the board are to be congratulated for the work they are doing in very difficult circumstances.
I have spoken about this issue many times before in the House, and I raise it again tonight in the context that there was no funding for Latrobe Regional Hospital in the most recent budget. To the government's credit—and I have given the government credit for this previously—there have been previous funding allocations for significant health initiatives in the Gippsland region, particularly in the Latrobe Valley with the Gippsland Cancer Care Centre and Gippsland Rotary Centenary House. They are significant upgrades and are most welcome. But the LRH upgrade is the most urgent health issue facing the people of Gippsland and Latrobe Valley and, as far as I can read the comments of the ministers who have visited my region, when they talk about helping my region in the wake of the carbon tax and they talk about holistic development and issues to do with the health and education of the region, the proposed upgrade of the Latrobe Regional Hospital ticks a lot of the boxes concerning those issues the ministers have raised when they have been in my region in relation to regional development and the future health and prosperity of the region. So I encourage the federal government and ministers who have come back to my region, to put some money on the table and support these initiatives that they have so far only spoken about when they have been in Gippsland.
On a changed tack, because the member for Kingston raised the issue and many others have spoken on it as well, there is another budget related initiative that I want to discuss this evening, the so-called schoolkids bonus. I have a clipping here from Monday's Latrobe Valley Express newspaper. It is where the minister for families is all fired up about the coalition's decision to oppose the payment of $410 per child for each child in primary school and $820 per year for each child in high school. In her comments the minister attempts to take me to task. She calls on me to explain to local families why I support ripping vital payments out of their hands. There is a small problem with the minister's rhetoric, in that the government guillotined the debate. I did not get a chance to speak on the issue. Minister, to be fair, it is probably a bit unreasonable to be putting out press releases in a local member's electorate telling him to explain himself when it was this government that stopped members opposite from having the chance to have their say. Nevertheless, the minister makes a claim:
Darren Chester said 'no' to the new Schoolkids Bonus that gives 9450 local families with kids in school extra support to pay for things like uniforms, text books and excursions.
If I had had the chance to speak on this issue, I would have said to the minister that I have no problem with a schoolkids bonus if it means that the money will be spent on the kids themselves and their education needs. We already had a system in place called the education tax refund, and I do not think it was unreasonable that under that system the parents had to provide receipts to indicate that they had spent the money on education-related expenses—on things such as uniforms, textbooks and excursions, which the minister referred to. This is an important issue because we have had experience in Victoria of what is called the education maintenance allowance. Despite the previous speaker's suggestion that parents are angry with the coalition, I had two principals in my electorate raise their concern directly with me last week that, unlike the education maintenance allowance where there is a capacity for the money to be paid to the schools and managed by the schools to ensure it is used on education-related expenses, this money will just go straight to families and no responsibility is placed on them to make sure it is spent on education expenses.
To me, this is not a question of trust or of getting all holier than thou or anything like that. We know from bitter experience that some families will waste this money and that some families will not use it on education expenses. You would have to be naive or a fool to think otherwise. Some families are in a situation where they do not have a lot of disposable income because some of them have quite simply not been good at managing money in the past. We need to accept that that is a reality. Allowing funds like the education maintenance allowance, which applies in Victoria, to be paid directly to the school enforces a savings system that benefits children and their community. So the government's claims in relation to this issue simply do not hold water in light of common practice right now within states where schools have the capacity to take a sum of money and manage it for those families who have some difficulty in doing so.
Any responsible government is charged with achieving value for money, but that is not an issue for this government. I was fascinated to watch the ABC interview last week by Chris Uhlmann of the former Treasury boss, Ken Henry, because Mr Henry gave an insight into the global financial crisis and how things were managed, but he indicated that value for money was not his highest priority. Those on this side of the House have been saying that for a very long time. Mr Henry said:
… whether the money is in some sense wasted because there's overcharging or whatever, of course it's an important point but from a macroeconomic perspective it's very much second order, maybe even third order.
I am not an economist, and I respect Mr Henry's position. But, to the Australian populace and the Australian taxpayers, value for money is the bottom line. Australian taxpayers expect us in this place to deliver value for money for every one of their hard-earned dollars they send here. For the government to produce this budget and expect it to be believed is simply fanciful. As I said earlier, it is simply an evening fairytale being put forward by the Treasurer.
I finish on a positive note about the situation we find ourselves in. My community has been extraordinarily resilient. It has survived through fires, floods, droughts, and—heaven help us!—we will not have to survive through another term of a Gillard government. But, if the government will not help us, I urge my community to work together amongst ourselves and to help ourselves. In the next month I am sending a message out to Gippslanders about a 'shop locally' campaign to try to help sustain local jobs and help local businesses prosper. I am writing to everyone in my electorate and providing them with information on the importance of shopping locally because we face some difficult economic times in our region. The 'putting locals first' campaign that I have run over the course of my time in parliament will be ramped up over the next four weeks. We will encourage families to understand that it is the local small businesses who are the engine room of the Gippsland economy and that they deserve our support.
Any member from a regional area understands that it is the local small businesses—the mum-and-dad enterprises with perhaps a handful of staff—who provide the backbone of regional economies. It is those small businesses who sponsor local sporting clubs, who put up the prizes for the school awards nights, who look after the community groups and who provide training, new skills and opportunities for young people in the community. So the message I will be taking out to the people of Gippsland over the next month is that every dollar we spend at a local business helps to make sure that our economy remains strong and that, if we take a holiday in Gippsland and enjoy some of the great experiences that are available there, we are helping to keep jobs in our region and make sure that young people have a strong future in the Gippsland district.
In closing, I say I do have concerns about the budget. Primarily they relate to the No. 1 fact and the No. 1 concern in the broader community—that is that when it comes to money Labor simply cannot manage the budget, and that means that Australian taxpayers are going to be required to pay back this debt for generations to come.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, and good evening colleagues. I have just been having a quick browse at the economic indicators in Australia. If I read those indicators correctly, Australia has an unemployment rate, an inflation rate and an interest rate below five per cent. If you believe those opposite and read News Ltd newspapers, you would swear this is the end of the world. Let me repeat it—unemployment, inflation and interest rates below five per cent. But it is the end of the world. I am not an economist but I have been doing a bit of reading and I can tell you that a percentile decrease in the value of the Australian dollar and the Howard government's introduction of the GST have had and will have more of an impact on the Australian economy than the clean energy future and a carbon price. But, boy oh boy, have a read of the News Ltd newspapers and listen to the opposition and it is the end of the world. Australia has an unemployment rate of below five per cent, an interest rate below five per cent and an inflation below five per cent.
The envy of the world.
I would not say 'the envy of the world' but I tell you what, I would not want to be anywhere else. Of course, we must deal with the reality of Australia. I have been having a look at this budget and I have looked at my region, because I am biased, on the north-west coast and the west coast of Tassie including King Island, and I think this budget is a good budget for the nation. It is responsible and it is fair for my people and for small businesses. That mob on the other side say they are the claimers, the saviours and the supporters of small business but, when you look at the record, they are hopeless.
What do I care about in particular? I care about education, so I look at the budget and say to myself, 'What does it do for education?' Well, we have a proud record of investment in this area. We are implementing the school kids bonus scheme. That is the one that the opposition say, 'For heaven's sake, don't give it to parents, because they wouldn't know what to do with the bonus.' Those opposite could not even imagine that parents with children going to school would actually use the bonus for expenditures and costs of education—of course they will. The mob over the other side, the mob for choice and free enterprise, could not imagine the population having enough brain and willpower to use money wisely. The bonus is $410 for each child at primary school and $820 for each child at secondary school. It is needed, it will be used responsibly and there is choice. It is fantastic and, again, it is there to assist families when times are tough. This means the Labor government has backed up its massive investment, which the other mob are happy to turn up to but never recognise, in the Building the Education Revolution. We are putting more money in families' pockets to assist with school expenses and we know this will benefit education.
I just looked in my electorate again. There are 63 schools with over $100 million of investment in the BER, 95 projects and four trades training centres dealing with hairdressing, construction, horticulture, engineering and hospitality. But, those opposite say, 'What has Labor done for education? What has Labor invested in education?' I think the facts are clear. Every member in this House, including those on the opposite side, know exactly that you cannot invest in anything better than education and this government has put massive, record amounts of investment into education into all regions including those electorates on the other side.
Most businesses in my electorate are small businesses, as are most represented in this chamber tonight, as we come from rural and regional areas, and small businesses are the predominant businesses. This government does look after them in what are challenging circumstances. For the smallest businesses we have increased the instant asset write-off to $6,500. It might not sound much until you think about it. That is $6,500 for every item—an instant write-off. So small businesses will benefit massively from this. But, if you listen to the other side, small businesses are going to go down the tube. This will help with cash flow to 2.7 million small businesses around Australia, small businesses like Mount Gnomon Farm, which I visited a couple of weeks ago with the Minister for Small Business, Brendan O'Connor. They are suppliers of free-range saddleback pork products. They will be able to write off refrigeration equipment—which they specifically raised with us—which will assist them to expand their business. I know that Brendan listened very intently to their comments about freight and freight logistics charges in Tasmania and has taken that on board, and I thank him for that. They are one of around 9,600 small businesses in Braddon which will benefit.
The budget also includes significant incentives and assistance for small business. For example, the loss carry-back provision is a really interesting proposition that will allow companies to carry back up to $1 million worth of losses to offset past profits and to get a refund of tax previously paid on that profit. That was one of the recommendations, of course, that came out of the tax summit.
Then there are the tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners. In Braddon, approximately 35,000 taxpayers will receive a tax cut on 1 July—a tax cut, but of course you never hear that mentioned on the other side. With the increase in the tax-free threshold to $18,200, 3,000 residents in my electorate will not pay tax at all. But you do not hear that on the other side.
In this budget there is $1 billion to initiate the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Those on the other side originally professed interest in this and support, but now of course we cannot expect that support at all. I know that disability support advocates and the disabled themselves in Braddon are welcoming this initiative, and I, along with my colleagues from Tassie, have already met with the Minister for Health about selecting north and north-western Tassie as a launch site for one of the first NDIS sites in Australia. No doubt colleagues on my side of the House and opposite will also be putting propositions forward to the health minister, even when they pretend that they may not be interested in it.
When combined with the $3.7 billion commitment towards aged-care reform, this is a significant budget for the elderly, the disabled and the infirm. I am also really pleased that years of hard work in my electorate have finally paid off with the provision of $1.28 million to establish a centre at Mount St Vincent, in Ulverstone, to train healthcare professionals in aged care who will provide services in our region. Aged care is crucial in my region, particularly as we have a very high aged demographic compared to the Australian average and a rapidly ageing population structure. The new centre will not only greatly improve access to quality health care and necessary skills but will, like any other investment, stimulate the local economy and create new jobs.
In this budget, $650,000 has been allocated to boost security for passengers travelling through Devonport Airport, which is on the eastern end of my electorate. We also share another airport with Burnie; it is called 'Burnie airport at Wynyard', but it is the Burnie airport itself. More than 50,000 passengers fly out of Devonport every year, with this figure likely to keep growing in coming years. The safety and security of all Australian passengers is the government's highest priority, and that is why Devonport Airport will see the funding support the purchase of two explosive-trace detection machines—God help us that we never need it—one checked-baggage screening machine, one carry-on baggage screening machine, one walk-through metal detector machine and four hand-held metal detectors. I will continue to work hard to make sure that Burnie ends up getting security, because it is the only airport in Tasmania that does not have security. It seems strange to me that the chain of security in Tasmania is missing that important link.
In my role as Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries I have responsibility for dairying. It is a great industry to be associated with. In the budget, Dairy Australia will be allocated $1 million for energy assessments of dairy farms. In this way the government is helping dairy farmers to lower their energy costs and improve energy efficiency in dairy farms. I also note that the dairy industry is a major winner in the recently announced Australia-Malaysia Free Trade Agreement. The agreement will allow annual increases in Australian exports of liquid milk at zero tariff. After my recent trip to Western Australia and in the wake of a report from Wesfarmers, WA is, I believe, well placed possibly to take advantage of this opportunity to expand production and exports to Malaysia's rapidly growing middle class.
In Tassie, at the moment dairying is undergoing a rapid expansion. It is exponentially increasing, especially in my electorate, with major announcements from processors: an increase in capacity from Fonterra, a proposal by Kirin-Lion-Nathan to massively expand specialty cheese production in Burnie and on the iconic King Island and Murray Goulburn and Tasmanian Dairy Products are currently building a milk-drying facility in Smithton. The opportunities created by these expansions may be leveraged by the Commonwealth and state governments' $104 million investment in the Midlands Water Scheme. My recent visit to the Tasmanian dairy business of the year, the Rosemount dairy farm in Cressy, highlighted to me that opportunities may exist in Tassie in areas that have not been considered traditional dairying areas. I would also like to comment on the first major robotic rotary dairy near Deloraine which has been established by the Dornauf family. This is going to have exciting prospects for the dairying industry throughout Australia, particularly in Tassie.
As part of the $20 million IGA diversification funding associated with the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement, $4.25 million has been allocated to fund what we call a new Agritas Trade College at Smithton—that is at Circular Head in the far north-west of Tassie, in my electorate. This is an area that is going to explode with dairying. Funding for this new college is $4.25 million, and up to $1.5 million has been allocated to invest in a major upgrade to the Harcus River Road—particularly for road upgrade and energy provision. This is on top of the $45 million voluntary exit assistance package that we have managed to devise and implement for harvest-haulage and silvicultural contractors.
Freight is a significant issue for an island state like Tasmania. A combination of factors recently, such as the loss of direct international shipping—for those who do not know, we do not have any direct international shipping to Tassie now—and the higher Australian dollar, which is affecting all exports, have put pressure on Tasmania's exporters. That is why the Labor government, particularly through the member for Grayndler, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, and my parliamentary colleagues from Tasmania have seen an allocation of $20 million to assist in the transportation issues facing exporters. We hope that we will be able to make some form of formal announcement of that distribution in the very near future.
This is a responsible government producing a responsible budget. Australia is returning to trend growth, so it is appropriate to return the budget to surplus. Interest rates are now lower than at any time under the previous Liberal government, and a family with a $300,000 mortgage is now paying around $3,000 a year less in repayments. In the Labor tradition we are managing tough economic times, as we did through the global financial crisis, in a responsible manner while providing assistance to those who need it most. I remind those in the chamber again: Australia has unemployment, inflation and interest rates below five per cent. But, if you listened to those opposite or read a News Ltd newspaper, you would never believe it.
I too rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-13 and related bills, and the recently-brought-down federal budget. I was quite interested to listen to my colleague from Braddon, in Tasmania—I am always fascinated to know what goes on across the other side of the ditch—but it is just a little strange that he did not mention the carbon tax. The member for Braddon mentioned a small business in refrigeration and dairy farms, but he did not mention how much the cost of that refrigeration would go up through electricity prices and he did not mention how much those dairy farms would have to pay for the electricity to pump the water to their pastures. Nor did he mention how much the carbon tax was going to affect the cost of their nitrogenous fertiliser or the cost of freighting their milk, let alone that, when they needed to re-gas their refrigeration systems—whether it be the refrigerated transport for the milk or on-farm coolroom storage—the carbon tax was going to exponentially increase the cost of the fluorocarbons that are involved in refrigeration to the extent that to re-gas a refrigerated semitrailer will cost tens of thousands of dollars.
From the outset I say that I am not going to stand here and criticise absolutely everything in the budget, because obviously there are things in there that I agree with. The budget is the tool that manages the economy of the country; the budget is what pays for our public servants, for education and for everything else. So I would be foolish to criticise everything in it, but I guess is the general tone of my contribution is critical. We have had members of the government up here speaking about individual items in the budget—the beads and blankets and other trinkets they have managed to get for their own electorates—but the real tragedy is that the Australian people have stopped listening to this government.
I have just had a week in my electorate, and the conversation was not about the payments to school students, the extra funding for Newstart or the payments to pensioners. The conversation was about frustration over this government's loss of direction, the frustration that the country has become rudderless and that we are losing direction. So, while people welcome the cash payments, they are concerned about the general welfare of the economy. The reality is that these payments are not going to make the recipients better off, because the payments will be a mere shadow of the costs of the carbon tax. It is interesting that, on the night that the Treasurer brought down his budget, the carbon tax was not mentioned. But, if you go out into the streets of Dubbo, Mudgee, Moree, Narrabri, Warialda or any other town in my electorate, it is on everyone's lips. It is on everyone's lips because it is seeping into every aspect of everything we do.
I represent an area that very much relies on exports. The two major industries in my electorate—agriculture and mining—contributed to Australia staying out of recession. These are the two major industries that are keeping Australia going, particularly in the last four or five years. But there was very little in this budget to encourage either of those industries. As a matter of fact, we are getting a minerals tax, which is going to impact on one of the major industries in my electorate, and agriculture has basically been ignored.
I would like to talk a little bit about agriculture. The frustration, unrest and unease of the people in my electorate did not start with this budget; it started with the general shift in policy in this country under the previous Labor government and this Labor government. The Green influence on every piece of policy that comes out of this place is making Australia uncompetitive with the rest of the world. The carbon tax is a grand gesture to the rest of the world to say, 'Look, we care about our environment.' Grand gestures are fine if they do not cost you anything, but this grand gesture is going to cost the Australian economy billions of dollars. I liken the carbon tax to fastening a shot-put to a chain on the leg of every one of our Olympians when they go to the London Olympic Games as a gesture to prove that we care for our environment, expecting our Olympians to compete on the world stage with those from the rest of the world, who do not have such an impediment. That is what this carbon tax has done.
Earlier we heard the member for Braddon in the chamber speaking about the great investments of the BER and about how important investment in education is. I could not agree more. Education is the one thing that can help society. Education is the one thing that transcends poverty, bigotry, unemployment and social disadvantage. That is why the billions of dollars that were spent on the BER were such a lost opportunity. As is often the case with this government, the problem lies not so much with their ideas to stimulate a certain sector of the economy, such as education, but with their ability to implement and manage programs.
I visited Windeyer Public School about five months ago, just before Christmas. They had a classroom for each child. Three months after their BER project—worth about $300,000—was completed, they closed the school. Louth Public School, a wonderful school on the Darling River, has a classroom for each child. The last thing that the four students at Louth Public School needed was an extra classroom, but that is what they got, whether they wanted it or not. Due to the lack of oversight and the mismanagement of the BER in the public school system in New South Wales, builders and contractors in my electorate are owed thousands of dollars. One builder in Moree is owed $642,000 for work done under the BER. If they had given the money to the Catholic education system, maybe there would have been a different outcome. I have seen the projects that were implemented by the Catholic education system and they were mostly very good. The ones that were implemented through the government have been an absolute disaster. The collapse of TCT Constructions in Dubbo has left businesses in Dubbo about $2.4 million in the red. That is the mismanagement that is being caused by this government. Local government is going to cop a real hit from this carbon tax, not only from the thousands of dollars that emissions from land fill are going to cost but also from the cost of road construction. There is a fuel cost in road construction. The bitumen base of roads is based on petroleum. Councils are going to have cost increases of hundreds of thousands and, in some cases, millions of dollars. There is the cost of street lighting and of swimming pools. All the infrastructure that councils are expected to run will be hit by this tax. In New South Wales, councils have rate-pegging, so they have no ability to pass on this tax. How they are going to cope with this added impost they do not know, and I certainly do not know either.
The role of the government is not just to hand out individual amounts of largesse; it also needs to fund programs. I acknowledge that in this budget some of that funding went to my electorate—not very much, I have to say, when I hear some of the speeches from those on the other side. But a little bit of money went to my electorate. That is what is expected of government.
The real tragedy of what is happening at the moment in this country is that its citizens have lost confidence. The citizens of my electorate are just holding back: they are saving more; they are not venturing out to put on extra staff in their businesses and, in some cases, they are shedding staff; they are not putting the renovation on at the back of the house that they have talked about for a while; they are not taking that trip. They are bunkering down because they have lost confidence in this government's ability to manage the economy and the country. That is the real tragedy. You only have to spend time speaking to people, as I did on the weekend at the Dubbo show. Sad as it may seem, the first question from 90 per cent of the people who came up to me was: 'When are we going to have an election?' That is happening right across the country. I find that a real tragedy.
There are a lot of other things happening in this place that I find incredibly frustrating. I am not going to comment on them. We all know what is taking up the time of this House at the moment. It is such a shame that this parliament and this government has sunk to such a low that people have stopped listening to it. In some cases, people are probably harder on the members on the government benches than they deserve—but that is what has happened. I have never seen a community so stressed about where we are going as a country.
This is a lost opportunity. The Treasurer made much of his surplus; we all know that it is a contrived surplus. We all know that the payments which went to compensating for the carbon tax were made this year, before the start of the next financial year, so that the expenditure will not be in that year. We all know that money is being moved forward to the states for road funding so that it will not be included in the next financial year. The last budget blew out by, I think, $12 billion more than was expected. The real proof of the pudding of this budget will be at the end of the next financial year. No-one seriously believes that we are going to end up at that time in surplus. What is the point of having a surplus if it is being generated only by paper being shuffled around?
Governments have a role to motivate and inspire the people that they govern. Australia has great resources. What has made Australia great is its ability to produce large amounts of food and fibre, its mineral wealth and the availability of its cheap energy. What this government has done through its green agenda over the last four years is put a handbrake on all the natural advantages we have as a country. All the advantages that we had over our trading partners now have had an artificial barrier placed upon them, and we are starting to see that manifesting itself. In Kandos, which was in my electorate until the last election but is now in the seat of Hunter, they had a cement plant with over 100 years of history that is now closed. The cement is coming in from Asia into Sydney Harbour as clinker while the plant at Kandos sits idle and the cement workers are ignored. (Time expired)
Tipping points are crucial in the climate debate. They can be the difference between success and failure and, if misjudged, can prove costly. While, thankfully, the global environment has not yet reached any tipping points, we have had a few political tipping points in the Australian climate debate. A lone voice that switched the opposition leadership from the member for Wentworth to the member for Warringah condemned the party of Menzies to be antimarket and to turn its back on economists and scientists.
Another tipping point, less well known, was just as costly. On 7 December 2009, five Greens party senators had the opportunity to act on climate change and ensure Australia had a price on carbon. They had the choice to join two brave Liberal senators and act in the interest of the future. Instead, the five Greens party senators chose political self-interest over the national interest. They chose to side with the sceptics and the antimarket forces. What was the result of their action? The clean energy future package enacted by this parliament has the same 2020 emissions reduction target as that of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme back in 2009. Both schemes aim to reduce our carbon emissions by five per cent compared with a year 2000 baseline. Both schemes are market mechanisms designed to find the least-cost method of reducing carbon pollution.
The economics of climate change is clear. A market based scheme is the cheapest, most efficient method of abating carbon in the economy. It is based on basic public economics; putting a price on the negative externality. The earlier you act the cheaper the cost of abatement to the economy and the greater the potential economic gain. So if you are aiming for a particular goal by 2020 then your total emissions will be higher if you start in 2012 than if you started in 2010. These principles underpin the work of Sir Nicholas Stern, Professor Ross Garnaut and numerous other economists both in Australia and overseas.
The CPRS was to have come into effect in July 2010. The clean energy future package will come into effect in July 2012—two years later. That delay—that inaction—has meant a lost opportunity, both social and economic. The failure of the Greens party to put the national interest ahead of their narrow political interest has cost Australia. A report from ClimateWorks in April 2011 showed that delaying action by one year increased the cost of abatement by $1 billion. Since the Greens party delayed a carbon price by two years, they have increased the cost of abatement by $2 billion. Over this two-year period, ClimateWorks also estimates, the delay has caused at least 10 million tonnes of abatement to be lost. We will still get to the same emissions reduction goal as the CPRS would have, but total emissions over the decade 2010-2020 will be higher than they would have been if we had put a price on carbon pollution back in July 2010. That extra 10 million tonnes of carbon pollution equates to the annual emissions of two million cars. The increased carbon emissions due to the actions of the Greens party is equivalent to two million more cars on the road for a year. Two million cars—remember that next time you hear a Greens party representative talking about their commitment to environmentally-sound transport.
Delaying a price on carbon by two years also cost Australian households and businesses $5 million a week from unrealised energy efficiency opportunities. We have lost investment opportunities and there has been an increased cost to business caused by lack of certainty regarding climate policy. For all their claims to be green, the Greens party has a brown tinge. Pricing carbon is not a Greens party reform; it is a Labor reform. It sits proudly amongst Labor's achievements economic, environmental and social. Like the market deregulations of Keating and Hawke, pricing carbon will keep our economy and industry competitive in the low-carbon-pollution world of tomorrow. On the way through we are reforming the tax system by trebling the tax free threshold, saving one million Australians from filing a return. It was Labor that fought for the age pension and, as we price carbon, it is Labor that is ensuring that pensioners and families are assisted.
Long before environmentalism became a fad it was Labor that not only talked green but also acted green. It acted to protect the environment. It was a Labor Premier of New South Wales who founded the Kosciusko National Park in 1944. It took a Labor government—the Hawke government—to protect the Franklin River, and it was Labor leadership on the world stage that preserved Antarctica. Labor heritage listed the wet tropics of Queensland: the Daintree. Labor created the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. It was Labor in 2007 that ratified the Kyoto protocol, following proudly in the footsteps of the previous Labor government, which had signed and ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992.
Labor has been protecting the environment for over a century. While the actions of others have cost the environment and the economy, Labor has had the courage to act to secure the environment and the economy for generations to come.
I rise to provide some comment on the various appropriation bills before the House. Whilst many have spoken in wider terms, I will restrict my comments purely to defence. It is instructive to look back at the history of Labor's defence policy. It came to the election promising a three per cent real increase in the defence budget and a white paper that would structure a force for the next 20 years. If we look at what has been delivered, to say it is appalling does not come close. The promised three per cent real growth was only 1.3 per cent as at the end of last year. Because of this budget, we now see growth at the lowest level since 1938. Our defence budget has now dropped to 1.6 percentage GDP; it was 1.55 per cent in that fateful year before the war. Close to $18 billion has been stripped from the defence budget over the last four years and projects have been pushed to the out years—to the never-never. Force 2030, which included a suite of capabilities, is now no more. The government has admitted failure by announcing a new white paper for 2013, citing a range of changes from the global financial crisis. Yet that crisis has not changed the strategic outlook in our region at all.
The current budget has stripped $5.5 billion, including $960 million next financial year, from the defence budget. The chiefs of all three services—Army, Navy and Air Force—put out a communique to their respective commanders and senior service staff to make the point, which I will read from what General Morrison said:
While some recommendations have been hard to make, I stand by the decisions upon which we have advised.
They certainly have been tough decisions to make. The Chief of Army said:
As Army commanders you have a key role in assisting me to explain the budget to our people, but I ask that you reiterate to them that I am Army's only public spokesman on all Budget related issues.
The Chief of Navy in his communication reinforces, on the last page, the same thing:
I remain the only Navy spokesman on budget related matters.
In the House of Representatives I am the coalition's spokesman on defence matters and, whilst the government is not allowing anyone outside of three-star generals to make any comment, let me comment on behalf of 50,000 uniformed men and women. Let me make a very sound comment regarding the disastrous budget that, in terms of its funding as a proportion of GDP, has put our Defence Force back more than 73 years.
Let me make a definitive statement that our capabilities have been substantially reduced and that that is being felt by the men and women in our Defence Force. In fact, the instruction by the Chief of Air Force makes this point:
I understand many of you who have spent a long time in the Air Force feel that entitlements have been eroded as a result of the Strategic Reform Program. I want to reassure you that changes will not impact entitlements underpinning Defence service …
The point is that men and women are feeling the pinch from what this government is doing. But it is instructive that we have a look at the actual result on the ground.
Every single bit of evidence leads me to the conclusion that up to two or three weeks before the budget was announced the Defence Force was none the wiser on the brutal cuts that would eat into our capability in the foreseeable years. Defence, to use an analogy, is like the Queen Mary II: if you wish to turn the ship it is going to take you four nautical miles to get that ship around. It starts slowly, it stops slowly, it turns slowly. You cannot turn on and off the most advanced weaponry the world has ever seen. Yet this government treats defence budgets and defence capability as some sort of plaything to meet whatever budget requirements it needs.
Let us look at what has happened to Army, and this is straight from General Morrison's defence budget brief for his commanders. Let us look at the impact these cuts have had, which is what General Morrison has briefed in relation to his entire force. There is the removal of recreational leave travel for single members over the age of 21. They were entitled to go back to their next of kin once or twice a year but that has now been cut. They cannot travel back to see their next of kin because these guys in Labor cannot stop spending. The gap year program for Army, Navy and Air Force, to give young people leaving year 12 the opportunity to go into the military for 12 months, has been scrapped. There is a 10 per cent reduction in Army Reserve training salaries, so 10 per cent of our Army Reserve is being cut. What will that do to our regional communities, to our men and women who have put together their lives to help serve their nation? That has now been cut.
There is a 20 per cent reduction in Army's minor capital equipment expenditure—that is, expenditure under $20 million which is being cut. A squadron of main battle tanks has been cut or, more importantly, put into temporary storage. A squadron of 113AS4 armoured personnel carriers is being put into storage. Our armoured reconnaissance helicopters, our Tigers and MRH90s, have had their work rate reduced. We are not able to fly our military helicopters as much because of what this budget has cut into. Explosive ordnance, deployable local area networks and clothing are being cut, and that is being achieved by drawing down on current inventory. That current inventory will have to be redrawn back up again but, heaven forbid, not in 2012-13, this hallowed year where there is a $1.5 billion surplus—except when you add in the clean energy fund and the NBN it is suddenly an $8½ billion deficit. This whole thing is complete smoke and mirrors. And it is the men and women in uniform who will feel the pinch because of this disgraceful and deplorable budget.
There is a delay in the procurement of field generators and combat load carriage equipment. This will be achieved by drawing down on current inventories. We are going to reduce our combat load carriage equipment inventories. We have a 10 per cent reduction in postings and relocations. Our self-propelled gun, an artillery piece that is fully armoured, fully protected and can move under its own steam, is being cut. The combat identification of ground forces, LAND 146 phase 2, is being rescoped. This is a project that was delivering a digital close air support capability for LAND forces. It has been rescoped back into another project. Twelve additional Army projects have been slipped by one year and some by two years. AIR 9000 CH CAP, the capability to align our CH47Fs to US built standards, is being deferred. Our REDFIN special operations capability, which is replacing our special operations vehicles and battle management systems, has been deferred, even though this Prime Minister stood at the Chicago summit yesterday and committed our special forces to at least another decade of kinetic activity in Afghanistan and, in the same breath, said, 'We are actually going to defer your main operating special force capabilities by a little while on the ground, but we still want you to spend a decade in theatre.'
The tactical unmanned aerial vehicle, Shadow replacement, JP 129 phase 3, is being delayed. Shadow has just been implemented into theatre. Our soldier enhancement version 2, which is enhancing our F88 Austeyr weapons, LAND 15 phase 3C, is being delayed. Like the infantry can do without their weapons! The integrated soldier system version 3, which is the next generation of our soldier combat system covering lethality, survivability, mobility and command and control, LAND 125 phase 4, is being delayed. We are at war and I cannot think of many things more important for our next generation of soldiers—those in special forces and other enabling areas who will be in Afghanistan for the next decade—than their combat system covering the lethality, survivability, mobility, command and control.
But what really annoys me, what really angers me about this bunch of lightweight Labor hacks in government—and I have chosen my words deliberately and carefully—is that JP 154 phase 2, the counter IED, improvised explosive device, the force protection ECM and weapon technical intelligence capability, has been delayed. Half of our deaths in combat have come from improvised explosive device blasts. Whilst General Morrison tells me that combat operations through to 2014 will not be impacted by the decisions of this government, we are in Afghanistan for the next 10 years. We will be fighting and deployed against an enemy that is learning quickly about IEDs and the capacity to command, control and detonate them. And the project that is looking into the future of countering those IEDs is having to be delayed because these clowns cannot sort their budget out. I cannot think of anything more disgraceful than Army being forced to defer projects like that.
JP 3011 phase 1, non-lethal weapons, enhancing the ADF's non-lethal capability, is being deferred. The next time these clowns on the government benches complain because kinetic force has been used on future operations, the next time the raving Left in this country and its supporters in the Labor Party and the Greens complain about the use of lethal force, let me remind them that the government they supported, voted for and, in the case of the Greens, formed coalition with, forced Army to defer JP 3011 phase 1, non-lethal weapons enhancing our non-lethal capability. There is a price you pay for this type of fiscal irresponsibility. The problem is that the Labor Party is not going to pay the price, except perhaps at the ballot box. Our men and women are the ones who will have to pay the price in capability. Twenty Army major capital facilities projects have been delayed by up to three years. The relocation of 17 Construction Squadron, the Holsworthy Barracks redevelopment, the Larrakeyah base redevelopment, the Enoggera redevelopment, the Randwick Barracks redevelopment, the Lavarack Barracks upgrade, the Edinburgh multi-user depot, the Enhanced Land Force stage 2C, the Oakey redevelopment and further projects at Watsonia, Bindoon, Anglesea, Singleton, Kapooka, Robertson Barracks, Puckapunyal, Victoria Barracks Sydney and the A Company 41 RNSWR new Tweed Heads depot have all been delayed by between two and three years. Why? Why is this happening? Why are these projects part of the $17 billion over four years that is to be ripped out of Defence?
It is not hard to work out why. This is the Labor government that came to power in 2007 promising to take defence and national security seriously. They promised they would have a national security statement every year—every year—to properly frame the national security debate, our position and our strategic environment, and how Defence operated within those boundaries. And how many national security statements have we had since 2007, since Labor came to power? One. What happened to having a statement every year? What happened to the foreign affairs white paper that was promised? What happened to our strategic positioning? What happened to our defence white paper in terms of Force 2030, a defence posture for the future? What happened to supporting our region in terms of the fundamental US defence pivot back towards the Asia-Pacific? What happened to all of that? What happened to the great rhetoric, the lofty tones and various prime ministers standing on board warships and submarines? What happened to that? What happened to the fundamental importance of national security?
If we look at the Navy, we see that a range of major capital facility investment programs have been 'rebalanced'—the Chief of Navy's nice way of saying they have been pushed out by two to three years. Navy has a significant reduction in fuel funding. I am not too sure what Navy vessels run on, but I would suggest fuel is fairly important! The Chief of Navy has asked the fleet commander to review his plans for the fleet over the financial year 2012-13 and to advise the Chief of Navy on activities which should be afforded the highest priority, given his stated focus. What the Chief of Navy is saying is that he does not have the fuel or the capability to move his ships as he wants to. His most pressing capacity is Exercise RIMPAC 2012, involving two ships and a submarine, and of course he has to support our operations in the Middle East and elsewhere. Other than that, the fleet commander has to justify every ship movement—this at a time when we desperately need more and more of our vessels in our Asia-Pacific region, especially since we have now had two of our military vessels engaging with our Chinese friends and furthering cooperation.
All of this tells me that the Labor Party are not serious about defence and national security; they cannot be, because you fund what you value. You fund what you value. You fund what is important to you. You find what you think the nation needs. They have shown that defence has zero importance to them in the grand scheme of things.
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 21:58