I table the following documents:
The Budget 2012-13—Statement by the Treasurer (Mr Swan), dated 8 May 2012.
Budget papers—
No. 1—Budget strategy and outlook 2012-13.
No. 2—Budget measures 2012-13.
No. 3—Australia’s federal relations 2012-13.
No. 4—Agency resourcing 2012-13.
Ministerial statements—
Australia’s international development assistance program 2012-13: Helping the world’s poor: Implementing effective aid—Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr), dated 8 May 2012.
Continuing our efforts to close the gap—Statement by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (Ms Macklin), dated 8 May 2012.
Securing a clean energy future: Implementing the Australian Government’s climate change plan—Statement by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (Mr Combet), dated 8 May 2012.
Stronger regions, stronger nation—Statement by the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government (Mr Crean), dated 8 May 2012.
I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the statement and documents.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the budget statement and documents.
Debate (on motion by Senator Wong) adjourned.
I table the following documents:
Particulars of proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2013.
Particulars of certain proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2013.
Particulars of proposed expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2013.
Particulars of proposed supplementary expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2012.
Particulars of certain proposed supplementary expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2012.
I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the documents.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the particulars documents be referred to legislation committees for consideration of the estimates.
Question agreed to.
by leave—At the request of Senator Cameron, I move:
That the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 11.10 am.
Question agreed to.
by leave—At the request of Senator Macdonald, I move:
That the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate today, from 11 am to 2 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill 2011.
Question agreed to.
I rise today to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Disability Support Pension Participation Reforms) Bill 2012. The key purpose of this bill is to implement the disability support pension reform which was announced in the budget last year. Principally, these measures relate to workforce participation for DSP recipients. This reform is covered in schedules 1 and 2. This bill also amends the part of the Social Security Act which relates to the overseas travel of people with a severe and permanent disability. This aspect is covered in schedule 3. Schedule 4 makes some minor amendments to the act.
The first measure in this bill alters the work rule for DSP recipients. It will allow some recipients to work up to 30 hours a week without losing eligibility for the DSP. In the past they were only able to work up to 15 hours a week before losing their eligibility. This schedule aims to encourage recipients of the DSP to return to work where possible by allowing recipients to engage in work for longer hours without penalising them. This bill seeks to provide an incentive for DSP recipients to maintain a presence in the workforce.
These incentives are important because there are many people who are currently on the DSP who could achieve a much better quality of life through participation in the workforce. I think we would all agree that the DSP should not be seen as a destination payment. People should not be parked on the DSP; they should be encouraged and assisted to participate in the economy. We know that economic participation in the workforce is an important social engagement for people as well. At some stage in their life, an individual may qualify for the DSP. That does not mean that they should be parked there for the rest of their life. Schedule 1 recognises this important truth and seeks to encourage DSP recipients to find suitable employment without the threat of losing their pension.
Schedule 2 seeks to implement participation requirements for some DSP recipients. These recipients will be required to attend an interview upon request and will be provided with assistance to develop an individualised plan aimed at enhancing their employment opportunities. The requirements apply to DSP recipients aged under 35 or those who have been assessed with a work capacity of eight hours or more per week. These requirements are not intended to force DSP recipients to jump through hoops. Rather, they are designed to provide people with the tools to re-engage with the workforce and enjoy the benefits employment brings. It is not good enough for government to overlook any citizen's capacity to work. It is important to work with individuals to help them find the best way to participate. In addition to the benefits to each individual who is able to obtain employment as a result of these measures, you would expect the economy as a whole to benefit through the boost to productivity.
The third schedule of the bill relates to the portability of the DSP. It will allow those people with a severe and permanent disability who have no further realistic prospect of work to permanently receive their DSP while overseas. Currently, these people are subject to the 13-week rule under which their DSP cannot be taken overseas for a period of over 13 weeks. This schedule will mean DSP recipients who fall into this category will no longer lose their payment if they spend more than 13 weeks overseas.
Schedule 4 contains some minor amendments. Firstly, it amends references within the act to the data on average weekly earnings collected by the ABS, because the publication of this data has changed in frequency. This schedule also removes incorrect or redundant references to the pension age in the act. Finally, this schedule aligns some provisions of the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 with corresponding provisions in the Social Security Act for the purposes of household assistance under the Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendment) Act 2011.
It is important for governments of all persuasions to do what they can to help DSP recipients obtain a better quality of life through employment participation. I am happy to indicate that the opposition does not take issue with this legislation.
While the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Disability Support Pension Participation Reforms) Bill 2012 contains schedules the Greens support, we are greatly concerned about schedule 2, the participation requirements for disability support pension. As I said, there are some positive measures contained in the bill, such as partially rectifying the limitations on the portability of DSP and allowing people on DSP to work up to 30 hours before having their payments suspended or cancelled. However, the bill is still a product of the Welfare to Work reforms. This participate or perish mentality is evident in the new requirement for those with partial capacity to work to complete a participation interview and develop a participation plan.
The impact of this bill must also be measured in light of other changes that have been implemented to the disability support pension, particularly over the last two budget cycles. We have to remember that the government has changed the process for applying for DSP, and you have to now have 18 months worth of failure to find employment with a disability before you are allowed to apply for the disability support pension. I have articulated in this place on many occasions the deep concern we have about the impact this is having on people with a disability and the fact that they have to struggle on Newstart for 18 months while they try to find work with either a very substantial disability or a partial capacity to work. Then of course we have the changes to the impairment tables around eligibility for DSP. So we are actually already seeing significant impact on people living with a disability trying to find work and struggling to survive. We have to look at those changes in that light.
The present legislation and reforms further squeeze people living with a disability without properly addressing the barriers to their employment. We believe this continues the punitive mentality that was admittedly begun by the coalition but has been adopted with gusto by this government. Subsequent bills that we will be talking about today further implement the welfare to work mentality. I would like to focus my comments particularly on schedule 2, which is the participation requirements for people with DSP. As I have said, we support the other elements of this bill, particularly increasing the ability to work to 30 hours before people start losing their disability support pension. Under this bill, to continue to qualify for DSP a person who has a capacity to work and is under the age of 35 will have to fulfil additional participation requirements. These requirements will include attending a participation interview at Centrelink and developing a participation plan for people that Centrelink decides need one—but then what is the point of the government thinking they need a participation plan if it is not going to compel them to meet the requirements of the plan?
I have very deep concerns about this approach because I think it is a demonising approach. The assumption that people under the age of 35 with a disability do not want to work is an erroneous assumption. I have spent a lot of time talking to people with a disability and to people living on income support, and this fallacy that seems to be promoted by both of the major parties in this place that people on income support do not want to work and choose to live on the paltry income support that they receive is a flawed approach and is a very deliberate strategy by both the coalition and the government to demonise people on income support. This legislation applies the same belief because they believe that people with a disability do not want to work. I certainly have not met such people with a disability; in fact, I have been lobbied very heavily by people with a disability who ask whether we can please do more to help them find work and put policies in place to support them in the workplace. First and foremost, these measures do not address barriers to employment for those living with a disability. People with a disability or a partial disability have many barriers to work. The cost of this measure is $92.8 million, and we believe that should be better dedicated to measures that actually assist people on DSP gain employment or training, with a better focus for DES providers and case managers, improved transport and better support on the job. Instead, the money is being spent on this expensive administration exercise.
I have been to several disability conferences over the last week and a half, and some figures have been quoted at those conferences. Australia is ranked 21 out of 29 OECD countries in employment rates for people with a disability and is ranked 27 out of 29 OECD countries for risk of poverty for people living with a disability. Furthermore, if this particular provision is not implemented with the utmost sensitivity, this measure could lead to serious negative outcomes for many people living with a disability. Of particular concern are those with poor or limited communication skills, those with mild intellectual disabilities or episodic or mental health issues and those whose capacity is rated just in excess of eight hours per week—remembering that this applies to people with a capacity to work eight hours a week, which is essentially one day a week. These people mostly have not been subject to participation requirements and may experience difficulty explaining, particularly to Centrelink, the circumstances and barriers they face to employment.
I spent a lot of time in this last break talking to people living on income support—those living on DSP and particularly those living on Newstart. The constant refrain I heard was that there are problems interacting with Centrelink. I will be talking more about that later in the day. We believe care and a level of flexibility is necessary when considering imposing requirements on people living with a disability even if they are attending a Centrelink office, because this group of people is already vulnerable. Special care is especially necessary for people with a disability under the care of a guardianship or related tribunal or a nominee or carer. While exemptions can be granted under certain circumstances, this will not be effective if people are unable to explain why they have a right to a benefit because of poor communication or lack of understanding. As we know, Australia's social security system is extremely complex. I take the trouble to read many documents produced by Centrelink, and sometimes I have trouble understanding what they mean and I misinterpret what they mean. Other people who have poorer literacy or numeracy skills, or have not had excessive interaction with the bureaucracy, will find this even more difficult to understand.
We are also deeply concerned about areas in the assessment process. As was articulated during the Senate inquiry into both the impairment tables and the government's changes to the process for applying for DSP, there is a significant variation in assessment processes and I do not believe those processes have been adequately reformed. This continues to foster complex participation requirements on vulnerable people. This is not new, I acknowledge, but it is continuing the process started by the Howard government and adopted with gusto by the present government. In the past 18 months, as I said, we have seen changes to the participation requirements for the majority of the DSP applicants and they are going through a process now where they have to keep applying for jobs and keep bailing, and then perhaps they will be considered for DSP. While we very strongly support approaches to help people with a disability into employment, fostering a process which leads to a sense of hopelessness does not help people when they are trying to gain employment. One of the key things which comes out of long-term engagement with Newstart is a sense of helplessness. So the longer people are living in poverty is yet another barrier to employment. We already know there are significant barriers to employment for people with a disability. Even where people with a disability find employment, keeping that employment in the face of significant barriers created by their disability is extremely concerning as well.
During the Senate inquiry we heard of simple things which people who do not have a disability do not even question—for example, access to transport. If you are living in a regional area or in the outskirts of a metropolitan area, transport issues are even more magnified. We also know that for people living on a limited income finding accommodation in cities is very hard. They are driven to the outskirts or to regional areas because that is where they find affordable accommodation. As I said, there are multiple barriers to people with disabilities gaining employment in the first place. We should be addressing those barriers rather than saying to people under 35, 'We actually don't think you want a job, so this is going to force you into looking for work.' We do not believe that is an appropriate approach. We should be coming from an incentive basis rather than a punitive basis.
We believe this approach further disempowers people and fuels negative stereotypes. This is the reason that so-called 'tough love' rhetoric is counterproductive. It reinforces stereotypes and builds up myths about the unemployed—which invariably could strengthen the negative attitudes employers could take to people with a disability. A survey of employers undertaken by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations in 2008 found widespread reluctance to consider employing long-term unemployed people, people with disability and mature age people. Subsequent work has also reinforced those findings. We believe this is a significant barrier, which the government should use more measures to address rather than making it worse. I would like to quote from a submission to the disability employment services inquiry:
The task of finding meaningful work for people with disability requires creative, flexible and innovative approaches. Increasingly it is being recognised that best practice in disability service provision requires a person-centred flexible approach that enables service providers to respond to the diversity of individuals and their needs.
Yet an international review of employment programs said of Australia, 'Despite a change in the employment service system in Australia, the compliance centred regime persists and this works against the development of a personalised approach to assisting jobseekers.' We need information and support, on-the-job training and mentoring for both the employee and the employer. Such measures will have a much more positive impact on outcomes than forcing people to go for interviews and making a plan. We acknowledge that the government has injected some resources into addressing issues around employment for people with disabilities. No further money for employment was announced in the budget yesterday. This is not enough. The money being spent here on essentially administrative processes would be better spent overcoming the barriers people living with a disability face when gaining employment. Forcing people to participate in this manner assumes that people do not want to find work and is a more demeaning approach, rather than the encouragement of an incentive based approach.
We do not support schedule 2 of this bill. We do support the other schedules of this bill. We urge the government to reconsider the approach they take to people living with disability because we do not believe they are supporting people enough to find employment. Our position in the OECD countries is an embarrassment and we need to do more. The government seems to recognise that we need to do more but they are not taking the right approach which is an incentive based and supportive approach rather than a demonising approach. I know the government are going to say that that is not what this is about, but they obviously have not had the same phone calls and emails I have received from people expressing extreme concern, feeling they are being picked on, feeling they are being demeaned and that the government are implying that people are not trying to find work when in fact the reverse is true. Certainly communications I have received in my office and face-to-face communications with people with a disability reveal that they want to find work but need more support to find work. The current provisions are not sufficient to help people find work and stay in work. We do not believe this is an appropriate use of money. We do not support schedule 2. However, as I said, we support the other schedules.
I thank senators for their contributions to this debate. The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Disability Support Pension Participation Reforms) Bill 2012 introduces two key reforms to the disability support pension announced in 2011-12 federal budget as part of the Building Australia's Future Workforce package of measures. These significant reforms will, for the first time, introduce new participation requirements for certain disability support pensioners and allow disability support pensioners to work more hours without having their payment suspended or cancelled. This improved support for Australians with disability will help them into work wherever possible while making sure there is an essential safety net for those who are unable to support themselves fully through work. Many people with disability are great contributors to the workforce and many more want to work. This bill contains three disability support pension measures, all effective from 1 July 2012. In the first measure, more generous rules will allow all disability support pensioners to work up to 30 hours a week without having their payment suspended or cancelled. These people will be able to receive a part pension subject to usual means testing arrangements. Since the previous government's introduction of the Welfare to Work changes on 11 May 2005, newly granted disability support pensioners can work up to only 15 hours a week before their payment is suspended or cancelled. The 15-hour rule can make it difficult for disability support pensioners to find work limited to less than 15 hours a week. People will now be able to take up work or increase their hours, if they are able to do so, and the change will help address the low workforce participation rate of people with disability. The second measure will introduce new participation requirements to encourage disability support pensioners with some capacity to work to engage with the workforce. Disability support pension recipients under the age of 35, with a work capacity of at least eight hours a week—that is an important proviso—will be required to attend regular participation interviews with Centrelink to develop participation plans tailored to their individual circumstances. Senator Siewert, I think that is an important phrase: 'tailored to their individual circumstances', helping build their capacity. Participation plans could involve working with employment services to improve job readiness, searching for employment, or undertaking training, volunteering or rehabilitation. There will also be the opportunity to connect disability support pension recipients to other services and supports that they may need to overcome barriers to participation, such as drug and alcohol rehabilitation, mental health services and other community services. Exceptions to these participation requirements will apply to disability support recipients who have a work capacity of zero to seven hours or who work in an Australian disability enterprise or under the supported wage system or who are manifestly eligible for disability support pension.
The third measure introduces new, more generous rules to allow people receiving disability support pension who have permanent disability and no future work capacity to travel overseas for more than 13 weeks while retaining access to their pension, excluding certain add-on payments such as rent assistance. Existing portability rules will continue to apply to disability support pension recipients who may have some ability to work. Other working-age payments will not be affected by these changes to portability arrangements.
In closing can I say that the government refutes absolutely the assertion that Labor is of the view that people with disability do not want to work. Of course we know that people with disability are desperate; they really want support to get into the workforce. We are of the view that these measures will certainly assist people with disability into employment. This measure is designed explicitly to support people with disability into employment and to retain employment when they have it. It is designed to remove the barriers.
We should recognise that this measure should not be viewed in isolation. This measure came as a package of measures in the previous budget and includes a range of other measures to support people with disability into employment. You will recall that our government have uncapped the disability employment services. We have increased funding into disability employment services to the total value of $3.4 billion over four years. We have introduced a range of wage subsidies that people with disability have taken up in good numbers. The National Disability Strategy is designed to encourage people with disability into all aspects of community life, including employment.
Last week I was very pleased to be at the Every Australian Counts rally in Brisbane. There were 2½ thousand people there, joining thousands and thousands of people right around the country. I observed that the loudest applause occurred when any of the speakers spoke about the fact that an NDIS could potentially assist people into employment. That is what people with disability want. They want to get into jobs, they want to retain those jobs and they want to be supported to do it, and this measure will assist in that process.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the parliamentary secretary to move the third reading, unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in the Committee of the Whole. I call the parliamentary secretary.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of government business order of the day no. 2, Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support and Other Measures) Bill 2012.
Question agreed to.
I rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support and Other Measures) Bill 2012. This bill seeks to implement a range of income support measures as set out by the government's Building Australia's Future Workforce package. The government is seeking to change the age requirements for social security payments and to propose an increase in the maximum age for youth allowance non-student recipients from 21 to 22 years of age. This would seek to cover any person who is at least 22 years old and who is not a full-time student or a new apprentice or someone who is undertaking less than 12 months study following a period on the Newstart allowance. Schedule 1 of the bill proposes that the same minimum age qualification of 22 years of age be reflected for Newstart allowance recipients.
Schedule 1 of this bill will also seek to amend and increase (1) the age of qualification for youth disability supplement; (2) minimum qualification age for sickness allowance; and (3) the minimum qualification age for the long-term income support rate. All three are currently set at 21 years of age and will increase to 22 years of age, with transitional arrangements provided for. This is set to apply from 1 July.
In the opposition's view, this package is rather piecemeal, with not much courage and not much innovation. This bill proposes changes to the eligibility rules for 'grandfathered' parenting payment recipients—parents who have been continuously receiving parenting payments since before 1 July 2006. Currently, grandfathered recipients are eligible for the parenting payment until their youngest child turns 16 years of age, provided that that child was in their care before 1 July 2011. From 1 July 2011 onwards, any new child born to or cared for by a grandfathered recipient will not extend that recipient's grandfathered status.
As such, this bill seeks to change the age of eligibility so that, from 1 January 2013, grandfathered recipients will no longer be eligible for parenting payment when the youngest eligible child in their care before 1 July 2011 turns 16 years if the child was born before 1 January 2000; 13 years if the child was born between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2000; or 12 years if the child was born on or after 1 January 2001—except now, instead of supporting their own legislation, the government appear to be backsliding. They are slashing the age of eligibility for parenting payments from 12 to eight years of age, claiming a $700 million saving—another fiddle on the road to surplus, I guess.
The opposition do not view this bill as serious social security reform. The bill does contain a number of other minor measures. But with those few observations, and despite them, I indicate that the opposition will not be opposing the bill.
This is yet another attempt by the government to extend the Howard government's Welfare to Work policy. As Senator Fifield pointed out, it has already been superseded by the government's new approach, which completely removes the grandfathering provisions of the Welfare to Work bills of 2005. If adopted, the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support and Other Measures) Bill 2012 will cease income support payments for many, many single parents who will be affected over the next four years. Of course, we are not just talking about single parents or sole parents in this instance. We are also talking about their children—the very children that the government talks about needing to support, which is why we need to be rushing through the changes to the education receipts process. The government says it knows that parents will be spending money on their children. The government says it knows that, if parents receive money, they will be spending it on their children. Why doesn't the same apply to this? Why does the government think that it is acceptable to cut the income support payments for single parents, who by their very definition have children? Any cut the government makes to single parents' payments affects their children. In other words, money they do not get will not be spent on supporting the welfare of their children. This proposal cuts income support to single parents and their children. It puts them on a lower level of payment. It is money directly out of their pockets and their children's support. So all this rhetoric about supporting the families of Australia and low-income Australians is nonsense when the approach the government is taking is demonising single parents.
There is a double whammy because they are not only cutting payments to single parents—which, as I have said, the next budget makes even worse. When you go onto Newstart you have different cut-offs for part-time work. So, rather than being able to earn $174 a fortnight without your support payments being affected, as you can currently, you can only earn around $62 a fortnight. Again, who do the government think this is hurting? It is hurting the most vulnerable Australians. I repeat that: it is hurting the most vulnerable Australians in this country, who are already living in poverty. This further entrenches them in poverty. We know that living in poverty is yet another barrier to employment.
We are debating this bill and subsequently down the line we are going to be debating another bill that takes the cut-off from 12 to eight years of age—in effect, ending the grandfathered provisions. I also feel it is my duty to remind the chamber that the government when in opposition in 2005 voted against the Welfare to Work measures. And, when the legislation came before the community affairs committee, ALP senators in fact joined with the Democrats and the Greens in saying: 'We are concerned about the transitional arrangements and the grandfathering provisions for the parenting payment given the significant difference between the payment levels for people who get to stay on the parenting payment (single) and those who end up on the Newstart allowance as primary carers. The legislation does not adequately provide appropriate safeguards to ensure that people currently on parenting payments will retain the payment until their youngest child turns 16.' That was said by the government when in opposition in 2005. They now seem to think that Welfare to Work is an acceptable way to treat the most vulnerable Australians. Of course, they were right: the provisions did not adequately protect those who were grandfathered, because they are presently doing the very thing that they were talking about, which is cutting those protections for those most vulnerable Australians.
The delivery measures cut approximately $58 per week from sole parents, and on top of that you have the impact on people's capacity to work part time. We know that single parents who are trying to survive on income support are amongst the poorest in this country. If you are living on parenting payment (single) you are basically living in poverty, as are your children. This bill will deepen that impoverishment without improving job prospects.
This is about budget savings. Let's be really clear about this. This is about budget savings. It is not about genuinely helping single parents into work. It is purely about the bottom line so that the government can claim it has a surplus. It is a budget cutback—there are no two ways about it.
One-third of single parents who are receiving the parenting payment are already in some form of paid work. This bill provides no changes to activity requirements or support. These parents have already been required to seek part-time employment since 2007. The only change being made is to the amount of money they will receive for their families. As I said, it is a significant cut in their income support. This does not provide an incentive to work because, as I said, one-third of single parents are already working part time. Moving people onto Newstart is going to make that work valued even less because the amount of money they can earn working part time is significantly less on Newstart—a double whammy.
Plunging families deeper into poverty will not help them find paid work. Research indicates that poverty is, in fact, a barrier to getting work. There is the stress around affordable housing. There was a report that came out just two weeks ago that highlighted the problems around finding affordable accommodation. Food related stress also impinges on people's capacity to find work, as does an inability to find the extra income for transport, clothing and all those other things that you need to survive.
We also have to bear in mind that single parents are desperately trying to find that balance between part-time work and supporting their families. Just because a child has turned 12 does not mean that it does not need the support and care of its parent. It is absolutely essential that we have flexibility in the system to enable people to work but also look after their families. Somebody rang me about this just the other day. She is a single parent and she lives in a regional area where the majority of work is shift work. There are no childcare services in that regional area that cover shift work. She asked me, 'How can I find work in this town when all the work is shift work based but child care starts at seven and finishes at five?' Where is she going to find child care? It is all very well for the government to say, 'We are going to provide cheaper child care.' If the child care is nonexistent it does not matter if it is cheaper. So what does that mother do when she is transferred onto Newstart and is then trying to exist on less money and cannot find part-time work because there is no part-time work that will also allow her to look after her children? If she left her kids alone to go and do shift work overnight she would be accused of neglecting her kids and then she would have DCP onto her. So much for a caring government that is really about trying to support people into employment!
As you can tell, the Greens do not support this particular amendment and, just for the record, we do not support the one that is also coming down at us, which we will be debating later, to drop the age of eligibility from 12 to eight. That will completely get rid of the grandfathered provisions and will plunge all single parents into this poverty trap. This bill also brings in cuts of $42 per week for young unemployed people aged 21 years. Unemployed 21-year-old people will lose access to Newstart allowance from July this year and will remain on the lower youth allowance for the year after their 21st birthday. Youth allowance for a single young person living away from home is $201 per week; the Newstart allowance is $243, nearly $244, per week. That is essentially a cut of $42 for young people living away from home and independent of their parents. As I have articulated and will articulate at some length later in this place, $244 is a minuscule amount of money to try to survive on—or not survive on—but it is getting cut by 20 per cent for those people who will be on youth allowance. You cannot live on that. Young people, again, will be living in poverty. As I have said and will continue to say at length in this place, poverty is yet another barrier to employment. How can you expect young people and students to live on less than people trying to survive on Newstart? At that time of their life young people are building the foundations of the rest of their life. We are condemning young people to poverty. That is an insecure foundation for young people to start their lives and build from. Where a young person is living at home a youth allowance rate of $133 per week applies. Where that person has not demonstrated financial independence from their parents a parental income test will apply to this group. This will of course further reduce payments for these young people.
The main argument in favour of this measure is that the gap between lower student payments—youth allowance and Austudy payments—and higher unemployment allowance discourages participation in education. This is the same flawed argument that says that keeping Newstart payments low will magically encourage people into work. It is so low now and is not working; what makes the government think that dropping it even further will make it work? It is ridiculous for the government to think that a difference of $42 per week will act as a disincentive, particularly considering that even at the higher rate people are living in poverty. Living in poverty is not an incentive to work. People on Newstart do not have an incentive to work. Newstart is already below the poverty line of $130 per week. We know that setting it even lower will not magically encourage people to find work, because there are many barriers to people being able to find work. When is the government going to get this? It simply is not understanding the mechanics around barriers to employment. By putting young people further into poverty you entrench the poverty cycle.
This bill would cut the maximum rate of income support to unemployed 21-year-olds, regardless of their parents' income. We believe that, overall, we need to be increasing our income support payments, not cutting them. In fact, we need to overhaul the income support system in this country. It is complex, inadequate and confusing for people, does not meet current employment trends in this country, does not meet the insecure work situation/patterns that a large number of people are engaged in, does not meet the people's part-time work requirements and does not meet the temporary nature of the employment process that we have now. Of course, there is also the glaring problem that you are considered to be employed if you work even one hour a week. This antiquated income support system is trying to address all of those things. Each time the government cuts payments it makes it more difficult for people to survive and, I believe, makes it more difficult for them to be able to cope with this complex system.
Last year, even Ian Harper, the economist hand-picked by John Howard to set the minimum wage case, declared that Newstart is too low. He warned that giving people so little to survive on is causing desperation and depression. Many people now have said this. This bill puts single parents onto the lower Newstart rates and cuts youth allowance to below even the Newstart rate. It is not a good way to start people off in their working life. It drops people further into depression and hopelessness. Single parents' being dropped onto Newstart drops their income support, drops their ability to get ahead when they are working part time and develops a strong sense of hopelessness. What sort of scene is that setting for the children who are growing up in that environment, who are growing up in that intense poverty? We know that it affects their early childhood development. We know that we will have a better economy if we address those early childhood indicators.
Just last week I was at a seminar that was held to celebrate the work of the great Professor Fiona Stanley. Dr Clyde Hertzman, a Canadian who has been doing work with Professor Stanley, spoke to us about vulnerability indicators and the EDI, or early childhood development indicators. He was working with Stanford University. He pointed out that for every one per cent drop in vulnerability indicators for early development there is in fact a one per cent increase in GDP. Yet here is the government deliberately bringing in strategies to drop single parents further into poverty, and single parents are ipso facto looking after children. Instead of investing in those families the government is taking money away from them, making it harder for them to address the necessities of life and leading to their further vulnerability. A wise government would be investing in those families, not dropping them into poverty, making it harder and subjecting those children to poverty and increased vulnerability. A wise government would be very specifically investing in those families, investing in our most vulnerable Australians. Ignoring the social compact that we in this country should be developing with our vulnerable families and looking just at the economic development process of this country, would it not be a wise investment for us to address every degree of vulnerability if for no other reason than to increase GDP by one per cent? We would get that return. However, this government has chosen the coalition's approach of Welfare to Work that penalises and demonises people. In fact it has gone even further than the Howard government ever dared to go by dropping single parents and their families into poverty. That is what this bill does: it drops our most vulnerable young people into poverty by reducing their access, by making it even harder for them to struggle to survive.
Kids want an education; they want to gain access to an education. Keeping people in poverty and dropping their income support and thinking that they will automatically find work or education is a fallacy and an absolute nonsense. We do not support the provisions in this bill. We think it is the wrong approach and the government needs to reconsider how it allocates its money and how it makes its budget savings and at whose expense. This measure is at the expense of the most vulnerable Australians: our single parents and their children, the people we should be making our number one priority. We oppose these amendments.
At the outset I thank those who have made contributions to this second reading debate. The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support and Other Measures) Bill 2012 will give effect to important income support reforms contained in the Building Australia's Future Workforce package, which was announced in the 2011-12 budget. These amendments will provide a greater incentive for young Australians to engage in education, training and employment, and will encourage parents to re-engage in the workforce. It will help to restore equity to the eligibility conditions for parenting payment.
The Australian government's Building Australia's Future Workforce package is designed to ensure that all Australians are able to share in the benefits afforded by our growing economy. This package represents a significant investment in education, skills and employment opportunities that strengthen the future of Australia's workforce. Reforms to income support payments for young people are an integral part of the government's reform agenda and will provide greater incentives and support for young unemployed people to engage in education, training and employment. Education and employment are the key economic and social inclusion points. The government is committed to providing the right balance of support, assistance and incentives to ensure that people are able to take advantage of all of the opportunities that our economy has to offer.
This bill will amend the Social Security Act 1991 to delay access to Newstart allowance. From 1 July 2012, 21-year-olds may receive the same rate of youth allowance whether they are unemployed, in training or a student. This overcomes the financial disincentive for unemployed young people to undertake full-time study. There is a correlation between the completion of year 12, or an equivalent qualification, and the engagement of young people in education, employment or training.
The bill will also extend to 21-year-olds the 'earn or learn' participation requirements for youth allowance recipients who have not achieved year 12, or an equivalent qualification. A more generous income-free area and working credit will reward young people who take up part-time work as a stepping stone to full-time employment. From 1 July 2012, young job seekers receiving youth allowance will be able to earn more and still retain their payment. The income-free area will be increased from $62 to $143 a fortnight and their working credit limit will be increased from $1,000 to $3,500.
To ensure that all young people aged between 16 and 21 years of age under similar circumstances are in receipt of the same rate of income support payment, the bill also amends a number of payments, supplements and payment calculators to align the ages at which a person will cease to be qualified for youth disability supplement, sickness allowance and the long-term income support payment rate for students.
The government believes that these changes are the best way to support young Australians to participate in work or study, and to make the most of the opportunities that are available. It creates conditions that maximise the number of young people who remain in or return to education and training to get the qualifications and skills they need to be competitive in the labour market. It is important that this bill proceed now to ensure that young people are encouraged to learn or earn and are rewarded for part-time work as a stepping stone to more employment.
The Building Australia's Future Workforce package provides greater incentives for parents with school aged children to re-engage in the workforce. The government recognises that the best income support a parent can have is a job. That is why it is important that we provide the best possible incentives for parents to re-engage in work and present a positive working role model for their children. Through this bill the government is phasing out the arrangements for parenting payment recipients who have been on payment since before 1 July 2006. When their youngest child turns 12 years old, those recipients will now be treated the same as other parents, regardless of when they first claimed parenting payment. This measure creates better incentives for parenting payment recipients, including single parents, to return to the workforce by transitioning eligible parents onto Newstart allowance earlier. This recognises that most parents' capacity to undertake work or other activities increases as their children get older and that in the current income support system Newstart allowance is the most appropriate payment for working aged people to seek, find and maintain employment.
From 1 July 2013, a more generous income test will be introduced for all single, principal-care parents on Newstart allowance. This will enable those parents who may qualify for Newstart allowance to around $400 more per fortnight before losing their eligibility for payment. It will allow them to see greater benefits from their participation. As well as these increased benefits, it is important to note that parents caring for a child with a disability will continue to have access to a range of additional support, including carer allowance and participation exemptions for when their caring responsibilities need to come first.
The bill will also simplify the compliance framework and ensure that job seekers are not penalised because a weekend happens to fall before they have the opportunity to re-engage with an employment services provider. Announced as part of the Building Australia's Future Workforce package, daily penalty amounts for job seekers failing to attend an interview with an employment service provider will be aligned with the penalties for failing to attend an activity or a job interview, which is one-tenth of a person's fortnightly rate of participation payment. The department will monitor the implementation of this measure and its impact on the youth allowance recipients.
Finally, this bill will amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to provide the appropriation to fund the 12-month extension of the Student Education Trusts measure, as part of the extension of the Cape York Welfare reform trials, which was announced, as some in the chamber may recall, by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in 2011. Parents and care givers in remote Indigenous communities in Far North Queensland will continue to be supported in saving for the cost of their children's education, which is a key element in achieving the Closing the Gap targets in Indigenous education.
I thank the senators for their contribution to the second reading debate. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I call the minister to move the third reading, unless any senator requires the bill to be considered in the Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That government business notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 be postponed to a later hour.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, Senator Bishop, I present the report on the Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012, together with submissions received by the committee and move:
That the reported be printed.
I would like to speak to the motion. I am just pointing out that this is a government in complete shambles. This is a government that is now proceeding to table this report, to immediately go into debate on the legislation—
Senator Cormann, resume your seat. Your comments have to be relevant to the motion.
Yes, sure—I am observing the fact that the government are bringing forward the tabling of this report so that they can then immediately proceed to debate the legislation without the Senate having a proper opportunity to consider the findings in this report.
Senator Cormann, that is not relevant to the motion. The question is that the motion be carried.
Question agreed to.
Ordered that the report be printed.
So the bill is now on, is it?
Yes, Senator.
The bill is now on! So here we go. This is a government that is in outrageous shambles. This is a government that is weak, that is incompetent, that is dysfunctional, that is divided, that could not run a—
A chook raffle!
They could not run a chook raffle. I was going to say something else there, Mr Deputy President, but I would not have wanted to be unparliamentary.
We are dealing here, of course, with the Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012—a very serious issue. Phoenixing activity is something that the coalition is very concerned about. It is activity which is typically associated with directors who transfer the assets of an indebted company into a new company, of which they are also directors, effectively in order to avoid paying debts that they are required to pay.
The government has previously attempted to address this, and again and again, parliamentary committee after parliamentary committee has pointed out the deep flaws in the government's approach, has sent the government back to the drawing board, has told the government: 'The way you are trying to go about it is not fixing the problem; the way you are trying to go about it is going to capture all of the companies across Australia rather than just targeting companies that are actually engaged in fraudulent phoenixing activity.' And here we have a report before us, which I have not actually been able to officially see yet—which nobody in the Senate other than members of the committee have been able to officially review yet. I am led to believe that there are some recommendations in the report on this bill, from government members, on how this legislation needs to be improved and needs to be amended, yet the Senate has not been given an opportunity to even consider the report that Senator Polley, on behalf of the Chair of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, has just tabled.
So this is a government that is in disarray. This is a government that has to continue to chop and change with the program because it does not have a clue what it is doing. This is a government that can never follow proper process. This is a government that always gets itself into trouble because it would not know what proper process was if it fell over it. People across Australia are sick and tired of this government. They know that this is the worst and most incompetent government in the history of Federation. They know that it is a weak, incompetent, divided and dysfunctional government. The chopping and changing with the program here in the Senate today is just another reflection of the deep division and dysfunction in this government.
We in the Senate are now being asked to make a judgment on this legislation without having the benefit of being able to properly assess and review the report of a committee that was charged by the Senate to review the merits or otherwise of the legislation. Quite frankly, that is not good enough. There is a proper process to be followed here. When the Senate asks one of its committees to review the merits or otherwise of a piece of proposed legislation then all senators from across the chamber should have the opportunity to properly review its findings, to make judgments on whether or not they might want to change a previously held position.
As I have said, the coalition are strongly opposed to fraudulent phoenixing activity, and we support all appropriate measures to stamp out this practice. The problem is that this government's approach does not do that. This government's approach does not actually do anything to fix fraudulent phoenixing activity—in fact, this government, in this legislation, has not even defined what phoenixing activity is! This is a piece of legislation that gives a blanket increase in powers to ASIC, which will impose all sorts of additional burdens and risks on companies across the board and which, despite repeated attempts to achieve some improvements to the government's approach, has not been improved in any way, shape or form.
We have to remember that last year the government included a series of different measures, supposedly to target aspects of phoenixing activity in the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011. After these particular bills were examined by the House of Representatives Economics Committee, that committee made a unanimous and bipartisan recommendation that the government not proceed with those provisions. The House Economics Committee made a unanimous finding that the government got it wrong, that the government's approach was incompetent—that it was not right, that it was not going to achieve what the government said it wanted to achieve. This is the House Economics Committee, because the only committee report that I can rely on as a senator in relation to the government's approach to phoenixing activity is the House Economics Committee inquiry report, related to a different bill! I have not had the benefit of being able to review the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry report into this bill—which is a completely outrageous change in process, and mismanagement of process, which of course we have come to get used to from this bad and terrible Labor government. In its report the House Economics Committee:
… notes concerns from the business community and its representatives that the Bills potentially apply to the broad range of directors whether engaged in phoenix activity or not. The committee recommends that the Government should investigate whether it is possible to tighten the provisions of the Bills to better target phoenix activity.
That was the assessment of a committee that included government members. Given that it had Labor members on the committee that came up with that sort of assessment, that is as damning as you are going to get from a Labor member of parliament in relation to their own government. As I say, go back to the drawing board, you have not got it right. You have come up with a piece of legislation that is targeting all company directors and all companies. You are telling us you are trying to fix phoenixing activity but in fact you are coming in with this grab-all of red tape, of additional powers for ASIC that is going to have implications for company directors across the board. Go back to the drawing board is what Labor members of the House Economics Committee said.
I gather that Labor senators on the Senate Economics Committee inquiry equally had concerns about the government's approach to this legislation. But I would not know because I have not been able to review what government senators of the Senate committee actually thought in relation to this particular piece of legislation.
Senator Marshall interjecting—
Senator Marshall, it has only just been tabled. I was asked to make this speech on the second reading on behalf of the coalition within two seconds of Senator Polley having tabled the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report, which was due for tabling later this afternoon. This chopping and changing by this government is just another sign of a government in disarray. It is another sign of a government that has lost the plot. It is another sign of a deeply divided, weak and incompetent government where nobody knows who is in charge anymore, nobody knows who is doing what. This is a government that is all over the place. I say to the people of Australia, 'You are right, this is a government that should be up for the chop.' This is a government that should face an election sooner rather than later, because they are in their dying days. The level of incompetence that is now on display here today, the level of dysfunction, the level of absolute incompetence and disarray that is yet again on display here today in the Senate just shows to anyone who did not already know that this is a government that deserve to be kicked out at the next election and the sooner the better.
After the damning assessment of the government's previous attempt to introduce measures to arrest phoenixing activities when Labor members of the House Economics Committee told the government to go back to the drawing board, the government did exactly that. The government withdrew the provisions in relation to phoenixing from the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill because clearly on reflection they conceded that those provisions did not actually appropriately target phoenixing activity. So here we have this latest foray, and pardon for being suspicious, pardon for suspecting that this incompetent government wants to avoid scrutiny by the Senate. What have the government got to hide? Why are the government tabling a report that is supposed to advise senators on the merits or otherwise of the government's approach on phoenixing and then trying to ram this legislation through within two seconds of having tabled the report, before anyone has got a proper chance to consider the findings and recommendations in that report? It might well be that on reading the coalition senators' dissenting report and considering the recommendations that we have made on how this legislation could be improved, Senator Siewert might be of the view that the coalition perspective on this is quite reasonable and quite legitimate. It could well lead to a change of position by the Greens or otherwise. But this arrogant, contemptuous government come into this chamber and want to rush through a piece of legislation that they clearly believe has got some flaws in it because if they were confident that this piece of legislation would stand the scrutiny of the Senate they would not ask the Senate to pass judgment on it before we have been able to properly consider the report that was tabled only a little while ago.
I understand that this arrogant government and this arrogant minister do not take seriously the role and responsibility of the Senate to scrutinise the activities of executive government. This minister does not care much about the proper democratic processes. This minister knows that proper scrutiny by the Senate is a bit of a nuisance when you have got a bad and incompetent government like the current one, coming in with one bad piece of legislation after the other. This is a minister who knows that he is part of a bad, incompetent government and part of a divided, deeply dysfunctional government. He of course knows that the reason the Senate is being messed around like this today is that his government cannot organise the processes properly. This should be of serious concern to any of the reasonable and mature people on the Labor side, but nobody is here to stand up and take a stand against what is being asked of the Senate today.
As I have mentioned, the coalition are strongly opposed to fraudulent phoenix activity and we support all appropriate measures to stamp out this process. We recognise that phoenix activity can cause significant harm to workers and small business people who are denied their legitimate entitlements. If left unchecked, it can erode the reputation of Australia's strong business community and reduce confidence in our world-class corporate regulatory framework. However, we are concerned that the government's approach to this important public policy matter is confused, ad hoc, piecemeal and not appropriately targeted.
The Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 is meant to enhance the ability of ASIC to combat phoenix activity. The bill gives ASIC significant new discretionary powers to place a company into liquidation. These powers can be used in a wide range of circumstances. The bill also alters the publication requirements of corporate insolvency notices to allow for publication on a single ASIC administered website. Finally, the bill establishes a duty for receivers, administrators and liquidators to notify the secretary of FaHCSIA upon their appointment to a company that is a paid parental leave employer.
Look at this. The attendants in the Senate are very helpful. We of course had to ask for this document. As I am on my feet speaking on this legislation, being asked to pass judgment on this legislation on behalf of the coalition, I am being handed a copy of the still warm report. It is a photocopy; it is not even a properly printed copy. I bet that the Senate printers were not even ready to have it properly printed. I am being handed a copy of this report as we are standing here debating this legislation. This is outrageous. This government every day is going from bad to worse. Whenever people across Australia think that it cannot get any worse it does, and we are continuing down this slippery slide to the next election, which no doubt will result in a pretty firm judgment by the Australian people.
This is a report that includes recommendations by the government as well. Government senators on this committee are unhappy with this legislation. Government members of this committee are recommending that the government review proposed subsection 489EA(6). I am sure that Senator Siewert and Senator Marshall—Senator Marshall, are you on Economics Committee?
I am a participating member like you are.
Senator Cormann, address your comments through the chair.
I accept that admonishment, Mr Acting Deputy President. Here we have got three recommendations from the government senators on this committee to change this piece of legislation. So even government senators do not think that this legislation is up to scratch. Even government senators think that this legislation needs further change.
This incompetent, dysfunctional, weak and divided government, which is treating this Senate chamber with absolute contempt, wants all senators to consider this legislation, this set of proposals, without having had the benefit of properly considering both the recommendations by government senators and the recommendations that were made in the very good dissenting report by coalition senators. I suspect that this will be the first time that Senator Marshall will be able to read the coalition senators' dissenting report, because it is not usual practice that government senators are provided with a copy of dissenting reports before they are tabled. There are some very good recommendations in the coalition senators' dissenting report. The first is:
That the Senate oppose this Bill.
The second is:
That the government undertakes a comprehensive and co-ordinated legislative approach to combating fraudulent phoenix activity that includes an appropriate definition of 'fraudulent phoenix activity'.
It might well have been that the eloquent words of Senator Bushby, who is the Deputy Chair of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, might have persuaded Senator Marshall to change his mind, or, if not Senator Marshall, perhaps Senator Siewert. Who knows? The point is that the reason we do these reports, the reason we have these inquiries into legislation, is so that the Senate has a proper opportunity to assess the legislation based on the judgment that was made by one of its committees.
Recommendation 3 by coalition senators is:
That regulators including ASIC ensure that they fully utilise existing legislative and regulatory powers to combat fraudulent phoenix activity.
One thing that became very clear during the inquiry, as I understand it, is that ASIC actually already have a lot of powers that at present they are not utilising, either because they have not got the resources or because they are not appropriately prioritising those activities. They have already got a lot of powers that they could use to better target fraudulent phoenix activity. Forever increasing regulatory powers, forever increasing red tape, does not do anything to fix the problem any better. If you have got an organisation that is not utilising its powers now, either because it has not got the resources or because it has not got the appropriate prioritised agenda, that organisation will not do anything just because the government, with the flick of a pen, increases its powers and increases red tape.
Recommendation 4 from the coalition senators' part of the report is:
That any proposed broad new powers for regulators such as ASIC that would apply to corporations and directors that are not engaged in fraudulent phoenix activity be subject to proper public scrutiny and debate rather than be bundled into legislation that is supposed to apply to only one discrete policy area.
I could not have said it better myself. What a sensible recommendation by the coalition members on the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. But, of course, senators across the chamber will not have had the opportunity to properly consider the findings and recommendations that were made by coalition senators, because nobody in this chamber has actually had an opportunity to review the coalition senators' dissenting report and recommendations.
I finish where I started. This is a serious policy issue. This is an issue that the coalition actually wants to see properly addressed. This legislation does not do that. For the government now to come in in another fit of incompetence, to abort proper process and to force the Senate to deal with this legislation without actually having had an opportunity to consider a report that was put together, at its request, by a committee of the Senate is just completely outrageous and inappropriate. It is just another demonstration of an arrogant, incompetent government on its last legs, a government which clearly does not know where it is going these days, a government that is so focused on itself that it does not know how to focus on the public interest anymore. This is a government that is so weak, so incompetent, so divided, so deeply dysfunctional. It is time for this government to go. It is time for this government to face the Australian people so that the Australian people can pass judgment on this terrible and ongoing Labor Party incompetence.
The Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 is important legislation and is part of this government's Protecting Workers' Entitlements package, part of a continued process of ensuring workers' hard-worked-for entitlements are protected in circumstances where companies trade insolvently, go bust and go into liquidation, leaving workers stranded without access to important entitlements such as accumulated annual leave, accumulated long-service leave and redundancy entitlements.
This is not controversial legislation. It has been part of this government's process of ensuring that there are a suite of reforms that adequately protect workers' entitlements in this country. In fact, when this legislation was reported on by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, a member of that committee reported to the House on 27 February 2012:
The committee considers that the bill comprises uncontroversial measures that will assist in curbing the amoral practice of phoenixing. Indeed, in a briefing issued on 23 January 2012, the law firm Minter Ellison stated:
The … bill contains some reasonable measures for facilitating the protection of workers' entitlements. and these measures are unlikely to affect the position of the majority of directors.
Therefore, the committee has decided not to inquire into the bill and recommends that the House or the Federation Chamber consider the bill forthwith.
That was the determination of the House economics committee, clearly advising that this legislation is not controversial. That is why I find Senator Cormann's contribution to this debate somewhat amusing. Really the contributions from those opposite are all about protecting the interests of big business at the expense of those who will benefit from this legislation, and that is of course workers in this country who are seeking to avoid situations where their hard-fought-for and hard-won entitlements go unpaid in circumstances where companies go bust. This is an important improvement to our corporations power and an important addition in the fight against unethical and immoral practices within the corporate world.
The process of phoenixing is something that is abhorred by the Australian public and not supported by any member of this parliament. We have heard all the stories about businesses setting up one day, trading themselves to a point where they can no longer hope to repay their creditors and then completely walking away from obligations that they have entered into in good faith. We see failed businesses being left without being wound up, simply abandoned without any attempt to fulfil any of the company's obligations to its stakeholders, only to see that same enterprise, the same persons involved, begin trading soon after the failure, often within the same industry, often with the same directors and in some cases with an almost identical name. This practice leaves in its wake a destructive mess that costs the economy a great deal and hurts innocent people, both inside and outside the business. That is phoenixing.
I find Senator Cormann's comments regarding a lack of definition of the circumstances of phoenixing to be somewhat perplexing given that they are clearly defined in this legislation. They are defined in proposed section 489EA, which empowers ASIC to order the winding up of a company in four clearly separate and distinct sets of circumstances—and these are outlined in the provisions of the bill.
Phoenixing, in short, is a process of allowing a company to go broke—but never winding it up or paying out anything to its creditors—and then simply starting up a new company as if the destruction of the other one had never happened. We see this practice all too often in this country, particularly, unfortunately, in the construction industry and the textiles, clothing and footwear industry. According to the Australian Taxation Office, there are about 6,000 phoenix companies in Australia and between 7,500 and 9,000 directors of those companies. It is a practice which plagues many industries in Australia. We know the damage done to our economy by shonky practices in an industry that is this nation's lifeblood—I speak, of course, of the construction industry—although we are seeing this practice creep into other industries and we are seeing more and more people being hurt.
The Australian Security Industry Association, in response to a report into the security industry by Fair Work Australia, has called for greater compliance and enforcement to address issues such as rates of pay, sham contracting and, of course, phoenixing. Even in the energy industry, we are beginning to see reports that ASIC is investigating Mr Ben Polis over the collapse of his business, Polis Australia, trading at the time as Green Energy Australia. Unfortunately, we are starting to see a lot of this in the retail energy sector. Basically all you need to have to start up a company trading as a retailer in the energy industry these days is a laptop computer and a mobile phone—you can then begin taking and signing up customers. ASIC is looking into allegations that, in this particular case concerning Mr Ben Polis, the assets belonging to Polis Australia were transferred to his new business without payment. When it collapsed, Green Energy Australia owed $397,000 to creditors. We then see Mr Polis running a new company, which has risen from the ashes like the mythical bird itself, trading as EnergyWatch. At the same time, the Fair Work Ombudsman is investigating the failure to pay $500,000 in staff entitlements to employees of EnergyWatch.
In an article for the Sydney Morning Herald on 12 April this year, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers raised the example of the directors of a printing business telling a pregnant worker that she had 'caused an inconvenience' and giving her the sack just before Christmas. The directors of the company, Wongtas, were taken to court over this in 2010. Soon after, the directors of Wongtas placed this company into liquidation and registered a new company—Wangtas—which recommenced the same operations at the same location. The Federal Court has held that the liquidation of Wongtas had been carried out for the purpose of avoiding potential penalties under the Fair Work Act. Even with that Federal Court ruling, proceedings could not be maintained against Wongtas because the company no longer existed. Unfortunately, that means that this pregnant employee was not paid her wages—and of course she never got her job back. This bill introduces a series of measures to help people hurt by such practices by strengthening ASIC's capacity to deal with phoenixing. ASIC will be empowered to place companies into liquidation when they have been abandoned by their directors.
This bill also gives effect to commitments made to amend the process for access to the General Employee Entitlements Redundancy Scheme, GEERS. GEERS was established by the former government following the collapse of National Textiles. We all remember that National Textiles was a company owned and operated by the brother of then Prime Minister John Howard. The company had fallen in a heap, leaving all employee entitlements unfunded. GEERS was set up in its wake. GEERS allows employees to access entitlements in situations where unpaid wages, accrued long-service leave and other forms of applicable leave have been lost because a company has failed. GEERS aims to provide employees with access to these entitlements in a fair and reasonable time frame. However, a significant downfall of the current scheme is that it requires a failed company to be placed into liquidation before employees can seek, through GEERS, to access those unpaid entitlements. As I have pointed out, in phoenixing situations it is often the case that the company is simply abandoned rather than being wound up or liquidated. When this occurs, employees are not eligible to access GEERS. In order to have an abandoned company placed into liquidation, a court order must be sought, and this court process often takes a lengthy period of time at great cost to those seeking the order for liquidation. In the case of employees seeking such an order, a considerable amount of their entitlements are often eaten up in legal fees rather than going towards those next steps in life which inevitably flow from losing your job in the collapse of the company.
Even worse is the situation for employees who are seeking access to an abandoned company in the case where the company has been deregistered. In that scenario, orders must be sought to have the company reinstated and then you still have to go through the process I outlined to get it liquidated—all this to access a scheme which, in its current incarnation, is meant to be a last resort for employees to get the entitlements they need to move on with their lives. It is a government sponsored scheme which often takes an unbearable and unrealistic amount of time to access.
This bill will allow ASIC to place a company into liquidation in a reasonable time frame, therefore allowing employees to access GEERS in that reasonable time frame. That will mean that the pain and cost of litigation can be avoided. That is why this is a positive reform. The new ASIC powers will follow the same rules which apply when a company is deregistered by the commission. These new, common-sense powers will mean that companies which are clearly no longer trading and have been abandoned can be wound up and placed into liquidation. This will give employees caught up in a corporate collapse the certainty they deserve of access to their unpaid entitlements.
In addition, this bill introduces a provision requiring companies placed in administration to use a single website for the posting of public notices. At the moment, many companies going through such a liquidation process place such notices in metropolitan newspapers where they are often missed by creditors and employees who have an interest in ensuring that the liquidation process is completed. A new single website—a single point of call—for people in such situations will ensure they have access to the information they need to begin the process of regaining their entitlements. At the moment we see the administrators placing notices in the ASIC Gazette as well, and that is required by the Corporations Act. But, again, a single port of call through a website is a common-sense approach that allows administrators and stakeholders to keep up to date with developments and have easy access to the information that they require.
These measures make an important improvement to our corporations power. The bill means that employees caught up in unethical and unjustified phoenixing processes can have access to the government's GEER Scheme in a fair and timely manner. It delivers on the commitments that this government has made as part of its Protecting Workers' Entitlements package. It strengthens ASIC's powers to place companies into liquidation when they have been abandoned by their directors and allows for a cost-effective process involving the publication of insolvency notices in a single, publicly available website.
Phoenixing is corporate Australia at its worst. It is unethical, it is immoral and, importantly, it is un-Australian. This bill represents an important step in tackling this broad and far too wide problem in our economy. I commend the bill to the Senate.
I rise to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012. This is an area in which I have a particular interest, given the work I did formerly at the Australian Government Solicitor's Office, and for quite a number of years I was involved in insolvency practice. Phoenixing, particularly in relation to the winding up of companies that had failed to pay their tax, was my daily bread and butter. It is interesting to hear Senator Thistlethwaite speak on this issue. More often than not the companies that do engage in phoenixing activities are, as Senator Thistlethwaite justly says, in the construction industry. That is where I saw many of the worst examples of phoenixing. Often I would have discussions with union officials—sad discussions with union officials—who had come to me representing their members because companies had not paid, in particular, their dues to the Australian Taxation Office and therefore in any eventual winding up the workers had a very difficult place in the pecking order. I want to place this on the record because it is my view that this area needs much more attention than this bill gives it.
Can I present some practical examples relating to some of the things that Senator Cormann and, to some extent, Senator Thistlethwaite said. Senator Thistlethwaite focused on some high-profile windings up. I would like also to place on the record that I had my fair share of interesting windings up. In fact, Senator Marshall, I actually wound up the holding company that ran that famous piggery. That was a very interesting exercise. There are certainly some very interesting characters on the list of serial directors who set up companies and then deliberately send them into phoenixing arrangements and trade insolvently, particularly those with whom the Australian Taxation Office has come into close contact. I will not put names on the record.
The point I make is that any package that deals with phoenixing must look at what existing powers are available to the Commonwealth—and they have always been available to the Commonwealth, yet some of those powers have not been used. One of the most common situations I found myself in was where I would be winding up a company which had directors that had previously had companies; those companies went into liquidation, then they set up companies with similar names and they went into liquidation. Often I would be dealing with directors who had had a string of companies that had been wound up, and here they were again before the courts being wound up. Why? Because, regrettably, there had not been a prosecution, there had been underresourced regulators, there had been insufficient follow-up on complaints and there had been inadequate penalties to act as a deterrent. Unfortunately, if these directors are not prosecuted for insolvent trading and the regulator might have the powers to prosecute but does not have the resources to undertake those prosecutions, the inevitable will happen: these companies will go into liquidation; the creditors—often the workers—will not get their entitlements; and another company will start up down the road the next week.
Another issue with phoenixing that I found in my experience was the use by companies and company directors of the voluntary administration provisions, which also enabled them to undertake creative accounting and enter into arrangements which often paid 5c in the dollar and then again, ultimately, the company could be put into liquidation and the directors would start up again.
My concern with this legislation is not that I do not want to combat phoenixing but that the measures to combat phoenixing should be packaged up in a much broader reform than is currently before us. Senator Thistlethwaite mentioned section 489EA and ASIC orders for the winding up of a company. The legislation may well canvass that sort of issue, but what is clear is that work done by the Senate Standing Committee on Economics as well as work previously done by Senator Sherry and other assistant treasurers provides a much better and much more comprehensive starting point for the direction of this legislation. This is not a definition of what phoenixing activity is. This is a broad definition of the talks about the winding up of a company. It does not go into the specifics of the sorts of phoenixing activity that we see daily.
Senator Cormann referred to the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, and that committee presented a unanimous and bipartisan recommendation that the government not proceed with provisions. It specifically commented:
... the committee notes concerns from the business community and its representatives that the Bills potentially apply to the broad range of directors whether engaged in phoenix activity or not. The committee recommends that the Government should investigate whether it is possible to tighten the provisions of the bill to better target phoenix activities.
As I understand, the government subsequently withdrew the provisions from the bill which the Economics Committee was then considering and has yet to provide an indication as to how they will tighten the provisions to better target phoenixing activities as recommended by the committee. A number of senators were involved in a Senate inquiry which, while it came from the other aspect of considering activities of liquidators, nevertheless touched on phoenixing. Senator Williams in particular went into more detail in relation to some companies he had had experience with. We have yet to see a government response to that committee report, which also touches on these matters and lends credence to my appeal to the government that this is a far wider issue than what this legislation currently canvasses, particularly in fairness to all—not just the corporate sector—small businesses and workers who often find themselves at the lower end and ultimately are the ones who suffer the most as a consequence of companies going into liquidation. In the construction industry it is the subcontractors, the workers and the businesses providing materials who ultimately will not be paid.
The necessity for a clear definition is fundamental to any legislation. It is fundamental that that definition include the fraudulent activity which is the cornerstone of phoenixing activities. The definition should be targeted at the specific activities which the government is seeking to eliminate. A clear definition would protect those legitimate companies and ensure they do not inadvertently get caught up in what is quite draconian legislation. My criticism is that there needs to be greater definition of what phoenixing is about. While Senator Thistlethwaite touched on this, there is a range of areas which, in my experience, could be looked at. When one examines whether a company has been engaged in phoenixing activities, there is a range of Commonwealth areas with which the company could have had involvement—the tax office or a range of other aspects of government—which would have given certain indicators. For example, directors may have previously been directors of companies which had gone into liquidation. One accepts that some companies do go into liquidation as serial offenders. I dealt with one colourful character frequently in the courts. I must have wound up 10 or 12 of his companies. He repeatedly turned up in the courts, in my case because we were winding him up for failure to pay tax.
Yes, there is a rightful role in relation to ASIC improperly overseeing and enforcing legislation but my point is that I would like to see ASIC utilise more fully the existing powers available to it. While the government is now looking to add additional powers, a far better reform package would look at the existing powers ASIC and other organisations to see how they can be better utilised. The concern I have, as Senator Cormann expressed, is that the government seems to be taking an ad hoc and piecemeal approach to the targeting of fraudulent phoenixing activities by introducing different pieces of related legislation in an uncoordinated manner rather than withdrawing the current bill, looking at this matter in a much more global way, engaging in meaningful consultation with stakeholders to address their legitimate concerns and determining a comprehensive and coordinated legislative approach to this important public policy matter.
As a starting point—and I mentioned Senator Sherry before—the government should consider the proposals paper on combating phoenixing activities released in November 2009 by Senator Sherry, who was then the Assistant Treasurer, one of five assistant treasurers in the short history of the Labor government. Of the 11 proposals for combating phoenixing activities in that proposals paper, none are reflected in these new ASIC powers. The 11 proposals may in fact be a good place for the government and the new Assistant Treasurer to start when they go back to the drawing board, as they properly should on this important area of policy.
The coalition has a number of other concerns about the government's approach to phoenixing activities including how effective previous regulatory efforts have been in combating this practice, the appropriateness of available penalties and the lack of recognition by the government of the role and capacity of liquidators in taxing phoenix activities. I mention the report the Senate committee had undertaken in relation to liquidators' activities because we have yet to see the government's response. I think that is an important component if we are going to consider phoenixing activities. I echo Senator Cormann's comments on Senator Mark Bishop, the chair of the economics committee, in the report tabled by Senator Polley a few moments ago. Can I also place on record that tabling a report on an important piece of legislation and then having the legislation follow shortly thereafter is really indicative of the shambolic way that this government runs its Senate procedures. But even Senator Bishop makes comments in relation to the definition of winding up by ASIC and, indeed, even Senator Bishop makes references to how the definition needs to be improved.
I turn now to the coalition senators' dissenting report, which picks up the Treasury proposals paper and the document that I referred to in relation to Senator Sherry. I would like to quote from the Treasury proposals paper issued in November 2009, which describes the systematic way that such phoenix activity is conducted:
Fraudulent phoenix activity involves the evasion of tax and other liabilities such as employee entitlements through the deliberate, systematic and sometimes cyclic liquidation of related corporate trading entities.
Coalition senators recognise that phoenix activity causes significant harm, most especially to workers and small businesses who are denied their legitimate entitlements. They state correctly:
If left unchecked it can erode the reputation of Australia’s strong business community and reduce confidence in our world class corporate regulatory framework.
Despite efforts of this government, it still does not get it right.
The coalition senators' dissenting report refers to the unanimous and bipartisan recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics and then goes on to state the obvious—that there is no definition of fraudulent phoenix activity. The report picks up the point made by the Australian Institute of Company Directors:
We are firmly of the view that if new legislation is being introduced to target a specific problem, then the legislation must clearly define the issue sought to be addressed and specifically regulate that problem.
It is very clear that the government has not made any meaningful attempt to define what constitutes fraudulent phoenix activity or to delve into the specifics of what that activity entails. You cannot make a meaningful attempt to reduce phoenix activity if you do not specifically and properly define what that activity is and what it entails, and be a lot more specific about it. As I said, whilst the bill does make an attempt to significantly increase ASIC's powers, it fails to address the existing powers and how those powers have been utilised. In any reform in this area, one does have to examine the deficiencies in the current regulatory framework to see why activity has gone unchecked.
Phoenixing activity has been a factor of corporate life. I used to practice in this area in the early 1990s and mid-1990s. We still have these issues. I take Senator Conroy's point that governments of both persuasions need to look at this area. (Time expired)
I rise to speak in support of the Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012. It is a pleasure to speak on this bill, as it is great Labor policy. Before I get into the substance of my speech I would like to comment on some of the previous contributions. I want to commend in some respects the contribution just made by Senator Fierravanti-Wells, but unfortunately I think she will probably be dragged into the office of the shadow minister, Senator Cormann, because Senator Fierravanti-Wells's contribution has really made his look very ordinary. It is very clear when you contrast the two contributions that Senator Fierravanti-Wells has actually come to grips with some of the issues and some of the problems that this bill is trying to seek to address. Given Senator Cormann's contribution, one would not even think that he had the most basic understanding of what the actual problem was. So I do feel for you, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. You should not come in outshining the shadow minister in the way you did, and I am sure he will have some very harsh words for you.
It was an extraordinarily ordinary contribution by Senator Cormann, who ran a line about the fact that he did not have access to the committee report prior to it being tabled today. I flicked through the Notice Paper to see whether Senator Cormann is a member of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, and indeed he is. He is a participating member of the committee. As every senator in this place would know, the committee has to meet and endorse the draft of the report prior to it being circulated. All Senator Cormann had to do was ring up and say, 'I would like to see a copy of that report,' just like every other senator can do and does have to do. But for some reason it is beyond Senator Cormann to have the wit or the nous to actually help himself and ring up, and get a copy of the report so that he could be informed by it.
He then went on to acknowledge that the only part of the report that the committee does not have access to and that government members do not have access to is the opposition's dissenting comments, which of course are kept secret from everybody else—but not the report itself, as everyone knows. I do not really think we can believe very much of what Senator Cormann has to say on this bill. He certainly was not portraying the reality about the existence of the report to the Senate, and I suspect the rest of his contribution was equally as poor.
I also want to pick up on what Senator Fierravanti-Wells said. She very clearly identified the serious nature of this problem and how it has been ongoing. In fact, I like the example that she used, in that, when she was practising in this field as a solicitor in the nineties, a director had gone through the phoenixing of 10 to 12 companies yet was still around. I think that demonstrates that there is a very serious problem.
Senator Fierravanti-Wells's position—reflected also in the dissenting comments in the report—is that we should have a look at what existing powers ASIC has and utilise them before we go into relegislating. If Senator Fierravanti-Wells knows this has been a problem for 20-odd years, ASIC obviously does not have the power to do something about it and they need extra legislative muscle to tackle this problem. Of course, that is why the government are legislating, because we need to give ASIC the powers and the ability to crack down on phoenixing. It simply is not good enough to say, 'We acknowledge that this problem is there and we think it is terrible but we are going to allow it to flourish.' That is what the opposition are saying today. They are going to oppose this legislation. They acknowledge that it is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, but they are going to oppose it and let this problem flourish.
Senator Fierravanti-Wells at least had one criticism of the legislation, saying that it does not go far enough. If it does not go far enough, that is something the government will have to revisit. But, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, put up some amendments. If you want it to go further, put up some amendments for the government to consider. But let us go as far as we want to go. We think we are going far enough at this point in time. We may have to come back and revisit this in the future if it does not close the loopholes that have been identified, but if you do not think it goes far enough, support how far it does go and put up some amendments to make it go further. We can accommodate that fairly easily; we can at least look at amendments. You would think you would do that. But to simply say, 'We do not think it goes far enough, so we are going to say no' is really just the way this opposition work in this place and of course in the House. Their answer to every problem is to simply do nothing and say no. Whenever the government tries to proactively move to close loopholes, to stop people being ripped off, to stop phoenixing of companies so that people pay their tax and entitlements to working people and to take away this blight from the business community, the opposition say no and frustrate the government. They want to oppose it. There is never any constructive engagement with the government; they simply say no. I do not think it is good enough.
But I am pleased by and do get some confidence from the fact that Senator Fierravanti-Wells at least understands the issue and what is at stake. I just think it is very disappointing that someone who obviously understands it has not had the courage to stand up in the party room and say, 'Actually, this is good stuff and we should be supporting the government and encouraging the government to go further.' But it is obvious to everyone what the stumbling block in the opposition party room is. It is the shadow minister who has not got a clue about this particular issue. It is a bit of an embarrassment, as was his contribution today.
The Labor Party are getting on with the work of implementing the protecting workers' entitlements package and fulfilling our commitment to cracking down on companies that undertake phoenixing behaviour. In our market based economy there is a responsibility of government to represent the public interest. When the private sector writes off carbon pollution, for instance, as an externality, it is the role of government to ensure that the true cost is accounted for. When the private sector fails to provide appropriate infrastructure, it falls to the government to intervene with initiatives such as the National Broadband Network. When there is evidence of widespread sex based discrimination in Australian workplaces, it is the responsibility of government to take action. We have taken action in that regard and I will be tabling a report on legislation that the government are moving in that area later today.
In an ideal world, the government would not be forced to take this kind of action. But, unfortunately and increasingly, we bear witness to shameless, cynical behaviour by elements of our business community. Phoenixing represents a particularly heinous form of corporate cynicism whereby a company enters into a calculated collapse in order to escape its financial obligations to its workers and other creditors. Soon afterwards, these companies are seen to rise from the ashes, much like the mythological bird. The Australian Taxation Office estimates that there are approximately 6,000 phoenix companies in Australia today. This is not a small problem; it is a significant problem. It is well past time that it was addressed and it is well past time that the opposition supported the government in doing this.
The government seeks to address in this bill the complex issue of phoenixing in three separate ways. Firstly, and most significantly, the bill seeks to empower ASIC with the ability to place abandoned businesses into liquidation in appropriate and prescribed circumstances without applying to the courts. Effectively, it seeks to thwart the current practice whereby a business can enter into a state of limbo, neither living nor dead, thus avoiding certain financial obligations. Previously, newly unemployed workers have sometimes been able to gain access to certain outstanding entitlements through the General Employee Entitlements Redundancy Scheme, GEERS. At present, however, it is a precondition that corporations are actually placed into liquidation before their former employees are able to sue for their entitlements through GEERS. Unfortunately, this does not always happen as it should.
Workers who have just lost their incomes and who are often neither financially nor emotionally equipped to do so find themselves faced with the requirement to undertake court action before being able to gain access to the entitlements that they are owed. I think that is an incredibly unfair burden on workers at the moment. They are the ones who are forced to take a company to court to force it into liquidation before they are able to access their entitlements. That is not an appropriate thing for workers to have to do, especially when in nearly every case they have lost their income and do not have any other income at that particular time. It is the role of government through its regulators to force that issue and ensure that that action is taken quickly and efficiently. These actions will represent a significant step towards the realisation of the government's protecting workers' entitlements package.
The bill also seeks to change the reporting requirements of newly insolvent companies. External administration notices will be required to be made available on the ASIC website. This is a sensible and modern approach to an existing outdated and costly system. Senator Thistlethwaite, whose contribution I commend to everybody, went through that process in some detail. Currently businesses are required to publish a notice of their insolvency either in a newspaper or in the ASIC Gazette. This approach does not befit the digital age. It is essentially decentralised and lacking in clarity. The requirement to publish a notice of external administration on the ASIC website will reduce the administrative burden on creditors, who are currently required to monitor numerous newspapers for relevant notifications, particularly as there is no set newspaper or day of the week on which notices must be published. It will make it far easier for all interested parties, including workers, to gain access to this often crucial information.
Furthermore, this measure will result in significant savings to the creditors of companies that enter into external administration. It is estimated that this reform will result in approximately $15 million of savings, some of which will undoubtedly find its way into the pockets of deserving ex-employees.
Finally, this bill will require liquidators to inform FaHCSIA in the event that they are appointed to an employer with Paid Parental Leave responsibilities. This will ensure that FaHCSIA will have the information it needs to determine whether to persist with parental leave payments to the company in question or whether it would be more appropriate to direct those payments to the individual employee. This final amendment forms but a minor part of a suite of reforms that this bill seeks to implement, yet it gives me great pleasure to commend it. Paid parental leave is a triumph of this government and another example of good Labor policy. Australians, particularly Australian women, have long fought for the right to paid parental leave and over 150,000 working parents have so far enjoyed the fruit of that labour. It must be gratifying for these parents to know that the government continues to place great importance on the right to paid parental leave, as this bill shows.
Workers and fair-minded business people must also find it gratifying to see that this government is pressing on with its agenda of reform and is tackling the complex issue of phoenixing—a despicable practice, a sad symptom of corporate greed and a strong argument for continued vigilance by a government that is not afraid to intervene on behalf of Australian workers. I commend this bill to the Senate.
I thank those senators who took part in the debate on the Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the stakeholders for their contributions at the various stages. This bill delivers on the Gillard government's protecting workers' entitlements package, its election commitments and part of its insolvency reform package, announced on 14 December 2011. There is no rush or surprise in any of it. The bill strengthens ASIC's powers to place into liquidation companies that have been abandoned by their directors. It will benefit the employees of those abandoned companies by enabling quicker access to their unpaid entitlements through the government's employee assistance scheme. The bill also paves the way for a more streamlined and cost-effective process involving the publication of insolvency notices via a single, publicly available website. This will benefit creditors of companies in external administration by reducing the cost of complying with these regulatory obligations and making it easier for creditors to keep track of information about companies in external administration. The bill, as Senator Marshall said, also contains some miscellaneous amendments in relation to paid parental leave and the powers of the court in relation to company reinstatements.
In conclusion, this bill will ensure that ASIC can step in to wind up a company to ensure that employees receive quicker access to their entitlements from the government's employee assistance scheme. By imposing a requirement on insolvency practitioners to inform FaHCSIA of their appointment, the bill will ensure FaHCSIA becomes aware when a company goes into external administration, so as to allow it to take over responsibility for paying employees under the Paid Parental Leave scheme. The bill also implements an important part of the government's insolvency reform package by facilitating the establishment of a single, insolvency notices website. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the parliamentary secretary to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in the Committee of the Whole. I call the parliamentary secretary.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
I rise today to speak on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. This bill seeks to implement changes that the government announced in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, before last night's budget, and also in the National Carer Strategy.
The first measure contained in the bill seeks to provide an incentive for parents to immunise their children by making the payment of the family tax benefit part A supplement to parents conditional on their child meeting immunisation requirements. The second measure relates to the baby bonus. This measure pauses the indexation of the baby bonus for three years from July 2012. It also seeks to reduce the value of the baby bonus to $5,000 per child as of 1 September 2012.
My colleague in the other place the member for Menzies noted that this represents nearly a 10 per cent decrease in the value of the baby bonus, down from $5,437. It comes at a time when we know young families are doing it very tough, hence the framing of last night's budget. It does seem that despite all their rhetoric to the contrary the government are determined to drive up cost-of-living pressures for Australians. Nothing demonstrates this more than the impending carbon tax, which you will appreciate is fast approaching.
The member for Menzies also noted that this measure is one of many introduced across government aimed at reducing support for Australian families and should be placed in the context of the broader attack on middle Australia by the current government. This pausing in the indexation of the baby bonus follows the freezing of indexation of family tax benefit part A and part B supplement payments, in the 2011 budget. And add to this Labor's recent decision to again hit families by means testing the private health insurance rebate. I think it is pretty clear that a pattern is emerging.
Two other measures in this bill relate to the carer supplement and the carer payment. They have emerged from the National Carer Strategy. With the first of these changes, the eligibility for the carer supplement for some carers who have previously been excluded from receiving this payment, under the current legislation a carer who has had their carer payment rate reduced to nil by an income test is not eligible for the carer supplement of $600 per year. In the current situation those carers who combine their caring role with paid employment must sometimes choose between taking on work or losing their access to the carer supplement. This amendment seeks to rectify the situation by extending eligibility for the carer supplement to carers who qualify for the carer payment but have their payment rate reduced to nil on account of the income they earn through paid employment. The government contends that this will mean that the eligibility criteria for the carer supplement are no longer a disincentive to carers who are employed in paid work.
The second of the changes that relate to carers provides for a bereavement payment for low-income carers who care for adults, upon the death of the person for whom they care. Bereavement payments are made available to carers of children. This amendment extends that availability to those who have lost an adult they cared for.
Finally, this bill makes several minor clarifications and amendments, of a technical nature, to family assistance law. The coalition recognises the important role—as I know you do, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore—that carers play in the community. It is often 24 hours a day, seven days a week—it is care, love and support for a family member or a friend. Without that dedication and commitment there are tens of thousands, if not millions, of Australians who would have a much-reduced quality of life, so we are all united in a desire to support carers the best we can.
In that vein I want to note in passing the fact that this year is the 10th time, I think, that the Leader of the Opposition has undertaken the annual Pollie Pedal, and the organisation chosen to receive the funds raised from that venture was Carers Australia. The 1,000 kilometres cycled and the sponsorship and donations given through that exercise resulted in more than $500,000 being raised for Carers Australia. They were very worthy recipients, and I think that is the start of an ongoing relationship between Carers Australia and Pollie Pedal. I think it is extremely good that carers have been recognised in that very practical way.
As I have indicated, we do have some misgivings about this bill, not with all elements but with those I have indicated. But I indicate that we will not be seeking to oppose the bill.
The Greens support most elements of the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. In particular, we are in favour of improvements to bereavement payments and supplementary payments for carers. As has been articulated, and we know very well, there are over 2.6 million unpaid carers in Australia, of whom more than 770,000 are priority carers—in other words, they are providing the most care to people they are looking after.
We have talked at great length in the chamber before about the vital support that carers provide to those most in need in Australia. Up until fairly recently the role that carers played was largely unrecognised in the community. I am pleased to say that that has significantly improved, but we still have a long way to go in this country to ensure that our carers get the full support they need to provide that essential element of care. I remind the chamber that if these carers were not providing that care it would be a massive cost to our budget bottom line, because those carers provide care that otherwise would have to be paid for in this country.
Carers are a highly vulnerable group. Indicators consistently show that they are at the bottom of the income stream and of the health and welfare index. They are consistently at the bottom of it because they provide care at their own personal expense. Often they are financially worse off and, although respite services have improved—I will acknowledge that—they still leave a lot to be desired. These services continue to be underfunded, and any extra resources that support carers are a welcome and timely measure. Having said that and indicated our support, I would like to briefly touch on concerns about linking immunisation to family payments. The Greens support immunisation but we also support the parents' right to choose in relation to their children's health, and any measures by the government to link immunisation to family payments must also contain sufficient protections for parents' right to choose. Presently, an individual's eligibility for the maternity immunisation allowance is determined by whether a child meets the immunisation requirements. These requirements can be met in a few different ways, including by showing that a recognised immunisation provider has certified in writing that he or she has discussed with the adult the benefits and risks of immunising the child and the adult has declared in writing that he or she has a conscientious objection to the child's being immunised.
This legislation replaces the maternity immunisation allowance requirements, linking it to family benefits. These provisions provide an important protection for parents who choose to conscientiously object to immunising their child and ensure that they are not penalised financially for this choice. The measure in this bill ceases the maternity immunisation allowance and amends the family assistance laws to make payments of the family tax benefit part A supplement conditional on a child meeting the immunisation requirements as set out in section 6 of the family assistance act. It is my understanding that the immunisation requirements, and therefore the ability to conscientiously object, are not changing. I welcome the government's maintaining of this protection and encourage them to make sure that this protection is maintained, because it is important that we do maintain parents' right to choose.
Having said that, I think it is important that parents demonstrate that they have actually weighed up the various opinions and evidence in order to make their decision. This does encourage parents to do that, but we need to maintain the parents' right to choose and to hold a conscientious objection, because I know from my discussions with parents that those who do choose to not have their children immunised have thought about it considerably and have made that conscious decision not to have their child immunised. This is not a judgment on whether that is right or wrong; this is saying that parents do have a right to choose and it is ensuring that that choice is maintained in this legislation.
I have a few comments with respect to the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 which I would like to put on the record. They essentially revolve around one of the key elements of this bill, which is reducing the baby bonus for families by almost 10 per cent, or $437. On top of that the government are freezing indexation for the next three years. This directly impacts on families who are already struggling with the cost of living. Those of us who are parents in this place can relate to the high costs associated with having a baby, and the baby bonus is aimed at assisting with those costs. My youngest son, in fact, was born only a matter of minutes before the baby bonus came into effect. I would have been substantially better off had it been the next day, but such is the way of childbirth!
With respect to assisting parents, my concern is that parents are unable to plan or to count on continuity from this government. In last night's budget speech, for example, we were told repeatedly that this was 'spreading the bonus' of the mining boom, that families would be getting assistance and things like that. The problem is that these one-off sugar hits do not give any confidence to families so that they can plan into the future. It leads to the conclusion that many people have come to: that this government really does not care, except for the politics of a particular circumstance. How can this government justify winding back the baby bonus, even in this relatively small measure for families that are already being affected by the cost of living, and yet refuse to deal with the fact that a carbon tax is going to be introduced on 1 July which is going to severely impact on the cost of living for families? How can it justify winding back assistance for families with newborn children and not accept the fact that its Building the Education Revolution was rorted to the tune of billions and billions of dollars? Indeed, what is this government doing winding back assistance for families with newborn children while electricity prices have gone up by 66 per cent since this government was elected? And gas prices are up by 39 per cent. Food and petrol prices have increased by 11 per cent. It is not exactly within the purview of the government to stop price rises, but the price rises are directly related to the financial incompetence and mismanagement that this government has inflicted upon the Australian economy. It is Economics 101, I would remind you—although you need no reminding, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore—
Did you do Economics 101?
Yes, indeed I did, Senator Collins—and perhaps you will get to that stage at some point in life—
I've already done it!
I am happy to send you my textbook, if you would like to update yourself on Economics 101—
Senators, I remind you to make your comments through the chair.
Thank you for that, Madam Acting Deputy President. I would say to you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that if Senator Collins did complete Economics 101 she would in fact be finance minister or the Treasurer—because she couldn't do any worse a job than the current Treasurer or the finance minister are actually doing!
But I will put it in a simplified version for the benefit of those opposite: if a government is going to be excessively borrowing money and injecting it into the money supply then, indeed, you are going to have inflationary expectations. There are other dampers that have taken place, of course, but the things we need—the utilities, accommodation et cetera—are all rising in cost exponentially, and that is what is putting the burden on Australian families. The government will talk about headline inflation or the fact that the cost of bananas has come down or gone up or whatever the case may be, but you can opt out of buying bananas; you cannot opt out of having the electricity switched on or needing the gas or needing accommodation.
The other upshot of this is that, as money has been injected into the economy and squandered—and squandered grotesquely, along the lines of the Health Services Union—we are finding that the Reserve Bank has had to have interest rates much higher than they otherwise would be, to stop the economy getting overinflated. That has seen the international money markets chasing the safe haven of the Australian dollar, as a relative of high interest rates, because they can get six per cent on their deposits in this country as opposed to half a per cent or even less in many other comparable nations around the world. That has put our dollar higher and has made our manufacturing exporters less competitive. And it becomes this spiral of economic decay. The government for years denied that this is the case and that they are inflicting this pain on Australian families, until they had some sort of epiphany in which they recognised, 'Gee, excessive government spending does lead to higher interest rates, which does lead to a higher Australian dollar, which leads to less competitive economic factors.' So they have delivered a surplus. But what they have done in the process of delivering this apparent surplus—which I think is right up there with the Loch Ness monster, the surplus to be talked about but never seen—is put a knife through the heart of the Australian economy. They are doing that because there is no talk about productivity, there is no talk about the encouragement of incentive and enterprise. It is more about just throwing handouts to people, and handouts to people are not a good way of allowing people to determine their own future. They are one-off sugar stimulus hits to appease a group of people. That is what concerns me.
We had a structured approach to the baby bonus. It was supported over many years by both sides of parliament because they saw that there was an economic benefit in providing not only for our demographic environment but for the cost of childcare to assist families, particularly early on. When I say child care I do not mean institutional child care, of course; I mean the care for a child when it is brought into the world. The difficulty we have is that that is being replaced now, it is being wound back, under the guise of some efficiency dividend. I reject it. I think it is just another attack on families. The baby bonus has been means-tested since 2008. It is as if some babies are worth more than others. In the budget that same year this government means-tested family tax benefits. In 2009 they froze indexation for a number of benefits: full payment of family tax benefit A and B, the dependent spouse rebate and indeed the baby bonus. Last year they froze indexation for the supplement payments of both family tax benefits A and B. It has been a never-ending assault on families ever since Labor came to office.
The only reason there has needed to be an assault on families, the only reason Labor have had to engage in their historical mantra of class warfare once again, is that they have been unable to manage their own expenditure. The Australian people are taxed plenty; they are taxed too much. I make no bones about that. But this government has proved it is unable to live within its means, and that is one of the fundamental priorities of any government and any family. If a national government cannot live within its means, what sort of example is that setting for families out there in the community?
Australian families are concerned not just because some of the good initiatives of the Howard government are being wound back or shut down or closed off to some of them but they are concerned because they know that every dollar borrowed, every dollar of the $100 million every single week that is borrowed by this government, is going to have to be repaid by children born last year and the year before and the children born tomorrow. We are now facing intergenerational debt. In four years the Labor Party have raised $167 billion worth of deficits, the four biggest deficits on record. That compares starkly with the four largest surpluses in the history of this country which were achieved in the final four years of the Howard government. Based on Mr Swan's forecast of running a surplus of $1.5 billion in the next financial year, it will take 100 years of Mr Swan's surpluses to pay back four years of Labor's mismanagement. It is a joke. It is a terrible indictment on the philosophical approach this government is having—unable to control spending, unwilling to make the tough decisions that need to be made to stop the rorts and the waste, unwilling to even demote cabinet ministers who have proven themselves to be incompetent and hopeless. I am not talking about Senator Carr, who was unjustly dumped by Ms Gillard. I am talking about people who were the architects of the carbon tax debacle, about the people who wanted to inflict an emissions trading scheme upon us, about the people who were responsible for the insulation in people's roofs that burned houses down and unfortunately were responsible for a number of deaths of young installers. I am talking about the people who were behind the Building the Education Revolution rorts. I could go on and on. It comes back to the capacity and judgment of this government to determine what is in the national interest.
I do not believe that our Prime Minister in particular and the coterie of people around her propping her up have any capacity to act in the national interest. They have only ever acted in the political interest, anything that can get them through the day. We have seen that with our own Prime Minister, discredited as her words are after she uttered the immortal ones 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead', which was echoed by Mr Swan and a number of other Labor luminaries. I think the Australian public lost interest in what she had to say when she said words to the effect that Mr Thomson was doing a first-rate job and she had full confidence in him. You have to have a nose for scandal to recognise that something very dirty was going on there. No politician with any integrity would put themselves out on a limb like that defending something the process of which was clearly so flawed and that had been in the public domain for a very long time.
So, whilst Australian families are doing it tough, this government do not seem to care. They are doing enormous damage to families for decades to come because every dollar of this debt that has been incurred, every dollar of the $169 billion worth of deficits, will have to be repaid. It can be repaid through inflation, which is really a tax and robbery of those who seek to save. It can be repaid by devaluing and destroying currency, as we are seeing in any number of countries around the world. It can be repaid by reducing services or increasing taxes. Unfortunately, this government is only intent on increasing taxes. It is not willing to make effective cuts to some of its wasteful programs, it simply targets the programs that are providing perhaps the most benefit and the most confidence for Australian families. Just on confidence, this is what is lacking in our economy today, this is what is lacking in our families today. There is no confidence in the ability of this government to do the job they have been elected to do, which is govern in the national interest. There is no confidence in the business community to invest in their businesses or to take on extra staff or to grow their businesses, because they do not know which business, which community, which group is going to be targeted next by this government. We have seen them target any number of people that they think are fair game. We have seen them renationalise our telecommunications industry. We are seeing them increase taxes under the guise of health measures. We are seeing them target the mining industry, the single industry that is keeping the economy afloat. We saw them target truck drivers in last night's budget, with an extra 2c a litre fuel tax. They just look for targets, but they will not examine their own incompetence and hopelessness.
I think that is something that has really shut down the confidence of the Australian community. Everywhere I go, people say they are worried about the future. They are worried because they think they have a government that has no mind for the future; it is only about living in the 24-hour spin cycle, dominating the media cycle, smearing its opponents or making it tougher for families under the guise of helping them.
This bill will hurt families, but there are many other initiatives that will increase the pain for Australian families, not least of all the carbon tax, which comes into being on 1 July, which we were promised by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and others would never happen—unless there was a citizens assembly, I might add, where there was a consensus in the community. We have seen those who have opposed the carbon tax be demonised and attacked, and we have seen the government in complete disarray over a tax that is going to damage our economy, damage Australian families and provide no measurable benefit for the environment.
Deep in their heart of hearts—those that have them in the Labor Party—they know that this is a tax they have no justification for, no mandate for, and they know it is going to be damaging for our economy. But unfortunately, until they replace an intransigent and belligerent leadership team, Australian families will be further disserviced over coming months by a government that, as I said before, has no real interest in the national interest; it is only about self-interest.
We will be letting this bill through, as Senator Fifield said, notwithstanding our grave reservations about the impact that it is going to have on Australian families. It is just another nail in the proverbial coffin of families being able to plan adequately for their own future and determine their own wellbeing.
I thank senators for their contributions to the second reading debate on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, although, in saying that, I question Senator Bernardi's contribution in terms of its relevance to this piece of legislation. I urge Senator Bernardi to read the budget. Some of the assertions that he made in his contribution to this debate bear no resemblance to the numbers that appear in the budget papers that were tabled in this chamber this morning. Senator Bernardi's comments were in fact quite fanciful. His contribution was simply a list of the rhetoric that we have heard for months and months from that side and bore no relevance to the facts. The budget that was brought down last night in fact is a strong budget for this country. It places Australia in a good position to be able to build on the benefits of the mining boom for our children and our grandchildren, unlike what happened in mining boom mark 1, where the benefits were frittered away and were not invested into the future. With this budget, we will have an investment into the future of our country that our children and grandchildren will be able to reap the benefits of.
I remind Senator Bernardi that the response of our government to the global financial crisis has been lauded internationally. Treasurer Swan was awarded the title of best treasurer in the world by the distinguished magazine Euromoney, the same magazine that awarded our Treasurer Keating the title of best treasurer in the world back in 1984. I observe that Australia has only been given two of those awards, one in 1984 and one to our current Treasurer, Wayne Swan. I have got to say that the treasury bench was not held by Labor for a lot of that time in between. I could also observe that Australia has AAA credit ratings from all three ratings agencies that participate in the ratings program. That has never happened in this country before. There are many economic commentators who recognise that our country, under the leadership of Treasurer Swan, has done a good job of dealing with the global financial crisis and putting us in the position we are now placed in to be able to reap the benefits of the mining boom which is in front of us. But I digress. Having accused Senator Bernardi of digressing, I have done the same myself.
I thank senators for their contributions to this debate. Through this bill, the government is implementing the changes to family payments that were announced in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and the improved support for carers outlined in the National Carer Strategy. The first of the changes to family payments is to strengthen incentives for families to have their young children immunised by linking the family tax benefit part A end-of-year supplement with immunisation. We all know how important immunisation is to a child's lifelong health as well as to the health of other children. We want to make sure that children have the best start in life and are immunised at the right time. So, from 1 July 2012, the end-of-year family tax benefit part a supplement, which is currently set at $726 per child each year, will be paid only when the child is fully immunised for the financial year in which a child turns one, two and five years of age. These new arrangements for the supplement will replace the maternity immunisation allowance, which will cease from 1 July 2012. We expect these reforms to improve immunisation coverage rates over time, giving Australia greater protection for our children.
The bill's second measure will help make sure that the baby bonus, which has increased by 67 per cent since it was introduced in 2004, is sustainable in the long term as an important part of the targeted family payment system. The amendment will, from 1 July 2012, pause the indexation of the baby bonus for three years. The payment rate will also be reset, to $5,000 per child, from 1 September 2012.
The third measure in the bill will improve the targeting of family tax benefit and reduce the risk of debts. This will be done by ending fortnightly payments of family tax benefit instalments to recipients who claim family tax benefit but are found to have no actual entitlement for two consecutive years following the end-of-year reconciliation with their income tax return. Families who are affected by the change would still be able to claim a lump sum at the end of the financial year. There will also be exceptions to prevent families being put at risk of hardship.
Lastly, the bill introduces two important amendments to support the Australian government's National Carer Strategy. The first amendment acknowledges that carers sometimes combine paid employment with their caring responsibilities. Under present income-testing arrangements, a carer cannot receive the annual carer supplement, which is worth $600 for each person they care for, if their or their partner's income has reduced their rate of payment to nil during a period that includes 1 July. This situation may disadvantage certain carers or their partners who may participate in casual or irregular work in addition to their caring commitments and who are offered extra employment in the period that includes 1 July. This bill overcomes the disincentive of the current arrangements by restoring entitlement to carer supplement to this group of carers. The other amendment for carers makes sure that a low-income carer who receives an income support payment as well as a carer allowance for care of an adult will be paid a bereavement payment on the death of the person they care for. I commend the amendment bill to the chamber.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Amendments have been circulated by Senator Xenophon, who cannot be here today to move them. Before I call the parliamentary secretary to move the third reading, does any senator wish to have a committee stage on the bill to ask further questions or clarify further issues? If not, I call the parliamentary secretary.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to contribute to the debate on the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill and related bills. I am very disappointed at the environment in which we are having this debate. I will acknowledge that there have been some improvements in the circumstances which existed prior to the intervention. We have had improvements in some of the law and order issues, in the consumption of alcohol and in domestic violence—the horror stories associated with those. Community stores have certainly improved and access to the sorts of groceries we all take for granted has improved somewhat. But, sadly, here we are 4½ years later and for many of those communities the fundamentals have not changed. The Bath inquiry reported domestic violence continues to the extent that an Aboriginal woman has some 80 times more chance of having to be hospitalised in the prescribed areas than in other parts of the Northern Territory. That saddens everyone who has been involved in this process.
In my view it is clear that Labor never had it in their heart to actually do what was necessary to effect change, to better these Australian communities. They have allowed many of the Northern Territory Emergency Response measures to just drift aimlessly. There was no real leadership. There was no genuine commitment behind these sometimes difficult and sometimes unpopular initiatives. By now we should have reached the point where we could end what is regarded as the intervention and we should by now have seen vast changes in these communities—improvements in engagement, employment and health outcomes. Sadly, that is not the case and, whilst the Northern Territory Emergency Response legislation in effect ends when we eventually pass this legislation, some elements of the intervention are going to be continued.
As you would be aware, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore, I was personally reluctant to assist the government in trying to explain what this legislation is all about. In the places I visited, the consultation process was so completely hopeless that it stands as a damning indictment of the government and those organisations who sought to claim to parliament that they had in fact consulted and that everybody understood what Stronger Futures was about. Sadly, as you would also be aware, Madam Acting Deputy President, upon revisiting some of those communities, where apparently up to 10 days of consultation had been held, we found that, in many cases, they had never heard of Stronger Futures. The great tragedy is: if you do not consult properly and you leave an information vacuum in these communities, and that vacuum will be filled with misinformation and rumour. That is not a very good environment in which to be putting legislation forward.
It is widely thought that this legislation deals with the Northern Territory councils. The Northern Territory Labor government, in a moment of madness and with some malice, in my view, sought to hide their very unpopular 2007 decision to amalgamate the councils—disempowering communities by gutting their leadership of the councils and saying, 'You all get one representative.' That caused a huge furore and we know now that it has failed not only on an economic basis but on a social basis, because there is no leadership process within these communities. As we go around these communities, people are asking, 'What about that?' This legislation actually has nothing to do with that issue. Then people ask, 'Isn't this going to have an effect because it will mean that people are going to mine the homelands now?' We hear all these really weird stories. We are having to explain to people that the Stronger Futures legislation is fundamentally about the three issues of alcohol management, community stores and headleases in communities, and that it is not about movement into hub towns and it is not about a whole range of other issues. The fact that we are having to explain that is an indictment of the complete failure of this government to consult. We seem to have to spend a lot of our time trying to correct people's understanding of what this legislation is actually about. Even with those efforts, I have to report that, sadly, as I stand here today many of the people who live in the areas which are going to be affected by this simply do not have a clue what this legislation is about. They talk about it being about everything from home ownership to aspects of income management. It is very sad that we are in that position.
We have some associated legislation here dealing with income management and suspensions. It is an associated bill but it is not part of the bill. If the government had actually explained and had a process to help communities understand which piece of legislation dealt with which issues, it certainly would have been a lot easier for all concerned. I have acknowledged publicly—and it is very easy to say this in hindsight—that one of the things we could have done better with the Northern Territory intervention was in letting people know exactly how it was going to affect them. It was an emergency at the time, and I know we have gone over that ground, but we knew then that, if we ever did something like this again we would ensure we allowed the time—and we did have a great deal of time; we had three years—to talk about what we were going to do. Very sadly, those opportunities have been lost. There was no learning from earlier mistakes.
This time the Labor government are proposing a 10-year policy and apparently we are only going to have a look at that 10-year policy in seven years—as if nothing is going to happen in seven years! You must not have a lot of confidence in yourself and your policies if you believe that nothing is going to change as a result of Stronger Futures in seven years.
We will be introducing amendments to deal with that, and we will be looking at amendments that can review it in three years, which is appropriate. Things should have changed in three years and if they have not we need as a parliament to inform ourselves so we can move forward and ensure we make the adjustments to programs so that we get the outcome that motivated those programs in the first place.
These bills tackle the issue of alcohol. The legislation increases the powers of the minister for Indigenous affairs to suspend, modify or cancel liquor licences and individual permits issued in the prescribed areas. The current laws provide that, once the minister grants an exemption from a permanent licence to be issued, the terms, conditions and enforcement of such are the responsibility of the Northern Territory government as legislated through the Northern Territory Liquor Act. This measure also provides power to the minister to request the Northern Territory government to appoint an independent assessor to examine any licence or premises where the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that a particular licensed premises anywhere in the Territory is linked to substantial harm to Aboriginal people.
A further initiative is that the federal minister will now approve all alcohol management plans for communities. The measures proposed in this bill are already the policy or laws of the Northern Territory government. There is nothing new. We support the measures because we think the current Northern Territory government are sound asleep. The snoring keeps us all awake. They live there, they are fundamentally responsible for this, they know what is going on but they just seem completely incapable of sensible legislative action that will protect the vulnerable and will ensure that the perpetrators of either the trafficking or the misuse of alcohol are brought to justice and are removed from the system.
When people talk about alcohol management plans they say, 'Oh, it's another imposition.' It is quite the contrary. The new alcohol management regime is a function of the consultation that does make some sense. People in the communities have been able to tell us that this is the sort of alcohol management plan they want. We have heard of an excellent framework for a management plan from Mount Nancy. The people can have ownership of it; they are going to be able to assist with the compliance themselves. That is the sort of management plan we need. But when I go to Ramingining, they think a management plan is an additional plan that we are going to belt them over the head with. So, again, there is total confusion and a complete lack of understanding about any of the processes that we are debating and in fact inflicting on Territorians.
I will be moving a number of amendments. First, prior to modifying, suspending or cancelling a licence the minister must first write to the Northern Territory government, given that it was their legislation in the first place, requesting that the Licensing Commission take appropriate action. Nobody who lives in a state or territory would think that in terms of alcohol licensing the Commonwealth should be leaping in and micromanaging something that fundamentally should be the responsibility of the states and territories. I know it is all wonderful for the minister to assume new powers over these things, but with those powers come responsibilities and the responsibilities of course will be released from the Northern Territory government. They will not care about this anymore. Every time we do that, the Territory becomes more and more of a mendicant state. Our amendment will make it very clear that, if the federal minister has a particular wish, the minister will be required to get in touch with the Territory. You would think the normal thing would be to pick up the phone anyway.
We also have an amendment that ensures that any federal activation or enforced intervention in the management of the Northern Territory Liquor Act does not just duplicate the Northern Territory government's actions; it provides a response where the Northern Territory government is unable to or fails to take appropriate action under those existing laws to address the harm caused by alcohol abuse. It should again be noted that the government has not proposed any new or additional alcohol control or management initiatives that might enhance the situation—it is simply duplicating existing measures in order to appear to be taking a stronger stance on alcohol. If you read it, we have Commonwealth law that now reflects the liquor-licensing law. It is almost like the Commonwealth saying, 'Let's just reflect the parking legislation of the Northern Territory and say we are taking stronger action on traffic.' Well, it is just the bloody same! It is pathetic that the Northern Territory government has not taken the opportunities that it has had, having been in power for the time that it has been.
The last point is critical in determining how to proceed with the Stronger Futures legislation. The government proposes to retain the power to implement current Northern Territory liquor-licensing laws for a period of 10 years and only review how they are working after seven years. It maybe the case that the reason why there are suddenly alcohol related issues in the Northern Territory is that the Northern Territory Labor government has not been enforcing any of its own laws. There may be other reasons or even deficiencies in some of the existing laws that they have there at the moment. Under the government's proposal we will not even know the answer to that question for seven years. Seven years is more than two terms of a federal government and longer than the term of every senator's appointment to this place. Seven years may mean a further generation being lost to the ravages of alcohol abuse. I know I like to belt the Labor Party, but every person in this place will agree with me. It is not a political issue. We all agree that the circumstances we find ourselves in in the Northern Territory and other places are unacceptable. That is why I trust the Senate will support my amendments.
Debate interrupted.
The Cancer Council of Australia and the Heart Foundation have advised that tobacco kills over 15,000 Australians each year and five million worldwide and is widely recognised as the single largest preventable cause of illness and premature death in Australia. The adverse effects of smoking on a smoker's health are proven and well documented. As I have said before in this chamber, cigarettes are poisonous. Smoking will damage your health. Smoking is likely to kill you.
The government's world-first tobacco plain-packaging laws are a significant step in reducing the impact of these poisonous products on the health and wellbeing of all Australians. Our plain-packaging legislation has elevated Australia to a position of global leadership in the field of tobacco control. We are setting a global precedent that has big tobacco shaking in their boots—and that is something we can all be proud of.
There is still more we can do for the health and wellbeing of Australians and to consolidate our global leadership and very strong reputation in the field of tobacco control. Smoking in movies by actors with youth appeal continues to promote positive images of tobacco products to young people and children. It is now widely accepted that these images are a significant risk factor for smoking initiation among adolescents. The World Health Organisation have pointed to studies that show 'smoking in movies misleads youth into thinking that tobacco use is normal, acceptable, socially beneficial and more common than it really is'. These studies also show that 'such movies rarely portray the harm of tobacco, instead portraying the product as conducive of a cool and glamorous lifestyle'. In March this year the US Surgeon General report Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults stated:
In 2010, nearly a third of top-grossing youth-rated movies—those with G, PG, or PG-13 ratings—contained images of tobacco use.
Teens and young adults are sensitive to what they see and hear in the world around them. If they are exposed to images that portray smokers as cool, attractive, rebellious, fun-loving, risk-taking, or other characteristics they admire, young people may want to smoke, too.
The report finishes by stating:
The evidence is sufficient to conclude that there is a causal relationship between depictions of smoking in movies and the initiation of smoking among young people.
The Australian Medical Association, in its 2008 study Take smoking out of kid's movies, found that 70 per cent of top box office films contained depictions of smoking, including 75 per cent of most PG rated films. In my view, it is unacceptable that we continue to allow images that may promote smoking in films and television. This runs the risk of shaping the views of young people and potentially may lead to them taking up these deadly products.
International instruments underpin our commitment to providing Australians the highest standard of health and wellbeing. Australia is a signatory of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Article 13 of the treaty recognises that a comprehensive ban on advertising, promotion, and sponsorship would reduce the consumption of tobacco products and that each party shall, in accordance with its constitution or constitutional principles, undertake a comprehensive ban of all tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship.
The rest of the world is moving in the direction of cutting out or reducing portrayals of tobacco products and smoking in movies. In November last year, the Indian government introduced measures to reduce portrayals of smoking in its multibillion-dollar Hindi cinema or Bollywood movie industry. These measures include film and television programs in India being required to 'justify' smoking content to the Central Board of Film Certification, display on-screen warnings, be screened at times when minors are least likely to be watching and carry a classification one step short of an adult rating. The Indian government has recognised that Hindi cinema plays a key role in influencing young people's beliefs and behaviours in relation to social norms for smoking and it has taken action. So can we in Australia.
Any reasonable person would acknowledge that the Australian government plays an active role in reducing smoking in Australia—as it should. Over past decades we have seen bans on advertising for cigarettes and tobacco products, bans on smoking in public places, quit services promoted and a myriad of programs designed to limit the marketing and prevalence of cigarettes in our community. As recently as last night in the budget the government announced a new measure to help combat smoking: duty-free cigarettes will be reduced from 250 cigarettes per passenger to just 50 cigarettes per passenger. I very much welcome that measure.
Some of the antismoking regulations in this country are among the toughest in the world. However, I am concerned that, while we may be trailblazers on the plain packaging and other fronts, we do slip behind the worldwide standard for smoking in movies. I am concerned that the Australian government might inadvertently provide incentives that allow people to make movies that propagate the smoking message.
The Australian government provides generous tax incentives for film, television and other screen production in Australia. In 2010-11 the government provided some $145 million in tax offsets to screen producers. The producer offset encourages the production of Australian film and television projects and is administered by Screen Australia. The producer offset can provide up to 40 per cent of qualifying Australian production expenditure for a feature film. It can provide funding for goods and services provided in Australia for the making of a film, the use of land located in Australia for the making of a film and the use of goods that are located in Australia at the time they are used in the making of a film. In 2010-11, the Australian government provided $87 million for filmmakers under this scheme.
The location offset is a 16.5 per cent rebate which supports the production of large-budget film and television projects shot in Australia. A film's qualifying Australian production expenditure must be at least $15 million, and at least 70 per cent of any eligible film's total production costs must occur in Australia. For example, Minister Crean recently announced a $12.8 million investment to the makers of The Wolverine, an investment which the Australian economy will see returned in spades. The Wolverine will inject $80 million into the Australian film and production industry and will create over 2,000 local jobs.
The PDV offset, a 30 per cent rebate, supports postproduction works and digital and visual effects production, PDV, in Australia, regardless of where a project is shot. This includes animatronics, audio special effects, music composition and recording, models or miniatures, and editing. There must be a minimum PDV expenditure in Australia of $5 million.
I believe it is now time for the government to consider the introduction of conditions to be applied about the smoking content of any production before government funding is provided. It is also time to seriously investigate the application of such constraints to overseas productions filmed in Australia. Classification is also worthy of exploration. The 2009 World Health Organisation report Smoke-free movies: from evidence to action suggested that all future movies with scenes of smoking should be given an adult rating, with the possible exception of movies that reflect the dangers of smoking use or that depict a figure from history who smoked.
The Cancer Council, in their last position paper in 2007, pointed to the benefits of international regulations such as the inclusion of a requirement for all movie credits to include certification of no pay-offs or 'no inducements' and the banning of tobacco brand depictions in movies. The Cancer Council have also suggested counteradvertising, such as the use of control advertisements, as an effective measure to counter smoking in movies. Control advertisements would be played immediately after or before a movie that depicts smoking in either cinema or DVD format. An ideal outcome would be for the film and media industry to be part of the movement to remove portrayals of smoking in movies and the media. I note that several commercially successful films such as The Devil Wears Prada, Casino Royale and The Hangover do not portray tobacco or tobacco related products.
Labor governments have actively targeted tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship in an attempt to improve the health and wellbeing of all Australians. I applaud the government for that. I applaud the government for its world-first tobacco plain-packaging laws, and I want to say in this debate on matters of public interest that I intend to encourage the government to take even more action in the areas that I have outlined to eradicate these insidious and deadly products from the lives of all Australians.
I rise to speak about a very important industry here in Australia that has been established over recent years—a rather new industry—that is really getting done over. I refer to the olive oil industry, and I know it well. The northern New South Wales town where I am fortunate to live, Inverell, saw the industry established, with many farmers and landowners planting down the countryside to olive trees. In fact we actually had our own processing factory established. Sadly, that is not there today, and now I can see why.
Let me define extra virgin olive oil. Extra virgin olive oil is simply where the olives are crushed and the juice comes out—no processing, no heating, no separation or anything like that. Of all the mainstream edible oils, extra virgin olive oil is the only oil that has not been chemically or physically refined and changed. It is the natural juice of the olive. It therefore has many unique health benefits and is highly sought after by consumers.
The Australian olive oil industry has grown substantially over the last 10 years. Let me tell you more about the industry. More than $1 billion has been invested in rural Australian groves and milling plants, creating thousands of jobs. Australians consume 45 million litres per year, with consumption rising rapidly over the last 20 years to make us the highest consumers per capita outside the Mediterranean area. Australian growers have captured about 30 per cent of this market due to the outstanding quality of their extra virgin olive oil. I can recall several years back when we were importing millions of dollars worth of olive oil into this country.
But there is a problem. Most Australian olive growers are fighting for their survival, producing world-class extra virgin olive oil only to see the farm gate price slashed by more than 50 per cent over the last four years. This is mainly because they are competing with imported olive oils that are cheating by selling chemically refined olive oil with misleading labelling such as 'pure', '100 per cent pure', 'light' or 'extra light'. These names are illegal in most producing countries, including those in Europe. These deceptive and misleading products make up 45 per cent of the Australian retail market and sell for a similar price to extra virgin oil, ripping off millions of Australian consumers who think they are buying extra virgin but are buying a second-rate refined oil. For the record, 'extra light' does not mean low in fat. Refined olive oil is also being sold as extra virgin. We have a problem. We have extra virgin olive oil branded and labelled in the supermarkets, in the retail outlets, and it is not extra virgin olive oil. Of course the misleading branding and the deceptive conduct that has been carried out by those who are importing this into Australia and putting it on the shelves are actually destroying our local industry and, most importantly, deceiving the consumer.
So what is being done about this? That is the question. If you go and buy a bottle of extra virgin olive oil, have it tested and find that it is not—that it has been tampered with, processed and been through manufacturing—what is being done? What can we do to correct this wrongdoing that is being carried out in our retail outlets in Australia?
It is nothing new that the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation funded three major laboratory studies of retail oils in 2008, in 2009 and in 2010, testing 265 samples of extra virgin olive oil. The 2008 study found that 84 per cent of imported extra virgin olive oil was labelled extra virgin but was not extra virgin. I repeat that figure: 84 per cent of imported extra virgin olive oil that was labelled extra virgin was not extra virgin. The study through RIRDC in 2009 found 66 per cent of the bottles of oil they studied were labelled extra virgin but in fact they were not. It gets worse. In 2010 a whopping 91 per cent of those imported containers of extra virgin olive oil failed the test. This means that only nine per cent of imported extra virgin oil was true to label—just nine per cent. To me, that is wrong. It is misleading, it is deceptive, it is deceiving the Australian consumer and of course it is playing the major role in destroying our newly formed domestic industry—an import replacement industry that all sides of parliament surely support when we are importing millions of dollars of products that we can grow here in Australia. We are now seeing the deception carried out. Eighteen per cent of oils—all imported—were classified as lampante or 'lamp' oil. According to Australian standards and all other internationally recognised olive oil standards, lampante oils are not suitable for human consumption. Eighteen per cent of those tested were, in fact, not suitable for human consumption. This is a huge worry. So what are we doing about it? That is the question I keep asking.
At this stage, I would like to thank Lisa Rowntree from the Australian Olive Association who has been out there pushing and trying to find a solution to this problem. I thank her for briefing me and informing me about the industry. Even though I saw it in my local town, I sadly did not get close enough to learn more about this industry.
On The7.30 Report in 2008, Minister Tony Burke said:
My prime concern isn't in what sort of penalty can you whack at someone; my prime concern is making sure every consumer gets what they are paying for … We're working with industry towards that end.
That was what Mr Burke said. He went on to say:
The point that we have to get to is when somebody believes they are buying extra virgin olive oil that they are.
That was a good point, Mr Burke. I could not agree with you more. He went on to say:
… at the moment it may well be the case that the only guarantee of the quality of the product is if you are buying the Australian product.
That is another good point. We support that. He went on to say:
The tests which have been referred to by industry certainly put some very serious doubts over what people have been purchasing.
Of course they did. That was in 2008. This problem was first highlighted as far back as in 2002. I will say more about that.
First, let us see what Mr Graeme Samuel from the ACCC had to say. He said:
It is appropriate for us to investigate these issues. But it may well be that circumstances, lack of standards or the like, might make it difficult.
… … …
What we'll have to determine is whether under the law as it stands at the present, which is a law that prohibits producers, manufacturers, marketers from engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct, whether that law has been breached.
The tests have been carried out by the RIRDC. Their 2010 figures clearly showed that a whopping 91 per cent failed. As I said, that means that only nine per cent of imported extra virgin olive oil was true to label. Isn't that misleading? Isn't it deceptive conduct to advertise something for the consumer to buy when they will not get what they think they are getting? Surely the ACCC should act on this.
Yesterday I rang FSANZ to raise this very issue with them. Of course, they said, 'It is nothing to do with us. It is an ACCC issue. We can't enter into that field.' Well, I think that they should. The AOA, the Australian Olive Association, was informed by the ACCC late last year that an investigation was underway. Well, whoopee. We have had the investigation and had the tests done—they were government funded, I might add—and the results have been brought forward. But what has been done? This is the question I keep asking. I look forward to asking more of these questions at Senate estimates of FSANZ and the ACCC and seeing what can be done, because this is wrong in all respects. If we go to an outlet—whether it be Coles, Woolworths, IGA or whatever—we need to know that we are buying the real McCoy.
I will give you some more information. Since 2002 the Australian Olive Association has been working on the important matter of truth in labelling and the authenticity of olive oil sold in Australia. The AOA has also been active globally on this topic in collaboration with our colleagues in other countries, including the USA, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina and Spain. In 2004 the AOA reported problems with olive oil quality and authenticity to DAFF and FSANZ and discussed this with the ACCC. It became clear on government advice that the olive industry in Australia needed to develop its own code of practice for olive oil to establish some reasonable expectations and parameters for olive oil in this country. That code was published in 2005 and, to date, over 250 brands of Australian olive oil are signatories to that code, representing well over 90 per cent of Australia's olive oil production. The development of the code was in part funded by DAFF.
This is a problem that needs to be addressed. It has been going on for years. Just an hour or so ago I spoke to the Hon. Anthony Roberts, the Minister for Fair Trading in New South Wales. He said to please send him through the information and that he would be glad to look at it straightaway. You cannot have a situation where consumers are being misled. We have heard about the great benefits of olive oil. It is very popular. It is good for your cholesterol. As I have said, 45 million litres are consumed in Australia a year—and that is growing rapidly. But the customer is being done over by misleading products that are wrongly labelled and that are not genuine extra virgin olive oil. It has lowered the farm gate price by 50 per cent over the last four years. Olive growers are going broke. The bodies with the obligation to correct this need to act. If the legislation or regulations of this place or the other house need to be changed for the ACCC to fix it then we need to change them. We need to give the ACCC the power to see that the Australian consumer is protected, that Australian olive growers and processors are protected and that they are not simply done over by people importing overseas products which are, in effect, cheating—cheating the public and cheating their competitors.
Coles and Woolworths continue to knowingly sell extra virgin olive oil that does not meet Australian standards under the brands Coles Spanish Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Woolworths Homebrand Extra Virgin Olive Oil. Remember that, Mr Acting Deputy President, if you go buying extra virgin olive oil. Coles and Woolworths both continue to sell olive oil with labels that are misleading, deceptive and not allowed under Australian standards. These are Coles Pure Olive Oil, Woolworths Homebrand Pure Olive Oil and Woolworths Homebrand Extra Light Olive Oil. This needs to be addressed.
I will conclude my presentation by saying that life is about fairness. I say it often in this place and out in the public arena. Our olive growers in Australia are not being treated fairly. The consumers, the public of Australia, are not being treated fairly. They are being misled. They are paying through the nose. They are paying for what they believe to be a high-quality product when in fact it is not. We need to act on this. You will hear more about this because tomorrow there will be some protests out the front of Parliament House. A bloke called Richard Whiting, who I have known for many years—we actually played football together in Jamestown, South Australia—is coming here, along with others, to tell the people that their industry is taking a bath. It is taking a bath because of wrongdoing, misleading advertising and misleading labelling. This is an area we really need to tighten up on. Food labelling about country of origin needs to be addressed. I saw on a shelf at home a can of dog food that had the 'made in Australia' logo—the triangle—on it. According to the label it was made from imported and locally grown content. How much of it was imported? Labelling is a big issue and the olive industry in Australia is the one copping it big time. We need to address this issue and look after and protect our own industries and our consumers.
I rise to speak on a matter that I believe is of extreme public interest: the current state of Newstart and other allowance payments in this country. It is a timely issue, given the government's focus in the budget on low-income families and, supposedly, on sharing the benefits of the boom, and the fact that they shaped last night's budget speech.
The Treasurer acknowledged last night that working families are under pressure and he reminded us of the important increases that pensioners have received to keep them above the poverty line, albeit about $3 above the poverty line. I welcome a focus on low-income Australians, but I am seriously concerned that the most vulnerable members of that group have been left out yet again. The 512,000 Australians on Newstart have virtually missed out. Yes, there is the supposed $210 supplement, but that is only $4 a week. It is not even one-tenth of the $50 increase that we have been calling for, that businesses have been calling for and that community support organisations have been calling for. The Greens believe that we should be prioritising helping the most vulnerable Australians, by increasing Newstart by at least $50 a week. $210 a year is an insult to the people struggling to survive on $244 a week. That increase is equivalent to the price of a cup of coffee a week. Having just spent a week living on Newstart, I can tell you that $4 is an insult. This payment will come as a $100 cheque twice a year. It is a handout rather than an attempt to address the systemic problems that face those struggling to survive on income support in this country and to those Australians who are living below the poverty line.
Those trying to survive on Newstart are living at $130 a week below the poverty line. Yippee! They are going to get four more dollars a week. They will now be living at $126 a week below the poverty line. As well as ignoring in last night's budget the urgent requirement to increase income support, the government added insult to injury by moving single parents from parenting payment single onto Newstart. That will reduce their income support and make them significantly worse off, from the allowance perspective. But, as I articulated in this place earlier today, it will also mean that they are significantly worse off when they are working part time or seeking to work part time. This is not delivering on Labor values; this is condemning vulnerable Australians to poverty and making them even more vulnerable.
The current single rate of Newstart is $244 per week, or $35 a day. That is $130 a week below the poverty line. After deducting the cheapest rent you could find, on the outskirts of the metro area, you are left with $17 a day. That figure is based on information from a number of sources, both reviewed fairly recently: ads in some of the metropolitan papers and advice from community service organisations. However, during the week that I spent living on Newstart a report came out highlighting the facts that affordable housing is even scarcer than it used to be and that if you are living on Newstart you cannot afford to live in major capital cities in this country, other than perhaps Adelaide and Hobart, if you can actually find some affordable accommodation.
Let us look at life on $17 a day, which is the figure I used for my week on Newstart. That amount has to cover absolutely everything: electricity, food, clothes, personal care, household items, transport, phone bills and any health crises. You can forget car registration, car insurance, household insurance—any of those sorts of bills. You simply cannot afford them. Look at how this compares to other people in the community. The average weekly expenditure of a single person under 35, excluding rent, is $84 a day and the average weekly expenditure of a single person over 65, excluding rent, is $53 a day. No matter how you look at it, this is the absolute minimum amount that you could live on—you cannot live on it, in fact.
I spent a week over the April break trying to survive on Newstart. After allocating money for rent, utilities, all my train transport, some pre-paid phone credit—you need a phone because you have to participate in employment activities such as looking for work and responding to invitations to job interviews and things like that—a bit of money for petrol, because in our capital cities it is unfortunately very hard to meet all your obligations on our poor public transport systems, and buying some food I was left with $11.25 in my wallet for the rest of the week. There was certainly no takeaway coffee. There was certainly no entertainment. There was no expenditure on clothes. In fact, I needed to buy some more margarine and milk because I ran out of both items. I needed some extra public transport trips. I needed some personal care items. There was no money for new clothes; there was no money for entertainment. Before someone says, 'If you're living on Newstart you shouldn't be entertaining yourself,' think about your personal life and about what entertainment means to you. Entertainment brings you joy. It keeps your sense of hope going. It gives you social interaction. One of the things that people living on Newstart find is that they are increasingly isolated from the community. An increasing sense of hopelessness sets in as people are unable to survive as the debt increases. Because you cannot survive on that amount of money, you end up maxing out your credit cards and going to payday lenders. You end up in debt to your friends and family. That is what it means to live on Newstart, our supposed safety net, in this country.
During the time that I spent on Newstart I decided it was a bit pointless for me to pretend that I would do Job Search. Instead, I chose to talk to as many people who are trying to survive on Newstart as possible. I spent a lot of time talking with and visiting community support organisations that work with the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of our community. I met single mums, older workers who have been retrenched, young men and women, people living with a partial disability or with mental illness and migrants struggling with language. Not one of them said to me that that is what they wanted for their family—that they wanted to remain unemployed because, hey, they are having such a good time living on Newstart! Let me tell you that they are not. Not one of the people I met during that time said they enjoyed living on Newstart. In fact the reverse was very much the case. People told me of the sense of hopelessness, of the fact that they struggle to support their children and of the fact that they want a better life for themselves and for their children. Many recounted the difficulties they faced in finding an employer who would take them on, because of their unique circumstances.
Sixty per cent of people living on Newstart have been there longer than 12 months and have faced multiple barriers to finding work. Unlike the stereotypes, these are often older workers, single parents, people with a partial disability and people who have a significant barrier that prevents them from walking into a job.
As well as an increase in payments, people talk to me about the need for flexible services so that they are empowered to succeed in their search for work. They also spoke of the need for more support and incentives for overcoming the barriers to work. They found they were lacking that support from employment services. Many people in fact criticised the Job Search networks and the lack of support they have received. The only place people got support—and I will come back to this in a minute—was from community support organisations.
David, a retired Army chef, who remembers when social security offices actually helped you find a job and have a job interview, rather than shunting you from place to place, is an older worker. He recounted his multiple efforts to find work and told of the age discrimination he is facing while trying to find work, to the point that when he applied for a job he was told it had been filled, only to see the job re-advertised the next day. Do you know what that job was? It was a night-fill job in a supermarket. He was told that job had been filled. That is age discrimination.
Some of the people doing language classes to improve their English had been in the workforce. Before people start saying, 'These are people who have only just come to Australia and are taking all our money,' et cetera, that is a nonsense argument. These people had been retrenched from the workplace and recognised that they needed to improve their language and literacy skills so that they could gain employment. They were at the language schools so that they could gain skills to find employment. They recounted the difficulties they faced.
Then there is Glenda, a full-time mum who has been out of the workforce and is now on Newstart. Even though she found training opportunities she was not supported by her Job Services provider. She was not given the training. Again, she was an older worker. She was not given training even though she went out and identified it.
One of the opportunities I had was to meet with Ready to Work in Western Australia, and I will say that it was a great privilege for me to spend time with this particular group of women. Ready to Work is a not-for-profit community based organisation that helps disadvantaged women to gain access to employment. One of the things they do is provide two outfits to a disadvantaged woman to wear to an interview. In fact, they provided me with the outfit I am wearing now. They are run largely by volunteers—they have volunteer stylists who work with women. I spent a good half day with them and I felt good when I came out of the meeting after hearing of the amazing things they do working with women. They do not just provide the outfits but also provide help with CVs and with interviewing techniques: what is that little bit of a thing you need to get that job? I met a lady who had just worked with this group. She was just bubbling over with enthusiasm, because she had achieved her outcome of gaining a training position, through being helped by this service. This organisation is not for profit. The women are not finding it through government provided services or through the employment services providers. It is essential support for women to help them get confidence. When you have been unemployed for a significant period of time, particularly as a disadvantaged woman, you face many barriers, one of which is having the confidence just to walk in the door to have an interview.
Organisations like Ready to Work make a huge and visible difference to a job seeker's life in the way that they work with them. It is a positive approach rather than a punitive one. We need to rethink our approach to helping people into work and to providing them with assistance, before they become entrenched in poverty, physically and mentally ill and desperate. Our job seeker networks will continue to act as a stick beating the most vulnerable people in our community rather than a lever to open doors for the unemployed. It is essential that we provide extra employment support services and that we increase Newstart so that people are not living in poverty. Poverty becomes yet another barrier to overcome.
We believe in a socially just democratic society, one that guarantees an adequate income safety net for all Australians and allows people to live in dignity, even when facing some of the toughest times of their lives. The complacency in leaving people to languish in poverty or trapping them in debt is unacceptable in what we say is a just society. The budget glazed over unemployment. It did not address the issues for the most vulnerable Australians. The benefits of the boom cannot be said to be equally shared unless we direct those benefits to the most vulnerable in our community, guaranteeing them an adequate income and the support they need to overcome their multiple barriers to employment. This country can never call itself a just country if we do not do that. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the forthcoming National Palliative Care Week, commencing on 20 May and going through to 26 May. It is important that this event is recognised to improve the profile of the necessity of palliative care. It was recognised in the 1980s that, for people to receive appropriate end-of-life care, palliative care needed to be recognised as a specialty in its own right. This has been a slow process. Even today, many who work in this area still see palliative care as the poor cousin of many medical speciality areas. This recognition has taken time, but with the ongoing efforts of many people and the change in the demographics of our population, it is becoming inevitable.
In November 2010 the Senate supported a motion recognising palliative care as an essential component of a contemporary healthcare system. In Northern Tasmania, during Palliative Care Week, the support group the Friends of Northern Hospice and Palliative Care Foundation are warmly inviting people to attend a non-denominational candle-lighting service of remembrance and thanksgiving on Sunday, 21 May. The support group was previously known as the Friends of Philip Oakden House. To the people in Northern Tasmania, it is a very well known group. Unfortunately, the previous hospice in Launceston, Philip Oakden House, was closed in 2007, despite the commitment of funds from the community. This had a disquieting effect upon the community. It reinforces the perception that palliative care is the medical poor cousin.
The other significant event in Northern Tasmania during National Palliative Care Week will be a public palliative care forum. This is being jointly hosted by the Friends of the Northern Hospice and Palliative Care Foundation, by federal MP Geoff Lyons and by me. I have been and remain a strong advocate for comprehensive palliative care services. Palliative care aims to affirm life and treat dying as a normal process; to neither hasten nor postpone death; to provide relief from pain and other distressing symptoms; to integrate the physical, psychological, social, emotional and spiritual aspects of care, with coordinated assessment and management of each person's needs; to offer a support system to help people live as actively as possible until death; and to offer a support system to help the family cope during the person's illness and in their own bereavement.
The forum will be chaired by the former President of the Legislative Council of Tasmania, the Hon. Don Wing, who is well known throughout Northern Tasmania. We have invited two key speakers. One is Dr Katherine Clark, Area Director of Palliative Care for Hunter New England Health and Director of Palliative Care at Calvary Mater Newcastle. Katherine is a physician with extensive experience in palliative care, having worked across a number of locations including Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and the Sacred Heart centre, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney. In 2010 she relocated to Newcastle, where she holds the appointments of Medical Director of the Palliative Care Service of Calvary Mater Newcastle, the Area Director of Palliative Care for Hunter New England Health and a conjoint appointment at the University of Newcastle. Alongside her clinical appointments Katherine continues to be involved in medical teaching, education and research. In particular her research focuses on improving the evidence base from which symptoms are managed. I was fortunate enough last year to visit the centre in Newcastle and I was so impressed with her team there and, I think more importantly, the groundwork that that centre has put in over many years to embrace the community and bring them in to educate them about the essential needs of palliative care. I think a very important point is that they have embraced the medical professions and been able to bring them along with them. It was very impressive. We are very fortunate to have her come down to Launceston.
The other speaker will be Sue Hanson, National Manager of Palliative Care Services, Little Company of Mary Health Care. Sue has worked in various capacities over the past 20 years in palliative care in the community, consultative and inpatient settings. She held an academic appointment as a professor of clinical nursing from 2000 to 2007. Sue has also held a health service executive position in clinical governance in New South Wales. She is a past president of Palliative Care New South Wales, past co-chair of the New South Wales Palliative Care Advisory Group and a past member of the executive and council of PCA. In these roles she has contributed to palliative care strategic planning at national, state and local levels and held the position of National Standards and Quality Director at Palliative Care Australia between 2007 and 2010. Sue led the development of the National Standards Assessment Program while at Palliative Care Australia.
The forum in Launceston is expected to attract somewhere in the order of 200 members of our community. Hopefully, the outcome will be the promotion and development of palliative care services across Northern Tasmania—an appropriate facility and services not just to assist aged-care facilities provide palliative care but also, very importantly, to support people to remain in their own home for as long as possible. Unfortunately, when we are talking about palliative care, we are not just talking about people who have reached their later years in life. As we know, there are too many young Australians who also rely on these services, and their families particularly need that support.
The importance of palliative care was recognised in the recent policy announcement by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing and Minister for Social Inclusion, Mark Butler MP. The aged-care reform package 'Living Longer. Living Better', has continued the recognition of palliative care that was presented in the Productivity Commission's report Caring for Older Australians. Let me quote from the document Living Longer. Living Better, to illustrate this recognition:
Better palliative care and support in aged care
($21.7 million)
End-of-life care, or palliative care, is an issue of great importance to Australians as they age. The Government is acutely aware of the pressure and anxiety that comes with end-of-life considerations and the overwhelming desire for an individual’s wishes to be respected. We are committed to ensuring older people and their families have the support and assistance to allow end of life planning to be about personal control and choice.
Aged care providers need to be appropriately skilled to look after people needing palliative care. The Government will provide direct access to specialist palliative care and advance care planning expertise through palliative care innovative advisory services.
This proposal aligns with the National Palliative Care Strategy, which aims to raise awareness of and information about palliative care and its benefits, and help build a skilled workforce across the health system to deliver quality palliative care.
Promoting better practice and partnerships
($58.5 million)
The Government is introducing initiatives to encourage aged care providers to work with public and private health care providers and medical insurers to deliver short term, more intensive health care services. This will involve grants to develop models of service which will remove barriers including regulatory road blocks, and aged care funding adjustments. This will result in improved access to complex health care, including palliative and psycho-geriatric care.
The Government will support implementation of innovative ways of delivering aged care services, and support translation of research into everyday practice and actual care delivery. Innovations will be shared and promoted. Projects that promote innovation, improved care and better business practice in priority areas of care will be targeted. These include care for people with dementia, mental illness, and culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds or other special needs, and palliative care.
Page 17 of 17 These are not just words from the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and Minister Mark Butler; these words have the full endorsement of Palliative Care Australia. The forum that is being held in Launceston on 24 May aims to help the community to understand the direction of the government and enhance their encouragement and support.
But we need to do more. We, as family members, need to have the discussions with our loved ones about what their wishes are as they go through the ageing process. It is not always easy to address these issues. I have personally had that experience, as my mother went into high-dependency care, which was a confronting issue that lots of families go through every day. Knowing that she was going through the final chapter of her life, we had discussions with her—we knew what her wishes were, we knew that the struggles and the pain that she had endured for so many years had led her to a place where she was at peace with her spiritual beliefs and she knew what was in her best interests and what she believed was in the interests of her family as well. We had those discussions, so when it became apparent the time had come—there were a number of episodes before we finally lost mum—there was a decision made not to take her to an acute-care hospital, that the treatment would be given to her in the aged-care facility. That was her decision because just trying to transport her to another facility caused her immense pain and discomfort. No matter how hard it is as family members, you have to have those discussions because when the moment comes when you are going through the transition of the end-of-life process you have to know in your own mind and your own heart that you are doing what your loved one wants. So I would encourage those within the chamber, those listening today and, more importantly, those within our community to have those discussions. This is part of the life process we go through.
I am sure that government members and others in the chamber would support much better palliative care, but we have to engage with the community. We also have to engage with the health professionals, and that was the thing that stood out when I went to Newcastle and met the team there: how they had engaged their GPs and specialists to provide that palliative care and wherever possible to give that palliative care in the home of the individual so that they had their loved ones and their normal surroundings and that they were able to take that final journey in their own surrounds supported by their loved ones. We have to remember that during this process family members all need support because they are the ones watching their loved one slip away. We have to promote discussion on this important issue. We have to have this discussion around our kitchen tables, and many in the community and amongst health professionals still need further education to ensure that we provide good support, because we owe it to people as part of our health system. I encourage my own state government to look at this important area of funding and commit more money in their upcoming budget to provide the sort of palliative care that all Australians should be able to rely on.
I rise this afternoon to speak about an important social issue for young people throughout regional and metropolitan Australia. It concerns the evolution of technology and in particular the online environment. It has created numerous opportunities for our businesses and our communities to connect and to grow. We are connected in a way that no other generation could have imagined. The internet has undoubtedly enriched many of our professional, educative and social experiences. To a degree it has also reduced the level of isolation felt by those particularly in rural and remote communities, although there is still much that the federal government could do and should be doing in that space. But I am not going to discuss that today.
Technology has evolved rapidly. Society, parents, individuals, educators, the legal profession and our justice system have struggled to keep up with the pace of this exponential change. Social media have created a new dimension in which we need to exercise our citizenship. We need to construct new ways to manage our identity and our personal reputations. The old rules do apply in this new environment, yet the old constraints do not. Every other week we hear someone's personal and often tragic account of a negative online experience replayed in our local media. Many senators and those in the other place will have been contacted directly by constituents looking for support and direction. You may even have had experiences with your own children and loved ones upon which to reflect. Earlier this year I was deeply saddened to read stories of a Victorian schoolgirl who took her own life a week before her 15th birthday following a barrage of online abuse on a social media website from which she felt she could not escape. Her family and friends set up a memorial page on Facebook, and even this was subject to attack by her bullies. Back in February a very brave Shepparton girl shared her story with the local newspaper, the Shepparton News. So constant was the harassment that she had endured, the 15-year-old dropped out of school. This young woman—and this is why I talk about her bravery—started up a petition in her local area calling for increased powers for police and schools to deal with the problem.
Social media pages are on occasion solely dedicated to humiliating and denigrating people. In central regional Victoria, in Bendigo, police successfully prosecuted the creators of the crudely named Root Rater, and it was a case that received nationwide attention. Similarly, there are issues of the type of technology that is involved as the online environment expands. We have applications on mobile phones now, called 'hot girls near me', that access locator services on smartphones and have led to serious assaults in New South Wales of young women by young men. Such applications raise a number of safety concerns and, particularly, moral concerns. According to the Loddon Mallee cybersafety project, 55 per cent of year 9 and 10 students reported being harassed online in the preceding month. This statistic illustrates the extent of the problem in our communities. Because of the nature of the issue, many of us are unaware, and parents and schools and friends of these young people are unaware, because of the sometimes secretive nature of how these online attacks can occur. Conversely, the very public nature of social media means that the denigration becomes very public worldwide as a result.
Over recent weeks, along with other coalition members, I have travelled across the country with the online safety working group to hear about cybersafety. We have heard from a range of stakeholders. Students, parents, carers, educators, IT experts, youth advocates and legal representatives have all shared their experiences and knowledge as we seek to identify the best way to empower young people to use the internet safely and responsibly. I guess that is the great tension in this conversation in terms of liberty and freedom of access to information and keeping our young people safe. We are hosting a forum in Bendigo next week where we hope to hear exactly how local regional communities such as Bendigo grapple at a local level with the issues around cybersafety. We will be hearing directly from young people themselves and from those involved in education and the justice system. Parents and teachers have told us that they cannot rely on their own experiences because this is a completely new environment and they find it very difficult to identify sound evidence based tools from the plethora that are available. Young people, particularly later adolescents, are a lot more comfortable with the technology but are not always appreciative of the privacy risks and may seem unaware of the possible legal implications of their online activities.
Recently, while on a parliamentary delegation to the European Union, I had an opportunity to discuss the European cybersafety framework with the chair of the EU committee, Christian Ehler. The current European framework is focused on five areas: accessing control mechanisms; raising awareness of the issue in education; how we classify content in the online environment, particularly in a crossjurisdictional area such as Europe, ensuring there is a voluntary code for industry; issues around definitions of child sexual abuse and material, what that looks like and how to actually define it; and addressing issues around illegal content on mobile products or the internet. They have two programs in which to address this: Inhope, which looks at the international aspect, and Insafe, which is around informing people around the issues of cybersafety. Like many—although probably not many have the same complexity—the EU are struggling with definitions and questions such as: what is harmful content to young people? For some young people, it is seeing a dead guinea pig. Is it viewing adult content? Where is that line? Is it videos depicting self-harm, racism, violence? What is the role of government and agencies in this—looking at the balance of resources around identifying, protecting and rescuing victims of unsafe cyberpractices and taking precautionary measures? One of the approaches that we discussed which I found particularly valuable was the idea around education, empowerment and enforcement and looking at those three prongs in quite a holistic way to deal with this problem.
The EU will be proceeding through a revision of their existing framework next year, which will involve consultation. As with any multijurisdictional body, developing definitions of social and cultural issues can be particularly difficult. But, for defence and for social and economic safety, it is key that they get it right in this ever-evolving area. One thing that I found interesting was that, in the EU, while there are the traditional parties that have come from the state jurisdictions and are now Europe wide, the internet and cyber environment have created the first political party to have representation at that cross-jurisdictional body that is not bound by state borders. That is the Pirate Party, which I found quite fascinating, but I will need to do some more research.
The European Union have committed significant funding to cybersafety, as I said earlier. Whilst governments at an international level discuss this issue, local parents, schools and young people in our own states and electorates continue to negotiate this new and exciting environment. From a policy perspective, with the complexity of the issue I favour a holistic approach to address online safety concerns. Following a spate of incidents in Mooroopna, local schools and sporting groups combined to form the 'Mooroopna Cares - No Bullying' group, to tackle the issue as a community. This local action, supported by measures from both industry—and I stress that they are voluntary measures from industry—and government, will contribute to balancing the inherent tension between the freedom and liberty that the internet provides us with, in terms of access to information, participation in our environment and our democracy, and the safety of our citizens, particularly those most vulnerable amongst our community, being young people. I commend this issue to the Senate as a matter of public interest.
Sitting suspended from 13:54 to 14:00
I table for the information of the Senate a revised ministry list dated 8 May 2012 which updates representative responsibilities of Labor ministers in the chamber. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
SECOND GILLARD MINISTRY
8 May 2011
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Veterans' Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases.
by leave—On behalf of the Australian Greens I wish to inform the chamber of changes to our leadership arrangements. On Friday, 13 April, Senator Bob Brown resigned as Leader of the Australian Greens, and on that day I was elected as leader. Adam Bandt was elected as deputy leader.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order on both sides! Senator Milne is entitled to be heard in silence.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the former Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Brown, for his dedication and inspiration during his time as leader.
My question is to Senator Wong, the Minister representing the Treasurer. Can the minister confirm that over its first four budgets the government budgeted for deficits totalling $99 billion but actually delivered deficits totalling $174 billion?
I can confirm the figures which are set out in the government's budget papers and I can also confirm that over some five budgets we have experienced a revenue write-down of $150 billion. Notwithstanding that, the Treasurer has delivered a budget which will return the budget to surplus on time as promised. The difference between this side of politics and that is a number of things. One is our values. We are delivering for low-income and middle-income Australians. They are standing up for wealthy miners.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator Wong, resume your seat. Order on both sides! Minister, continue.
The other thing I can confirm is that yet again the coalition demonstrate that they keep forgetting about a thing called the global financial crisis—something that has plunged so many advanced economies into—
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. You should ask the minister to be directly relevant to the question. The question asked the minister to confirm whether certain figures were true. She has responded by saying that the figures in the budget papers are accurate. She has now gone on to engage in her usual ritualised abuse of the opposition. That cannot bear directly upon the question of whether a given figure is accurate or not.
There is no point of order at this stage, but I do draw the minister's attention to the fact that there are 55 seconds remaining to answer the question that was asked by Senator Abetz.
I am not sure why pointing out the inconsistencies in the question is ritualised abuse, but I would say this—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order on both sides! Minister, continue. You have 40 seconds remaining.
I can confirm there was a global financial crisis. I can confirm that the government put in place stimulus measures. I can confirm that, as a result of those measures and as a result of the resilience of the Australian economy and Australia's people, our economy is seven per cent larger now than prior to the global financial crisis—something that economies like those of the United Kingdom and the United States would give their right arm for. Those are the realities. I can confirm that 200,000 Australians stayed in work as a result of the actions of this government. I can confirm that we have handed down our budget surplus plans laid out fully transparent to the Australian people, unlike those opposite.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Last night's budget told us the government intends to legislate to increase by $50 billion the Commonwealth's debt ceiling from $250 to $300 billion. Can the minister explain why a government that claims to be delivering surpluses in each of the next four years needs to put another $50 billion on the national credit card limit, thereby potentially putting every Australian man, woman and child up to $13,000 in debt?
It is unfortunate that the opposition are choosing to take such a position on this issue. I invite them to consider the position that the market economists have indicated and that commentators have indicated in relation—
Senator Wong, please wait a minute. There are two senators between you and me who are having a conversation across the chamber which makes it very difficult.
Honourable senators interjecting—
I am not looking at anyone in particular, but it makes it very difficult to hear the answer when those two people are having a conversation. Senator Abetz is entitled to hear the answer.
Thank you, Mr President. I would suggest, if the senator wants more information, he should read the advice of the Australian Office of Financial Management. That makes clear the basis of—
So you can't answer it.
No, you can't understand what you read.
Order! Senator Wong, continue.
I can summarise that advice in this way. As the opposition would be aware, the budget papers show that government debt remains under the existing cap at the conclusion of each financial year. However, as the advice outlines, there is a significant amount of fluctuation within the year. There are two key reasons for this. First, a timing mismatch—
Opposition senators interjecting—
If you do not want to know the answer, why ask the question? (Time expired)
The fluctuation only seems to be in one direction. Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Isn't it a fact that this budget simply continues the government's reckless spending as though there is no tomorrow and puts more and more on the government's credit card in a manner that would make even Craig Thomson blush?
The minister need only answer those parts that pertain to her portfolio.
Thank you, Mr President. I will return to the answer I was giving. The first reason for the change to the debt cap is the timing mismatch and the second is the rollover of maturing bond lines. Senator Bushby may be one of the few senators on that side who would understand this, because he has made the effort to ask the Australian Office of Financial Management questions during Senate estimates—and I give him credit for that—certainly more than Senator Cormann or Senator Abetz ever has. If they had they might not come into this place and behave so recklessly on such an important issue.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans. Can the minister advise the Senate how the government's 2012-13 budget will deliver a strong economy and more benefits for Australians?
I thank Senator Crossin for her question. In difficult times, this government is delivering a project that will continue to strengthen our economy, grow jobs and deliver for working Australians and their families. As a result of Labor's management, our economy is the envy of the developed world. Our economic fundamentals are strong, unemployment is low and we will return to surplus ahead of nearly all the other advanced economies.
However, the government does understand that many Australians feel like they are not sharing in the benefits that are flowing from the strong economy and the current mining boom. Many Australians are finding it tough in the patchwork economy and feel that their budgets are being stretched. The government is determined to ensure that the benefits of our strong economy and the mining boom flow through to Australian families to assist them in their budgets. That is why the budget includes new measures that are good news for low- and middle-income families, single parents, unemployed people and students.
By delivering much needed cost-of-living relief, the government is allowing all Australians to feel the real benefits and relief from the pressures on those weekly budgets. The new 'spreading the benefits of the boom' package is $3.6 billion that will be targeted to help Australian families with the costs of everyday expenses and to assist them to plan for and to support their families. These payments are in addition to those that are associated with the introduction of the carbon price. From 1 July next year, 1.5 million Australian families will receive an increase in the family tax benefit part A. Unemployed and single parents and students will receive the new supplementary allowance. These are measures that will deliver real help to those in Australia who need that assistance to make ends meet. (Time expired)
Mr President, I thank the minister for that answer and I ask a supplementary question. I am interested in how the budget is going to assist families, particularly with the costs associated with sending their children to school.
In a proudly Labor budget, we are very much directing support to families to meet their costs. One of the major costs to families is that associated with supporting children in education: meeting the costs of excursions, uniforms, food and sports. As part of the budget, the government will abolish the education tax refund which we brought in to meet those very needs and replace it with the schoolkids bonus scheme, which is worth $2.1 billion.
Currently 80 per cent of eligible families are not getting their full entitlement to the education tax refund, and 20 per cent of families are not getting any at all because they are not making the claims. To address this, we are changing it to make sure that all eligible families will be able to access these benefits to support them in supporting their kids in going to school and meeting the costs associated with that. (Time expired)
Mr President, I have a further supplementary question. It relates to the much needed schoolkids bonus payments. Following on from that answer, is the minister aware of any problems or risks associated with the implementation of this new initiative?
There is a risk, and that is that the government will not be able to get the legislation through the parliament this week. Liberal senators have been saying, 'They won't spend it on education.' What an insult to Australian families. The Liberal Party have now decided they want to tell Australian families how to spend this money. Where have the Liberal Party got to?
What this government is trying to do this week is to enable legislation which will allow us to pay the Schoolkids Bonus scheme. It seems the Liberal Party are going to block that. They are going to block us from providing assistance to families. They have for the last year complained that families are under pressure, that families are not managing as well as they should be. Yet when this government moves to assist families with the cost of sending their kids to school, the Liberal Party are going to oppose it. They ought to wake up to themselves. Australian families want to know why they do not support these payments being made. (Time expired)
I note the presence in the President's gallery of former President of the Senate Alan Ferguson. Welcome, Senator Ferguson. I am sure you will feel quite comfortable with question time. I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Australian Political Exchange Council's 16th delegation from Vietnam. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
Mr President, my question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Wong. Can the minister confirm that, according to Labor's budget last night, revenue for 2012-13 is expected to increase by a staggering 11.8 per cent to about $369 billion, even though our GDP is expected to grow by only 3¼ per cent and our terms of trade are expected to actually fall by 5¾ per cent? How long before this government has to come out yet again and do what it always does—that is, complain that revenue has fallen away against its overly optimistic expectations at budget time?
As the senator would know, the economic forecasts are undertaken on the advice of Treasury.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I will take the interjection from the other side that called them a guess. Who they are impugning are the officers of Treasury, the people who advised Mr Costello. You might like to have a go at public servants who are not here to defend themselves! It is true that revenue has not come back for a number of budgets as fast as originally considered by the Treasury. You have seen a number of speeches by the Treasurer and by the head of Treasury which go to some of the structural reasons driving that. If Senator Cormann believes he could have been ahead of that curve, he certainly did not say anything at the time.
In terms of the return to surplus, I make this point: we have chosen to make savings to protect the surplus. In other words, the nearly $34 billion worth of savings in this budget are put in place not just to ensure any new expenditure is offset but so there is a substantial net savings position, which is all about protecting the bottom line because we are determined to bring the budget back to surplus not just in 2012-13 but also beyond.
Mr President, you will see the results of those decisions which are not only a surplus in this coming financial year but surpluses building over time. Our forecasts are broadly in line, certainly in terms of GDP, with those of the RBA and the IMF. I have made the point previously that, in terms of global growth, the Treasury estimates of what is occurring in Europe are probably more conservative than the International Monetary Fund's.
Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that the last time revenue increased by more than 11 per cent was back in 1987-88, when Australia's GDP grew by 5.6 per cent and our terms of trade actually also rose by 8.7 per cent rather than falling by more than five per cent? In the current circumstances how can anyone trust the overly optimistic revenue assumptions in this budget?
I make the point that the drivers behind what is occurring with revenue—as outlined by the Treasurer and others in the Treasury and in the budget papers—are in part structural and in part cyclical. As the senator would know, being a senator from Western Australia, we are in a very strong investment phase in the resources industry, a very capital intensive industry investing very heavily at the moment. By dint of that, for a given amount of economic activity, you will not see the same level of revenue that you would if that economic activity was focused on high levels of production. So the budget papers go through a very detailed discussion of what is occurring in relation to revenue. I say again that this government has demonstrated its determination to return the budget to surplus by making savings to protect the bottom line, something that as yet Senator Cormann has never been able to achieve with his colleagues.
Mr President, I have a further supplementary question. Given this government's track record of broken budget promises, having presided over a staggering $34 billion blow-out in the deficit this financial year since the release of the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, why should anyone believe that it will actually deliver on a promise of a wafer-thin $1.5 billion surplus when that is based on an unrealistic expectation of the largest increase in revenue in 25 years?
The answer is: because we will. We will do what we have done over the last budget, this budget and the mid-year review, which is to make savings to protect the surplus. But I am asked about promises. Perhaps Senator Cormann can remind everybody in this place that he said very explicitly:
We will not proceed with any of Labor's other promises that they have attached to the mining tax.
He ruled out using any MRRT revenue. Too bad—you have been dumped on that, haven't you? The Leader of the Opposition says he is going to support the family tax benefit increases which are funded from the mining tax. That is completely inconsistent with what Senator Cormann said, completely inconsistent with the way in which those Western Australian senators on that side have campaigned against the mining tax. All of a sudden, magically, that revenue is good enough to use. It was not good enough for a company tax cut, but it is good enough for family tax benefits. You had better go back to Perth and explain that, Senator. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob Carr. Can the minister confirm that keeping our overseas aid budget at 0.35 per cent of GNI for 2012-13 saves the government $447 million in the next financial year and almost $3 billion over the forward estimates? If so, can the minister explain why the government is balancing the books on the back of the world's poorest people, especially since the Australian Council for International Development has said that these funds could have saved 800,000 lives?
I thank the senator for her question and congratulate her on her assumption of the leadership of the Greens. I think all Australians can be proud that in the next three years our aid spending will help to vaccinate more than 10 million poor children against preventable childhood diseases. I think every senator here can be proud that our aid spending over the next three years will see 8.5 million people with access to safer water. I think all Australians can be proud that, as a result of this record budget and the increase in spending on aid, we will have 30 million people in the world who are vulnerable to conflict and famine provided with food. That is as a result of our record aid spending. A further four million boys and girls will be able to enrol in school and 45 million children will obtain a better quality education as a result of our record aid budget. And 2.3 million poor people will access better financial services, including loans and support, to start small businesses as a result of the increase in aid in this budget. While other countries are reducing aid because of the pressures of the international economic situation, Australia is increasing aid. Under acute budgetary pressures, the only concession that has been made is that it will take only one year longer to reach that honourable goal, that noble goal, of 0.5 per cent of gross national income allocated to aid. In all the circumstances, I think it is a good achievement of this government to increase and not reduce the aid budget, and all Australians can be proud of that.
I thank the minister for his answer and note that he did not confirm that that is a saving of $447 million in the next financial year and almost $3 billion over the forward estimates. Also, I note his reference to one country in particular, but they are actually already at 0.6 per cent of GNI. Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In the bid for the UN Security Council, the Australian government booklet claims repeatedly: 'Australia: we do what we say.' Now that the government has reneged on its commitment to increase Australian aid— (Time expired)
I think the world respects a nation that, despite the pressures of the economic situation, finds the money to increase its aid budget, as we have done. That commands respect. I think the value we get from our national reputation for the way we deliver aid and our focus on aid—aid effectiveness—stands Australia in enormously good stead.
Opposition senators interjecting—
By the way, there are some interjections on the other side of the House—
Ignore the interjections.
It is useful, while ignoring them, to be stimulated by them and to find the opportunity to comment on the aid record of the coalition government. I know the House will be eager to hear this information. Their overseas aid budget never exceeded 0.3 per cent of gross national income. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Minister, how can the government continue to claim in the international community that we do what we say when, in fact, we are reneging on the promise that we made in delivering the Millennium Development goals? Won't this decision now damage not only our global reputation but our bid for the UN Security Council? When are you going to split the climate funding from the aid funding so we can genuinely see how big the cut is?
I am happy to give a full account of what our aid funding does in assisting some of the least developed nations of the world, including small island states, cope with the challenge of climate change. I recently discussed in New York with Pacific island states the assistance we provide to assist them deal with the living and breathing reality of climate change. I might say that they appreciate the sincerity of this government. We can talk seriously in world fora about what we have done on the reality of climate change. I draw the attention of the senator to reductions in aid spending by other OECD nations via a reduction in aid spending across OECD averages. The fact is that Australia stands out in these circumstances by increasing aid spending. Aid spending here is going up, not down.
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Wong. Is the minister aware that last year's budget projected a deficit for this financial year of $22.6 billion? Can the minister confirm that yesterday's budget estimated that the deficit will in fact be $44.4 billion? Since, by the government's own figures, its estimate of the deficit for this financial year was wrong by at least $22 billion, how can the public have any confidence that this year's budget projections will be any more accurate? Isn't it still the case that this government has never delivered a surplus budget and never will?
First, this budget delivers a budget surplus on time and as promised. Second, in terms of the 2011-12 figures, I am happy to go through them in detail. In terms of the shift between 2011-12 and now, for the 2011-12 year we had about $9 billion in revenue write-downs. Some of those, obviously, resulted from what occurred in Europe, particularly towards the end of last year. We had a significant bout of global instability, which obviously has an effect on our economy via various mechanisms but particularly through its impact on confidence.
As a senator from Queensland, the senator might also like to know that some $2.3 billion of the increase in the deficit between the mid-year review and the budget was a consequence of natural disasters, particularly in Queensland. We made advance payments to Queensland of $1.3 billion to ensure the rebuild task could continue and we have had to revise up our natural disaster bill for 2011-12 by at least a billion dollars. The senator would also be aware that we have chosen to provide some carbon price assistance up front.
I am asked how we can demonstrate that we will deliver the surplus and I make this broader point. Between the 2011-12 budget and this year's budget, we had about a $10 billion write-down in revenue for the 2012-13 year. We have made savings to offset that revenue write-down and to protect the bottom line. We have demonstrated our determination to protect the surplus and make savings to do so.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. If the government is so confident of its projection of a surplus as the outcome of this budget, why is it proposing to increase the national debt ceiling by $50 billion?
I think the question on debt is the same question I was first asked, as I recall it, by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Abetz. I answered that in detail with reference to the advice of the Australian Office of Financial Management. In fact, I suggested to Senator Abetz that he take the opportunity to speak to Senator Bushby, who sits behind him, because he might be able to explain it to him in more detail. I make this point: if those opposite care so much about a surplus, why will they not front up with their savings? Of course you do not want to know about this, do you, George?
I raise a point of order on direct relevance, Mr President. As the minister rightly observes, this question is substantially the same as a question that Senator Abetz asked Senator Wong. I have given her the opportunity to answer to me what she failed to answer to him. Nothing she has said so far bears even remotely on the question, let alone being directly relevant to it. Why is the government increasing the debt limit by $50 billion?
There is no point of order. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question. It might not be answered in the form or the way you would prefer and you might not be given the answer you would particularly like. But I understood from the minister's answer that she was responding to the question you asked.
I refer the senator to the transcript of my earlier answers in which I outlined in quite a lot of detail, I thought, the advice of the Australian Office of Financial Management and the reasons for the increase in the legislated debt cap. I think I have answered that quite fulsomely.
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given the government has now delivered four budgets and four deficits—the four biggest deficits in Australian history, which together amount to $174 billion—should not the Australian people see through the government's promise to deliver a surplus this time as just another unbelievable Labor Party promise based on spin, not facts?
The Australian people can look to the determination to bring the budget back to surplus, which is demonstrated by the $34 billion of savings made in this budget. What the Australian people are also entitled to see—and this should be tomorrow night in the budget reply—is the party who claims they would deliver a bigger surplus telling Australians how they would get there. They have never fronted up on their $70 billion black hole. They have never made it clear to the Australian people just what they would cut. Last night my counterpart, Mr Robb, said they would deliver a surplus of $15 billion. To do that, you would have to not pay Medicare next year. You are making glib promises because you want to hide the real savings measures you have in mind. Either that or you are simply not telling the truth.
My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong. Can the minister update the Senate on the importance of setting out a plan to return the budget to surplus?
Last night the Treasurer presented a budget which returns the budget to surplus on time and as promised, a surplus achieved by taking nearly $34 billion worth of difficult decisions, a surplus at a time when the government is taking less tax out of the economy than Peter Costello took when he was Treasurer. The amount of tax we are taking, as a proportion of GDP, remains below the level it was at when we came to government.
I would also make this point about spending. The budget papers show that, as a proportion of GDP, expenditure gets down to around 23.5 per cent of GDP in 2012-13. Over the budget forward estimates, spending is less than 24 per cent of GDP. The last time that was achieved for a sustained period was in the 1980s. For all the fine words those on the other side like to use to remind us of his economic performance, it was never achieved under Treasurer Costello. As important as the surplus in 2012-13 is, also important are the growing surpluses over time. Surpluses grow each year over the forward estimates because that is the right thing to do.
This is a budget which is right for the economy, but it is also a budget which is about a fairer community. It is a budget which spreads the benefits of the mining boom, fosters opportunity and supports millions of Australians—families and those on modest incomes. It is a budget which invests for the future and helps Australians with cost-of-living pressures. This is a budget, a Labor budget, which demonstrates that a strong economy is the foundation of prosperity but also that prosperity needs to be shared. Opportunity and fairness go hand in hand and that is why we are determined to spread the benefits of the boom. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister outline why it is important to detail the savings the government is making in order to bring the budget back into surplus?
The reason it is important to detail the savings is to be upfront with the Australian people and the markets about how the path to surplus has been achieved. We have had to make difficult decisions as a government as a result of the revenue write-downs which have occurred; some $150 billion has been written off government revenues since the crisis. Delivering surpluses when there is less tax revenue obviously means that a government has to make substantial savings to pay for new initiatives. We have done so. These are responsible decisions which return the budget to surplus for this coming year and for each year after that. I invite the opposition, if they are so keen on surplus budgets, to demonstrate to the Australian people how they would return the budget to surplus. It is quite clear that under Mr Abbott they are incapable of actually coming to agreement on any difficult decision.
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister outline to the Senate any alternative approaches that are a threat to sound economic management?
I thank Senator Brown for her final question. It becomes clearer each day that there is really no coherent alternative economic approach from those opposite. Perhaps the case in question is the schoolkids bonus. The opposition want to stand in the way of giving families more assistance with education costs; the coalition want to oppose and block families getting assistance for those costs. That is what they want to do. Remember, of course, that this is the same coalition that opposes the means testing of the baby bonus. A very interesting question was put to Mr Hockey. He was asked:
You've been critical of the School's bonus. What's the difference between the baby bonus and the School Bonus?
Mr Hockey replied:
There is a vast difference.
The host said 'What?' and Mr Hockey said:
You have to have a baby.
You have to have a baby! Babies grow up, and then they go to school— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Wong. What will the peak gross debt position covered by Australian government securities be in the next financial year?
Net debt peaks as a percentage of GDP at 9.6 per cent in 2011-12; gross debt peaks as a percentage of GDP at 18 per cent in the same year. The net debt position is the more accurate measure of the financial position of the government, and I remind the chamber that this is around one-tenth of the level of the major advanced economies—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. We have asked for a specific number: what is the peak gross debt position? We do not want to know about the net debt position or the percentage position—we want to know the actual number for peak gross debt. She can either give us that number or she cannot.
There is no point of order. The minister is answering the question. As I have already explained once today, I cannot instruct ministers on how to answer questions—but the minister is answering the question.
I know Senator Joyce likes to talk about gross debt a lot. I remind him, and I am sure as an accountant he would know this, that in household terms focusing on gross debt only is like looking at the size of your mortgage without looking at whatever money you have in the bank. He does not like the net debt position but that is why net debt—
Mr President, I have a further point of order on relevance. I asked a very succinct question and it needs a very succinct answer. We just want to know what the peak gross debt number is as covered by Australian government securities in the next financial year. We do not need a lecture on 'gross', we do not need a lecture on 'net', we do not need a percentage—we just need to know the number. She either knows it or she does not know it.
There is no point of order, and that is debating the issue.
I think statement No. 9 has all of the CGS on issue projected over the forward estimate period. What I gave you was the GDP figure as well, because it is of relevance. The point I was making in relation to gross debt was that it is not the best or a particularly accurate measure of the financial position of a government. That is the reality. Senator Joyce does not like to hear this.
Mr President, on a further point of order: the number, Mr President—she either knows it or she does not know it. Save us the lecture; give us the number or sit down.
Mr President—
Senator Evans, I have already ruled there is no point of order.
On another point of order, Mr President: it just seems to me that, if Senator Joyce is repeatedly standing up and seeking to argue the point with the minister after she has been at pains to give him all the information she can, it is a disruption of question time and I think it defeats the whole purpose of question time. Senator Joyce ought to be encouraged to abide by the same rules that every other senator abides by.
That is not a point of order.
I again say that gross debt peaks at 18 per cent of GDP in 2011-12. We commence to pay down debt from the surplus year. I do want to again remind Senator Joyce, in between him hurling abuse at me— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. What are the liquid reserves available to be placed against the peak gross debt position?
I think that is a question about what is included in net debt. What I was trying to explain to the senator previously was that net is more often used in international comparisons to measure the relative debt positions of economies. Net debt only includes those financial assets which have debt like characteristics. On the asset side, it includes term deposits held at the Reserve Bank, cash and other deposits, and loans to students of foreign governments. It does not include equity assets. There is some discussion that as governments have moved towards more diversified assets this perhaps has become less useful as a measure of a government's financial position and that a broader—
I raise a point of order, Mr President, once more on relevance. We have asked for a value of the liquid reserves that are available to be placed against the peak gross debt. She either knows the value or she does not.
There is no point of order. The minister is answering the question.
Mr President, I am trying to assist the senator. I think I gave him the explanation of what is included in the net debt consideration, a definition— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. If the government's finance minister does not know what the peak debt position will be in the coming year, if the government's finance minister does not know what the liquid reserves are in the coming year, if the government can put up an appropriation bill at any time during the current year, why on earth has the government asked us for a $300 billion ceiling?
To explain this very simply, we use the same budget accounting standards which are used internationally and were used by Treasurer Costello. Those are the accounting standards which drive the definitions of gross debt, net debt, net financial worth and net worth. The budget papers, if one reads them, go through a very detailed explanation about various accounting standards and provide a number of summaries of how those financial concepts have been arrived at. I would also make the point that Senator Joyce continues to talk about gross debt. That is like a household looking only to their mortgage and not looking at a financial asset they may hold in the bank like a term deposit. That is the reality. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Wong. Does the government acknowledge and accept the conclusions of the Victorian report entitled The regional effects of pricing carbon emissions: an adjustment strategy for the Latrobe Valley, which states that every Latrobe Valley power industry job supports four or five other jobs in that regional economy?
I am advised the government is working with the Victorian government, Latrobe Valley local authorities as well as business and union representatives as we introduce the carbon price. I am very conscious of not allowing a repeat of what took place when the valley's power stations were privatised under the Kennett government. As the senator would know, we are providing significant assistance to industry. For example, the Energy Security Fund will provide $5.5 billion targeted to emissions-intensive generators, many of which are located in the Latrobe Valley. Latrobe workers and families will also benefit from household assistance and tax cuts, and pension and other benefit increases will assist nine out of 10 households in meeting the carbon price's modest impacts.
I am also advised that the Latrobe Valley Transition Committee was established under a cooperative agreement between the Australian and Victorian governments late last year. This is facilitating a coordinated and strategic approach to support the economic, environmental and social wellbeing of the regions which are undergoing structural economic change as they respond to global competition and a strong Australian dollar. I understand the committee is undertaking a formal submission process in the development of the Latrobe Valley transition discussion paper until—the date I have is today.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I should sit down so they can talk to each other.
Order! Continue, Minister.
I would also indicate that the government's modelling demonstrated that we can continue to grow the economy with the carbon price.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the government have any response to the announcement by Industrial Energy's general manager that the HRL Energy Brix power station and briquette factory in Morwell will be unsustainable and therefore face closure this year in response to the carbon tax, with the direct loss of more than 200 jobs?
The government is committed to assisting business as we move to a clean energy economy. The government has announced that under the Energy Security Fund cash payments, $27.7 million will be provided this financial year for the generation complex. The Clean Energy Regulator is currently assessing applications for further assistance for energy generators in the form of free carbon units. That could result in additional assistance for the Energy Brix generation complex. I am advised the government will continue to work with HRL and its customers to help them manage a transition to a more sustainable energy supply. We also recognise that there are some regions and communities which may face more significant impacts than others and the senator may recall that the government set aside $200 million under the Regional Structural Adjustment Assistance Program in recognition of that fact. For identified regions assistance will be delivered through arrangements which engage the three levels of government—state, territory and local—as well as community groups and unions.
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Apart from the recent statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy that the Latrobe Valley could become Australia's next Pilbara, what firm commitments has the government made in the 2012-13 budget to create 200 like-for-like jobs in Morwell and so in turn safeguard another 800 to 1,000 jobs in the Latrobe Valley's regional economy?
The clean energy future plan which the government announced contains some of the most significant industry and innovation policies seen. We will be investing over $15 billion in creating not only the jobs of tomorrow but also jobs in manufacturing. The various programs the government has put in place include a Jobs and Competitiveness Program, the Clean Technology program, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and of course the Steel Transformation Plan. As I said in answer to the senator second's question, we do recognise that there are some regions and communities which will face potentially more significant impacts than others from reforms and the $200 million structural adjustment package has been set aside for that purpose.
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to the election at the weekend of new governments in France and possibly in Greece. How confident is the government of delivering four years of budget surpluses, given that these new governments are less likely or appear less inclined to undertake the structural reforms needed in order to improve their economic performance and the implications of that lack of performance for financial markets and capital markets in Europe and around the world?
That was a very good question and I invite Senator Joyce to talk to Senator Sinodinos before he asks his next question.
Why do we always have to have the commentary?
You can't take it, can you? You dish it out all the time. I would say to Senator Sinodinos that he is right to raise the concern about the ongoing economic instability in Europe. Those are matters about which the government has been very concerned. As the senator would know, those are matters which drove some of the results we saw, particularly in the December quarter of last year, where we saw global instability, which obviously had an effect not only on the economies of Europe but on the Australian economy.
In answer to an earlier question from Senator Cormann, when I was asked about economic forecasts, I made the point that forecasts in the budget are broadly in line with those of market economists and other institutions such as the International Monetary Fund. So I do not think it is correct to say that the projected GDP figures are overly ambitious. What I would say is that the government's figures are probably even more conservative when it comes to growth in Europe. The senator has probably had a look at it, but there is quite a good discussion in the budget papers about the various contributors to global growth. The senator would be aware that the growth of Australia's major trading partners continues to track our forecast to be above average global growth, which is obviously a very good thing for the Australian economy.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the economic and financial modelling in the budget papers was finalised before some of these events occurred—they occurred very recently—at what stage would the government be prepared to provide the parliament with revised figures to reflect the implications of this ongoing situation?
I am standing next to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, so I shall be very careful about what I say, but I am sure that the senator is not suggesting that every time there is an election in any economy in Europe the government should revise its economic forecasts. And I am sure, as a former officer of the Treasury and as a former senior adviser, he would know that governments update their forecasts in the usual way, and the next forecast, absent the government making a decision to make any other economic statement, would be in the mid-year outlook. But I again say our forecasts are broadly in line with those of the RBA, market economists and the IMF, with this note—that we are in fact more conservative about the position in Europe.
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister confirm when the economic forecasts in the budget were finalised?
As the senator would know, the economic forecasts are conducted at various intervals in the lead-up to the budget process. I will check the actual date. I think the Treasurer has made some public comment about that, but I will ascertain whether or not I can provide you with a precise date.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
On 22 March, Senator Waters asked me a question about the Bimblebox Nature Refuge. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The answer read as follows—
QUESTION
Does the federal government still agree that Bimblebox is an area of high conversation value?
RESPONSE
Yes. The Australian government provided funding for the Bimblebox Nature Refuge through the National Heritage Trust for inclusion in the National Reserve System (NRS), in recognition of the property's excellent condition and high biodiversity values.
The addition of Bimblebox to the NRS increased the level of protection in the under-represented Desert Uplands bioregion from 3.08 per cent to 3.20 per cent and the Alice Tablelands sub region from 4.26 per cent to 4.54 per cent. Sites within the property contain the greatest understorey floristic biodiversity for Poplar Box Woodland and Silver Leaf Ironbark (vegetation communities listed as "of concern" under Queensland legislation) within the under-represented Desert Uplands bioregion.
National environment law does not give the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities the power to decide mining leases or to make commercial decisions on mining proposals. National environment law does, however, protect certain species relevant to the Bimblebox Nature Refuge, such as the endangered Black-Throated Finch, the endangered Star Finch and the vulnerable Squatter Pigeon. The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities will not approve any proposal that will have an unacceptable impact on any of these species or any other matter protected under national environment law.
I move:
That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the 2012-13 Budget.
Here we have it again: another year, another increase in borrowings; another year, yet more put on the national credit card. Year after year, in all my time here, we have seen government ministers come in here and make devout promises, putting their hand on the Bible and swearing these forecasts are correct, swearing that it will all be better next year. But what we have seen year after year is nothing but rhetoric. These are all empty promises. What we heard from the Treasurer in the other place last night will again be proven to be nothing but an empty promise. This government, when it comes to managing the nation's accounts, has absolutely no credibility. In the words of Senator Wong this afternoon, she had determination to deliver these results; but results speak louder than any determination or any contrived commitment to serious management of the nation's finances. Labor's achievements in this regard are truly extraordinary. What we have seen after the budget tabled last night is a tally of $174 billion in deficits over only four years of Labor budgets. They have turned net assets into net debt of $145 billion.
At this point I would like to take up the issue raised by Senator Joyce with Senator Wong this afternoon about net versus gross debt. Net debt is an important comparison, but what the government does not want to explain when it talks about net debt and when it offsets the gross borrowings mainly with the Future Fund—a fund created by the former coalition government, I hasten to add—is that the Future Fund is already taken into account when we look at other liabilities the Commonwealth owes. If you want a fair comparison, taking into account the assets held in the Future Fund and other Commonwealth assets, you should also look at the other liabilities of the Commonwealth. But that is not what this government actually wants to talk about. This government wants to count the Future Fund twice, and it does that by trying to pretend that the superannuation liabilities that the Future Fund was set up to cover are not being in any way considered when we take into account net debt. That is a very important point, because to every Australian taxpayer those superannuation liabilities are just as due and we are just as liable for them as any bond issued by the Commonwealth and held by the latest overseas investor that has funnelled the money into this government. The point that Senator Joyce raises is very important. You cannot count the Future Fund twice and net it off against gross debt without taking into account the liabilities for which it was set up to fund and has not yet done so completely.
In the current financial year alone, the government's forecast has been shown to be completely without basis in reality. Less than 18 months ago we heard that the current financial year was going to have a $12 billion deficit. A year ago this week it was going to be $22 billion. Last December it was going to be $37 billion. It was going to be $44 billion as of last night. God only knows what it is going to be by 30 June, because if we keep running up that scale it will get into the high-forty billions, because this government is simply unable to manage the nation's accounts.
We are paying $8 billion a year in interest. It works out at $22 million a day that we are paying in interest—not for what great leaders like Sir Henry Bolte might have done, in building freeways and national assets, but merely to have funded the cash splash and the electoral bribes this government is so enamoured with. There is a better way to look at the $22 million a day. Everyone should put a jar in their home kitchen and every day, every member of their family should put a $1 coin in it. It is costing a dollar a day from every Australian just to service the interest bill that this government has run up. And that is not a dollar a day that you can put towards a holiday, to paying off the mortgage or to something you might buy. That is a dollar a day purely to fund and service the debt this government has created. It is an extraordinary level of debt.
Of course, today we heard the catch-all excuse: the global financial crisis, the excuse that keeps on giving. Indeed, a cynic might wonder that today from Senator Wong we actually heard a bit of a warm up, a bit of a simmer of the global financial crisis excuse. I bet that this time next year, if you are still in office, we will be hearing that again. Something happens and the government will always find an excuse. Well, this government is out of excuses. No-one believes you. No-one believes this government will deliver a surplus. It will not be in office to do so. And we will never see the final accounts. This government has got a track record of debt, deficit and deceit.
In taking note of answers given to questions without notice today, what those on the other side obviously fail to understand is that this is a budget for working Australians. It is not a budget just for a few select people out in the community, which is what those on the other side want and are always pushing. This budget is about spreading the benefits of the boom so that all corners of the country benefit from it, not just one single state or one single area. It is going to bring much-needed new financial relief to families and businesses that have been under pressure. There are a number of ways we are going to do that and I will talk about them in a minute.
We are returning to surplus on time and as promised, and those on the other side just cannot deal with that. They just do not want to deal with it. They have got a huge mental block when it comes to accepting that we are actually managing to do that and will achieve it. What that does is put paid to their last few years of argument that we could not do it, so they have to stand up and oppose it. I notice that Senator Bushby is still in the chamber. I would like to know what Senator Bushby thinks he is going to say to all those families that he wants to deny the Schoolkids Bonus to. I would like to know what Senator Abetz is going to say to all those Tasmanian families. In fact, Mr Deputy President, I would like to know what you are going to say to all those families that your government is denying cash to—that is, the $410 for each child in primary school or $820 for each child in high school under the Schoolkids Bonus.
I do not know whether opposition senators are aware that there are 34,800 families in Tasmania that expect to receive some of that income, and 30,600 families in Tasmania are currently missing out on the education tax refund, which the Schoolkids Bonus is replacing. It is replacing it for a reason. It is because people were not claiming what they were entitled to. Families are struggling. We know families are struggling. We want to help those families. The best way we can help those families is through the education process and making it easier for them so they do not have to save their receipts, so they do not have to put in paperwork and so they can get the money upfront. I challenge the opposition senators from Tasmania, in particular, to stand up in front of those families and go to those schools and tell them that they are going to deny those families and those children the cash that they could use to help with their education, whether it be music lessons, excursions or whatever.
I was bitterly disappointed to hear the other night an implication that parents would waste the money, that they would not spend it on their children's education. But I am absolutely certain that when the baby bonus came in and members of the opposition were asked about people receiving it their argument was that they did not really care what people spent the money on; they just wanted people to have the money. So I do not understand the hypocrisy, meanness of spirit and the distrust of families and of the parents of these children by the opposition, claiming that they will spend the money on other things and that it will not be spent on education.
One of the benefits of the surplus is obviously that it will protect low- and middle-income Australians and those in the community most vulnerable. It will do that through things like the aged-care reform, the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the blitz that we are going to have on the dental waiting lists as well. We will achieve a surplus, despite the global uncertainty. We will deliver a surplus in a targeted and responsible way, with targeted and responsible savings that help, as I said, those low- and middle-income Australians.
Since the budget the Liberals have once again revealed their true colours. They continue to work against working families in Australia. To those senators from Tasmania on the other side who continue to work against those working families in Tasmania I say: you really need to hang your heads in shame. I am nearly speechless trying to think of the words to use when those people in Tasmania who you and I represent— (Time expired)
I also rise to take note of answers by government senators to questions from coalition senators. I listened with great interest to Senator Bilyk and I noted the challenges that she made in talking about how last night they delivered a budget for working Australians. This budget is all politics. It is a political budget. It is a budget that is determined to save a government with deep internal divisions and leadership instability. It is a government that is in trouble, and the thing that a government in trouble does when it starts panicking is splash money around.
Everybody knows, as Senator Bilyk rightly points out, that people like it if you offer money to them. They think that is a great thing. But it is incumbent on government to be responsible in how it spends taxpayer money. It needs to be able to use the fiscal tools it has available to it to try to create an economic environment in which business can thrive, wealth can be created, jobs can be created, people can get jobs and money can move around. In an overall sense, they need to grow the cake so that everybody has an opportunity to partake in a strong economy, get a good, secure job and be able to look after themselves and their families. Irresponsible decisions such as when governments take great slabs of money and throw it all around in a desperate attempt to cling on to power in the falling days of their government just do not cut it. It smacks of political desperation. There is a lack of any coherence in this budget and a lack of any narrative, which suggests that this government does not have an ongoing, long-term plan to put Australia on a long-term, stable economic footing.
The senator also talked about returning to surplus on time. She seemed to be labouring under the misapprehension that the government has actually delivered a surplus. But the fact is that all that happened last night was that the Treasurer handed down a piece of paper that predicted a surplus which we will not know about until about September next year, at which time the election will have come and gone and the Australian people will have had no opportunity to determine whether that surplus was delivered.
Looking at the Labor Party's record on surpluses, even under the current term of this Labor government since 2007 the Labor government have handed down surplus predictions. The Treasurer has stood up in parliament in the other place and said, 'We will deliver a surplus.' Has he? No. In fact, it has been something like 23 years since the Labor Party have actually delivered a surplus, despite predicting a surplus on more than one occasion while in government. There is a world of difference between the Treasurer standing up in the other place and saying, 'We will deliver a surplus on time,' and delivering that in actual fact. Before we know whether a surplus will be delivered, we need to see how much money came in and how much was spent. If you look at just the current year, they started off predicting a $12 billion deficit. That has blown out over the course of MYEFO and other updates to a current fiscal position as of last night of a $44 billion deficit. As Senator Ryan said, goodness knows what that will actually be when we find out what it is in the end. It is on a massive upwards trajectory. It is likely to be in the 50s.
So when the Treasurer stood up last night and said, 'We are returning to surplus on time,' and when Senator Bilyk stands up in this place and says it, it is laughable that anyone would believe it. Their record shows that anything they predict will fail to be delivered. Just in this current year they have a black hole of over $20 billion in their budget. They have a $22 billion black hole in their budget.
That leads to the next issue I want to raise, and that is, as the minister was discussing, the increase in the debt limit. We have gone from $75 billion to $150 billion to $200 billion to $250 billion—and now we have to go up to $300 billion. You do not need to increase your borrowing limit if you are spending less than you earn. If you are spending less than the amount of money that is coming in, you do not need to ask for a bigger overdraft. It is just farcical. It is an admission on the government's own part when they say, 'We need to increase the debt limit,' that they do not expect that the $1.5 billion will actually be delivered. They are building in, hidden amongst the appropriation bills, this $50 billion increase in the hope that nobody will notice it, because they acknowledge themselves that their debt will go higher. (Time expired)
I do wish to make a contribution to today's debate but, before I do, I want to say that I have read a number of articles in the newspapers lately and it is amazing but there is a common theme that comes out of them, and that is, 'Be careful of what the Liberals say and what the Liberals will do.' Listening to the contributions coming from Senator Ryan and Senator Bushby today, I am absolutely confused. I hear Senator Bushby talking about jobs. I hear Senator Bushby talking about creating employment opportunities. This would be the same Senator Bushby who voted against the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, the program that kept thousands and thousands of Australians employed through the global financial crisis.
I will not say that the contribution from Senator Ryan was hysterical because it was anything but. To hear Senator Ryan talking about nation-building stuff, you might think the global financial crisis was something that we made up. For goodness sake! I do not know how far the silver spoon was shoved into Senator Ryan's mouth but if he did not realise just how close we were to recession through those last couple of years of 2009 and 2010 then I do not know what planet he was on. It is absolutely ridiculous that we have that side of the chamber bagging the living daylights out of us. They are bagging us because we spend money to create employment, bagging us because we stimulate the economy to keep people employed, bagging us because we made a massive injection of some $16.2 billion during that terrible financial time in order to keep business people employed and to build fantastic facilities for generations of young Australians to come. Here is the rub: I have been to the opening of probably 50 or 60 buildings under the Building the Education Revolution, which was a federal Labor government initiative, and, holy be, who is in the crowd getting their photos taken? Have one guess.
Who? You tell us!
The member for Canning, Mr Don Randall, has been at every single one. Good on you, Don! He voted against them, but that does not matter. What an insult!
Getting back to the budget: as we have been clearly told, the government is returning the budget to surplus. In one breath, we have the Liberals, ably assisted by the Nationals, bagging us for spending money to create opportunity and employment and telling us we are spending too much money. In the next breath, remembering that the government is going to deliver a surplus next year, they condemn us for not spending money. The sad thing is that, year in, year out, we have to go through this nonsense, this charade. We bring down budgets, year in, year out, and we have the same old argument. The other side of the political fence condemns every opportunity and every positive that is created by the government, but the social side actually congratulates the government, because this budget will share the benefits of the boom.
As everyone knows, I come from a mining state and I fully support the mining industry. I have never said anything else. But the sad part, Mr Deputy President, is that your colleagues from Western Australian are hypocritical. We know that in Western Australia there are two speeds. There is absolutely no doubt that we have a patchwork economy. We have an industry that is thriving—it is bubbling along—and that is employing a lot of Australians, not just Western Australians. We have industries that hang off the mining industry. If they are lucky enough to be servicing the mining industry or to be otherwise involved in the mining industry, they are doing well too. But the boom is a double-edged sword and there are many industries in Western Australia that really are suffering because of it. They are suffering because they are losing experienced people. They cannot compete with the wages that are being paid in the mining industry. We have industries, such as my old industry, in which trucking families have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars on building companies but have trucks parked at the back of the yard against the fence, not because they are not paying the right money but because they cannot compete. Let us look at aged-care facilities. Who would cook in an aged-care facility for $30,000 a year when you could get $130,000 at a mine? (Time expired)
I will begin with Senator Sterle's comments about jobs. It is quite amazing that the reduction in company tax is no longer there. Let me quote the Prime Minister:
If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth. If you are against economic growth, then you are against jobs.
Those were the words of the Prime Minister. She is obviously against jobs because the government is not going to cut the company tax rate. I am sorry to see that Senator Sterle is leaving the chamber, because I want to talk about the treatment of the transport industry in this budget.
Mr Deputy President, as you know, when the GST came in on 1 July 2000, 18½c of excise per litre was returned to the truckies. Of the 38c excise, truckies paid a road user charge of 19½c and the remaining 18½c went back to the them. Now the truckies are going to get only 12½c back. This government has taken 6c a litre from every truckie in Australia. That will apply to any truck with a tare weight of 4½ tonnes or more. The transport industry uses eight billion litres of diesel a year, so that 6c equates to an extra $480 million. That is how much tax the government is adding to our transport industry. But it gets worse: on 1 July 2014 the Labor government's carbon tax is going to add almost 7c a litre to the truckies' diesel tax. That will be another $515 million on top of the $480 million—$1 billion extra a year in diesel tax on our truckies, the people who carry our nation. Yet the government says it is creating jobs. Of course, regional Australia will be the worst affected by this. The town where I live does not have a railway line. Everything comes in on the road; all our exports, our cattle from abattoirs and our wheat all go out on the road. It is a tax on regional Australia especially.
Talking about the budget, we will never see this amazing $1.5 billion surplus. We will probably have an election in August next year before the real figures are released in September next year, because the figures will show the budget in the red because the government will be borrowing again. The government has said that it is allowing for an extra $39 billion increase in revenue. It is not going to get that. It will not get an extra $39 billion. We have a five per cent deterioration in our terms of trade, business is quiet—of course the mining industry is doing well in some areas, but retail sales are quiet—and regional Australia is doing it tough, especially in those areas that do not have mines. That money will not come in.
According to the budget two years ago, the government was going to borrow $12 billion. Twelve months ago that had become more than $22 billion. Six months ago it went to $37 billion. Now, as we found out yesterday, it has gone to $44 billion that is going to be borrowed in this financial year alone. To have budgeted two years ago to borrow $12 billion and have it now come in at $44 billion is not even a good guess. That is not projecting budget forecasts or being anywhere close to forecasts; it is simply a bad guess. That is why the Australian people do not trust this government. They do not trust this government because of its broken promises on the carbon tax, they do not trust it because of its waste of money on school buildings, pink batts and the so-called stimulus package—job creating programs that have led us into this much debt and that have of course had a huge effect on raising interest rates over that period. If we are going to have a budget surplus of $1.5 billion, why are we raising the credit limit to $300 billion? Senator Joyce asked Senator Wong what would be the gross dollar amount at which it would peak. Would it be $278 billion? Would it be $290 billion? We could not get an answer. That is nothing unusual from Senator Wong. Tell us the truth. Let the Australian people know the truth.
We know your history of managing money. Throughout my life I have seen that every time a Labor government has been elected in a state or here in Canberra it has sent us broke. No mistake; it happens all the time, and this government is no exception. It is amazing that road funding is going to be reduced by so much. The government is taking money out of roads but talks about looking after infrastructure and productivity. This budget will never deliver a surplus. In September 2013 we will find out the real facts.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr) to a question without notice asked by Senator Milne today relating to the overseas aid budget.
The issue here is that Australia made a commitment to increase overseas aid to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2015 as part of our contribution to reaching the Millennium Development Goals. What is more, the coalition supported that goal and has done so many times, including only last year when we put a motion through the Senate as a tripartite agreement to commit to that. There is a similar motion on the books today, and I hope that I will see the coalition continue to give its support, given that the government has cut its commitment.
The government's decision is appalling. The United Nations endorsed a target to meet the Millennium Development Goals to end poverty and hunger, to ensure universal education and gender equity and to improve child and maternal health. That target should have been 0.7 per cent of gross national income in foreign aid. That is the Greens policy; nevertheless, the government and the coalition had agreed to 0.5. Now we are going to see $3 billion taken out of that over the forward estimates. It is quite disingenuous to hear Minister Carr say, 'Oh, other countries have also cut their commitment to overseas aid.' One of the countries I can tell you about is the Netherlands. Yes, the Netherlands has cut its overseas aid budget, but it has done so to go from 0.75 per cent to 0.6 per cent. So, even with the cut, the Netherlands is well above what Australia has committed to. The point here is that other counties—Norway, Denmark and Sweden—have already surpassed the 0.7 per cent. The UK is on track to meet 0.7 per cent by 2013 in spite of the appalling economic circumstances in the UK, where we have already seen the UK Secretary of State for International Development say that he will not balance the books on the back of the poorest people in the world. So even the UK is sticking with its commitment to 0.7 per cent. The Netherlands, the UK, Germany, France and Ireland are all contributing more as a percentage of gross national income to overseas aid than Australia, and none of those countries has a surplus.
What is even more appalling is that we are making a bid for the UN Security Council, saying that Australia does what Australia says. What a joke! We have promised in the international community, globally accepted, that we will meet 0.5 per cent by 2015, and now we are not going to. For every statement that Minister Carr makes saying, 'Yes, look what our aid budget is already doing,' what is it that it will not be doing now—and extra—because we have decided to cut it? If you look at our nearest neighbours, what about a fair go? Last night the Treasurer said that the budget would look after the most vulnerable and uphold a fair go. Well, what about a fair go for the 15 mothers who will die or suffer permanent disability today alone giving birth in PNG? They are the statistics and that is the sort of issue we are dealing with. Or, as the Australian Council for International Development has said, 'Tonight we could have saved an extra 800,000 lives.' They are calling on the coalition to keep the promise that Labor has broken in relation to 0.5 per cent of gross national income in foreign aid.
We are living in the Asian century. Eighteen of our nearest neighbours are developing countries. Look at East Timor, where children are still dying of preventable illnesses because they cannot access vaccinations, where children are still starving. Children do not have access to universal education and women are not getting the support they need during their pregnancies and during childbirth. It is appalling that we, as the wealthiest country in the world, will not support developing countries in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. It is a matter of shame for this country. Not only that, we are also not supporting the most vulnerable in Australia, those who are on Newstart.
But I particularly want to address the question of overseas aid, because it is more of a sleight of hand when you understand that Australia, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change— (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 2012, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2012 WINTER SITTINGS
HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW) BILL
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 (the Act) to improve the efficiency of the Professional Services Review (PSR) Scheme and broaden its scope by:
The bill would also enable the Director of the PSR agency to re-refer matters to a new PSR Committee process if the person under review has successfully challenged a previous PSR process on the grounds that a person was not validly appointed as a PSR Panel member or Deputy Director. The PSR is a scheme set up under Part VAA of the Act to protect the integrity of the Medicare and pharmaceutical benefits programs.
Reasons for Urgency
The bill is necessary to retrospectively validate actions taken under the Act and any flow on acts that have been brought into question as a result of the Full Federal Court's decision in Kutlu. In Kutlu the Court held that failing to consult with the Australian Medical Association as required by the Act invalidated appointments of a number of PSR Panel Members and Deputy Directors and all PSR processes involving the invalidly appointed Panel members and Deputy Directors. The validating provisions of the bill will not affect the rights and liabilities of parties to proceedings for which leave to appeal to the High Court has been granted before the bill is assented to, if the validity of PSR Panel member or Deputy Director appointments is in issue in those proceedings.
If the bill does not pass Parliament by the end of the 2012 Winter sittings, there is a risk that further litigation may proceed and any PSR decisions before the court may be ruled invalid and may expose the Commonwealth to further costs.
Senator Xenophon To move:
That the Senate notes the interim report of the International Observer Group on elections in Malaysia, dated 29 April 2012.
Senator Bob Brown To move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to provide for the protection of koalas and their habitat, and for related purposes. Koala Protection Bill 2012.
Senator Ludlam To move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 5 May 2012, the President of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and the Director of the Gulf Center for Human Rights, Mr Nabeel Rajab, was arrested on arrival at Manama airport from Lebanon, and
(ii) Mr Rajab has been charged with 'cyber incitement' essentially for promoting the culture of human rights through the online media, especially Facebook and Twitter; and
(b) calls on the Government to make direct representations to Bahraini authorities for the immediate release of Mr Rajab and for democratic reforms in Bahrain.
Senator Ryan To move:
That the Senate—
(a) commends:
(i) the Victorian Government on establishing a Code of Practice for the building and construction sector, and
(ii) the Council of Australian Governments for agreeing that the heads of Treasuries conduct a review into the costs associated with construction projects; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to commit to taking the findings of any such report seriously.
Senators Wright and Di Natale To move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 14 May to 20 May 2012 is Schizophrenia Awareness Week, and
(ii) people with severe mental illness can, on average, die up to 25 years earlier than the rest of the community and are at a higher risk of experiencing physical illness;
(b) recognises that:
(i) diabetes occurs in approximately 15 per cent of people with schizophrenia, a rate three times higher than in the general population, and
(ii) after 5 years, 28 per cent of people with respiratory disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder who also have schizophrenia have died, compared with 15 per cent of people with no serious mental health problems; and
(c) calls on the Government to show leadership in making the physical health issues of people with mental illness a national health priority.
Senator Abetz To move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Fair Work Australia's investigation into the Health Services Union and the Member for Dobell (Mr Thomson) has taken an unreasonably long time,
(ii) the Member for Dobell expected Fair Work Australia to conduct its investigation within 6 months,
(iii) Australians have lost faith in Fair Work Australia to conduct itself in a quick and proper manner,
(iv) under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, enacted by the then Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (Ms Gillard), the provisions for accountability and transparency are far less than the standard expected of company directors, and
(v) the Coalition has a plan for better accountability and transparency for registered organisations; and
(b) calls on the Government to adopt the Coalition's plan for better accountability and transparency for registered organisations.
Senator Siewert To move:
That general business order of the day no. 55, relating to the Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2], be discharged from the Notice Paper.
Senator Siewert To move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) stromatolites are the oldest living organisms in the world,
(ii) Western Australia's Hamelin Pool contains the most diverse range of stromatolites in the world, is one of only three places on Earth where you can see living marine stromatolites, and these stromatolites are one of the major reasons for Shark Bay's World Heritage Listing, and
(iii) the recent decision by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities to allow American researchers to cut down and remove 45 stromatolites from Hamelin Pool, would have a significant impact on the heritage values of the area if carried out; and
(b) calls on the Government to reassess this decision as a matter of urgency and prevent this or any other removal of stromatolites from going ahead.
Senator Back To move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) said in the 2010 election campaign that achieving harmonised occupational health and safety laws was her greatest achievement, and
(ii) harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws has not taken place; and
(b) calls on the Prime Minister to advise the Australian people, in light of this, if the carbon tax is now her greatest achievement.
Senator Fifield To move:
That the Senate notes the 2012-13 Federal Budget does nothing to strengthen the Australian economy in the face of storm clouds on the global horizon, as it:
(a) fails to cut spending;
(b) increases taxes;
(c) lifts the debt ceiling to $300 billion; and
(d) imposes the world's largest carbon tax.
Senator Collins To move:
That, on Thursday, 10 May 2012:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 8 pm to adjournment;
(b) the routine of business from 3.30 pm to not later than 4.30 pm shall be statements relating to the imminent retirement of Senator Sherry;
(c) the routine of business from 6 pm to 6.30 pm shall be the tabling and consideration of committee reports; and
(d) the routine of business from 8 pm shall be:
(i) Budget statement and documents—party leaders and independent senators to make responses to the statement and documents for not more than 30 minutes each, and
(ii) adjournment.
Senator Bilyk To move:
That the Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 20 June 2012, from 4.15 pm to 5.30 pm.
Senator Birmingham To move:
That the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 18 June 2012, from 10 am to 12.30 pm
Senator Singh To move:
That the Joint Standing Committee on Migration be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 20 June 2012, from 10.30 am to 12.30 pm.
Senator Thistlethwaite To move:
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to meet during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 27 June 2012, from 11.30 am to 12.15 pm, for a private briefing.
Senator Thistlethwaite To move:
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold public meetings during the sittings of the Senate, as follows:
(a) on Wednesday, 20 June 2012, from 11.30 am to 1 pm; and
(b) on Wednesday, 27 June 2012, from 12.15 pm to 1 pm.
Senator Thistlethwaite To move:
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sittings of the Senate, from 11 am to 11.30 am, as follows:
(a) on Wednesday, 20 June 2012; and
(b) on Wednesday, 27 June 2012.
Senator Colbeck To move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises:
(i) that areas of Tasmanian forest that have been logged have the potential to recover quickly, and
(ii) the rich biodiversity that can exist in areas of Tasmanian forest that have been logged, including waratahs, massive flowering displays, masses of birdlife, devils, quolls and wombats; and
(b) acknowledges that native forest industry based activities and vibrant, biodiverse forests are not mutually exclusive.
Senator Milne To move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the Tripa forest in Sumatra, an area covered by a 2-year moratorium on new forest-clearing concessions, is being burnt by deliberately lit fires and cleared in order to make way for palm oil concessions,
(ii) the forest is home to people and wildlife and stores massive quantities of carbon, and is also home to the largest concentration of Sumatran orang-utans,
(iii) that leading experts believe the loss of the Tripa forest could lead to the local extinction of Sumatran orang-utans by the end of 2012, and international primate experts such as Ms Jane Goodall and Mr Richard Leakey have called for the protection of the Tripa forest,
(iv) that humanitarian and conservation organisations working within the region have reported that villagers are suffering from health problems associated with the burning and have been subjected to intimidation from both palm oil companies and Indonesian police,
(v) the chair of President Yudhoyono's task force on forests and carbon has expressed concern that 'opening up Tripa – an area with high conservation value and home to many animals endemic to Indonesia – is a grave mistake',
(vi) while the Indonesian Government has launched a police investigation into the criminal activity in the area, palm oil companies continue to illegally clear protected forest, a process that has destroyed countless livelihoods,
(vii) Australia is a significant consumer of palm oil from South East Asia, particularly Indonesia, as Australia imports 130 000 tonnes of palm oil each year,
(viii) the Tripa forest crisis has received major international news coverage in publications such as Time Magazine, Voice of America, the Guardian, the Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Independent, and
(ix) many conservation groups in Indonesia regard Tripa as a test case that will determine the future of the $1 billion agreement on carbon and forests between Norway and Indonesia;
(b) welcomes the Indonesian Government's investigations of law-breaking in Tripa forest in early May 2012; and
(c) calls on the Australian Government to request the Indonesian Government to fully enforce the law that protects this important region and cease all clearing in the Tripa forest.
I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 and government business notice of motion No. 2.
I move:
That the following general business orders of the day be considered on Thursday, 10 May 2012 under the temporary order relating to the consideration of private senators' bills:
No. 65 Air Navigation and Civil Aviation Amendment (Aircraft Crew) Bill 2011
No. 67 Qantas Sale Amendment (Still Call Australia Home) Bill 2011
No. 46 Foreign Acquisitions Amendment (Agricultural Land) Bill 2010.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons:
(a) Senator Urquhart from 8 May to 10 May 2012;
(b) Senator Bishop on 9 May and 10 May 2012; and
(c) Senator Xenophon on 9 May 2012.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Boyce from 8 May to 10 May 2012, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
by leave—On behalf of the Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee (Senator Sterle), I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 be extended to 18 May 2012.
Question agreed to.
by leave—On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform, I move:
That the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 10 May 2012, from 11 am.
Question agreed to.
by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I move:
That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 10 May 2012, from 10 am to 11 am.
Question agreed to.
by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I move:
That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), followed by an in camera hearing, during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 10 May 2012, from 11 am.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That—
(1) To ensure appropriate consideration of time critical bills by Senate committees, the provisions of all bills introduced into the House of Representatives after 10 May 2012 and up to and including 31 May 2012 that contain substantive provisions commencing on or before 1 July 2012 (together with the provisions of any related bill), are referred to committees for inquiry and report by 18 June 2012.
(2) The committee to which each bill is referred shall be determined in accordance with the order of 29 September 2010, as amended on 8 February 2012, allocating departments and agencies to standing committees.
(3) A committee to which a bill has been referred may determine, by unanimous decision, that there are no substantive matters that require examination and report that fact to the Senate.
(4) This order does not apply in relation to bills which contain:
(a) no provisions other than provisions appropriating revenue or moneys (appropriation bills); and
(b) commencement clauses providing only for the legislation to commence on Royal Assent.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That consideration of the business before the Senate on Monday, 18 June 2012 be interrupted at approximately 5.30 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Smith to make his first speech without any question before the chair.
Question agreed to.
by leave—At the request of the Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Senator Heffernan, I move:
That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 9 May 2012, from 5 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Foreign Investment Review Board national interest test.
Question agreed to.
At the request of the Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committe on Law Enforcement, Senator Nash, I move:
That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), including a private briefing, during the sitting of the Senate on 9 May 2012, from 5.30 pm to 7 pm.
Question agreed to.
At the request of the Chair of the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests, Senator Bernardi, I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests on the development of a draft code of conduct for senators be extended to 27 November 2012.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Community Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 9 May 2012, from 5 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the approval and monitoring of Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) breast implants.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the national significance of celebrating the centenary of the foundation of Australia's capital city,
(ii) the opportunity for tourists and local residents to experience historic, cultural, sports and entertainment events and exhibitions throughout the 2013 calendar year, and
(iii) the funding commitments made by both the Federal and Australian Capital Territory Governments for programs planned for the centenary celebrations in 2013; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to ensure adequate funding to the Australian Capital Territory Government and the National Capital Authority to support the programs planned for the centenary celebrations.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 750 standing in my name, relating to a Productivity Commission inquiry into childcare funding, as circulated in the chamber.
Leave granted.
Thank you. I move the motion as amended:
That—
(a) the Senate calls on the Government to direct the Productivity Commission to inquire into the affordability, flexibility, accessibility and quality of early childhood education and care; and
(b) the inquiry should cover all Commonwealth funding options and models for various types of care, including long-day care, in-home care, occasional care, family day care, outside school hours care and care for children with special needs.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, no later than noon on Thursday, 22 March 2012, information relating to the most recent meeting convened by the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, Mr Roger Wilkins, with Internet service providers and representatives of the film, television and music industries, including but not limited to:
(a) a list of invitees;
(b) a list of attendees;
(c) notes arising from the meeting;
(d) minutes arising from the meeting;
(e) any documentation issued to attendees;
(f) any internal departmental correspondence regarding the meeting; and
(g) any documents relating to future meetings.
Question negatived.
by leave—Mr Deputy President, while I will not call a division, I would like the record to show that the Greens supported this proposal and the rest of the chamber opposed it.
Senator Ludlam, that is now recorded.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) reaffirms its commitment to increase overseas development assistance (ODA) to at least 0.5 per cent of gross national income (GNI) by 2015; and
(b) calls on the Government to implement a timetable for raising ODA to 0.7 per cent of GNI, the international aid target called for by the United Nations.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) Burma's National League for Democracy (NLD) won 43 of the 45 seats contested in the April 2012 by-election,
(ii) Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her NLD colleagues took their seats in the parliament on 2 May 2012,
(iii) that out of a total of 664 seats in the Burmese Parliament, the NLD holds 7 per cent, the military 25 per cent and the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party more than 50 per cent,
(iv) despite ballot irregularities and intimidations revealing the election not being entirely free and fair, sanctions on Burma were eased by the Australian Government as an incentive for further reform,
(v) the emphasis placed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr) on their reversibility of relaxed sanctions should reforms not progress,
(vi) up to 1 000 political prisoners remain in Burmese jails,
(vii) oil and gas revenues constitute the largest source of income for the regime, amounting to US$3 billion in the 2011-12 fiscal year, and
(viii) Australia's total two-way trade with Burma amounted to $93 million in 2010-11; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to:
(i) ensure any normalisation of Australian trade and investment in Burma is reversible, and
(ii) adopt the United States of America model of normalising trade in sectors that will create jobs, build skills and have positive benefits for ordinary Burmese while maintaining sanctions on the mining and resource sectors that simply exploit Burma's unique natural resources, cause systematic human rights violations, loss of livelihoods and force people from their homes.
Question negatived.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Birmingham, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) has modelled the average annual inflows into the Murray Darling Basin (MDB) at 31 599 gigalitres,
(ii) the modelling of these inflows covers a 114 year period from 1895 to 2009,
(iii) the MDBA has not used the past 2 years of data on inflows in calculating the average inflows into the MDB as listed in the draft basin plan,
(iv) the past 2 years have seen record rainfall in the Murray Darling,
(v) the MDBA has acknowledged that including the 2010-12 river inflow data would change inflow calculations by 0.13 per cent or 32 gigalitres of water, and
(vi) the MDBA has stated that 'long term average inflows do not simply translate into estimates of sustainable diversion limits';
(b) calls on the Government to ensure that the final basin plan is based on the most up to date data and the best available science consistent with the requirements of the Water Act 2007; and
(c) orders that there be laid on the table by 17 May 2012:
(i) annual data on the modelled inflows into the Murray Darling from 1895 to 2011,
(ii) any MDBA advice and assessments about how this data is used to calculate sustainable diversion limits,
(iii) any MDBA advice about how historical usage in different regions has been used to calculate sustainable diversion limits, and
(iv) any other information held by the Government which explains the methodology used in formulating modelled inflows.
I circulated an amendment to this motion back in March and I seek leave to move the amendment.
Leave not granted.
I ask that we put part (a) of this motion separately to part (b) and part (c), as has been done under your direction in the past. I seek leave for the chamber to make a decision on part (a) separately to parts (b) and (c), which could be taken together.
We will put them separately. Just to clarify for senators, Senator Hanson-Young has requested—it is within her right to do so and permission has been granted in the past—to split the motion moved by Senator Joyce. Leave was denied for the amendment. We are now back to the substantive motion 740 and we will put parts (a), (b) and (c) separately. So the first question is that part (a) be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung—
Order! I am going to ring the bell for four minutes rather than one minute. This was originally presumed to be a 'mickey' division. I will have the bells rung for a further four minutes.
Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I object to that reference to any division as a 'mickey', and I ask that you desist from using it.
Senator Brown, I accept your admonishment. That is correct.
The question now is that notice of motion No. 740 part (b) be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that notice of motion No. 740 part (c) be agreed to.
I ask that government business notice of motion No. 1 relating to the consideration of the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012 be taken as formal.
Is there any objection to that motion being taken as formal?
Yes.
There is an objection.
Pursuant to contingent notice No. 2, 'Conduct of business', and at the request of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Evans moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012.
I move this as part of a procedure to allow me to move government business notice of motion No. 1 for today. The government's aim is to organise the business of the Senate for tomorrow so that the chamber can debate the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012 so that payments can be made to families.
In asking us to acquiesce to this motion to suspend standing orders, the government are asking those of us on this side of the chamber to facilitate them in yet again denying this chamber the opportunity to provide full and appropriate scrutiny to a piece of legislation. And this is not just any piece of legislation; this is a piece of budget legislation.
We know what the government want to do. We have seen in the motions they have listed here that they want to bring into effect a guillotine for this legislation tomorrow. They do not just want to give precedence to it; they want to apply a guillotine. This matter has not yet been dealt with over on the other side of this building, but still we are being asked to agree to a suspension of standing orders which would enable this government to give precedence to this bill so that they can apply a guillotine. We will not be part of it.
The first reason we will not be part of it is that yet again the government seek to deny appropriate scrutiny of legislation in this place. The second reason we will not agree to this request for a suspension is that the particular piece of legislation in question, the one the government is seeking to have precedence given to, is nothing short of a con. It is nothing short of a sham. The student bonus legislation is the rebadging of the education tax offset currently in place. They are rebadging it and they are saying it is essentially the same thing—but it bears no comparison. What is currently in place is specifically for educational purposes. Receipts have to be collected. What it is going to be transformed into, if the government have their way, is simply a cash handout—nothing to do with education. You might put the word 'education' on the letter which conveys the money, although I understand the government's intention is that the money goes straight into people's bank accounts, but no doubt there will be a letter that kindly lets them know it has come along. But that does not mean that the money is for educational purposes and you cannot guarantee that it will be used for that. This is a cynical attempt to redirect money to assist the government in selling their carbon tax. This is a carbon tax compensation measure, plain and simple, dressed up as an education measure. We will not be part of that.
This bill needs proper scrutiny. This bill needs appropriate examination and the government are seeking to prevent that happening. I do not want to go into the substance of the bill—that matter is not currently before us. But it really does need to be pointed out that this bill seeks to bring forward spending in the back-to-school payment program. If you add that to the Commonwealth grants to local government, which the government are also seeking to bring forward into the current financial year, it gives a total of $1½ billion. So the bringing forward into this financial year of the back-to-school spend and the local government grants is what secures the illusion of a budget surplus. That is what this is all about. That is what this suspension is about. This suspension is about seeking precedence so that a bill can be introduced—and the government will then guillotine it, meaning it will not get proper scrutiny—to enable them to manufacture a surplus. That is what the purpose of this suspension motion is. We will not be a part of it.
But the thing which annoys me, which frustrates me and which drives me to distraction more than anything else about this suspension request is the fact that we have seen it so often before. It seems as if every other week the government have sought some sort of procedural stunt to deny this chamber its rights and prerogatives. It might be a gag. That happens all the time. They move 'that the question now be put' in the middle of a debate. It might be a guillotine or, as the government euphemistically call it, 'time management'. It might be denying the opportunity for a piece of legislation to go to the relevant parliamentary committee for examination. Every opportunity to deny scrutiny that presents itself to the government they take. But we say no. This motion should be defeated.
I rarely get the opportunity to speak on procedural matters, procedure not being one of my strong points. But there is a particular reason why this shabby suspension motion, this shabby legislation, is being pushed through. And Senator Fifield is quite right—it is in fact to cook the books, to bring forward expenditure to this financial year so that the money is not spent next financial year, which would upset the government's surplus. That is very naughty. But it reflects the sleight of hand, the soft-shoe shuffle, which underlies the entire budget—the dodgy figures that speak for the government and for the surplus.
Secondly, and even more importantly, the reason for this legislation is to distract families, to distract schoolchildren in particular, from the elephant in the room, the elephant in the Senate, the elephant in the budget lock-up, the elephant in the parliament—that is, the carbon tax. I cannot recall Mr Swan talking about the carbon tax last night. Or did he just once mention carbon pricing in passing? He mentioned it just once. That is the elephant in the room. What the government wants to do is this: it wants to say, 'Oh, look at that cute little possum up there in the tree'. While you are looking at that cute little possum up in the tree, you will be run over by a bus—a carbon tax bus. What is the government's answer to the cost-of-living increases that will certainly come with a carbon tax? A schoolkids bonus. That is the government's answer to the cost-of-living increases brought on by the carbon tax—and this parliament is supposed to take that seriously, this suspension order seriously, this potential guillotine seriously? That is their public policy answer to the introduction of a carbon tax?
I am not very good at budget papers, but I had a look at them before I came down. Based on Budget Paper No. 1, statement 3 on page 13, the government's own figures, there is a $25 billion tax over the forward estimates. To address the $25 billion slug there will be this sugar hit; a bit of a cash bonus before the end of the financial year. It will not come anywhere near addressing the issues facing schoolchildren or facing working families, who have experienced a 60 per cent increase in the price of electricity over the last five years. This is just a pathetic sugar hit.
Mr Deputy President, you have heard me many times on the subject and you heard the same thing with Senator Sinodinos's question to Senator Wong. There is an enormous instability in the world at the moment, particularly in Western Europe but also, to some degree, in the United States. This government wants to introduce carbon pricing into Australia, which has a comparative advantage in exporting energy, to make our economy less competitive at a time when Western Europe is in turmoil. Isn't that good timing? Even Senator Wong conceded that Western economies are struggling and, despite the fact that this will be an impost of $25 billion over the forward estimates, this lot want to unilaterally bring in carbon pricing. My colleagues often say the greatest criticism is that the Prime Minister did not tell the truth on this. I disagree with my colleagues. I think the great criticism is that this lot is the only political party in the world, along with the Greens, that believes that the unilateral imposition of carbon pricing is in Australia's national interest. Irrespective of what any other nation on earth does, this lot believes, in a country that is an energy exporter, that is trade exposed, that it is in our national interest to unilaterally bring on the world's largest carbon tax. No other party on earth believes that, certainly no other government—and to bring in a schoolkids bonus! How pathetic. (Time expired)
I was reading the Australian this morning when I became aware that this motion would be moved. The article I was reading was headed 'Culture of deception'. This matter is about a culture of deception again. As Senator Fifield said, this is about the government refusing to allow any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever of a bill that they are rushing through. Senator Mason quite rightly talked about sugar. This is a sugar-coated arsenic pill which will not fool the Australian community. When you look at a tainted government elected on the back of a lie, when you look at what commentary has been made about the budget deficits, when you look at the cumulative budget deficit, who seriously thinks this mob can deliver a budget surplus? We originally had a forecast of $4 billion, then it was out to $24 billion, then to $44 billion. The Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill that is going to be rushed through the other place and this place is about bringing forward more expenditure into this budget year. It is a complete and utter deception—the culture of deception.
I wonder where the Australian Greens will stand on this matter. We saw Senator Milne's first test in the other place yesterday, and she failed because her deputy leader, Adam Bandt, voted with the government on the suspension of Mr Craig Thomson. If there are two great examples of the culture of deception of the Australian Labor Party, aided and abetted by the Australian Greens, it is their behaviour in relation to Mr Thomson and Mr Slipper. No one believes this surplus will be delivered. I draw to the attention of honourable senators a comment from Peter van Onselen in this morning's Australian:
Hands up anyone who thinks the $1.5bn surplus now being forecast for the next financial year will be realised, or the $2bn for the year after that. The betting markets certainly don't. Before this financial year Swan handed down deficits of $47bn, $54bn and $27bn, going back to 2008-09.
… … …
This budget is also tricky in parts. Money is being moved around (on paper) to achieve the surplus forecast. For example, by pre-paying the Clean Energy Advance to households as part of the assistance package this month and next instead of after July (once the carbon tax begins) the 2012-13 forecast is spared $1.5bn in spending. It is simply shifted into that $44bn figure delivered for 2011-12.
Given that the surplus for next year is predicted to be $1.5bn, clever accounting in this example alone represents the difference between a deficit and a surplus for 2012-13.
The Australian community will not be fooled by this suspension motion and the bill that it relates to. The Australian people know that this is a tainted government operating on the back of a tainted member, aided and supported by the Prime Minister of this country. Who seriously thinks that the comments by the Prime Minister and her actions a week and a half ago were not premised on the Fair Work Australia report, when she was still pleading the innocence of and her support for the tainted member for Dobell?
The Australian community knows this government has run its course. They will not be fooled by suspension motions such as this. The Australian community has given up on the Australian Labor Party, so I say to the Greens: are you going to sit back and watch this happen? I can remember full well over the seven or eight years I have been here the bleating from the Australian Greens if there was any sniff of a lack of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. Let us see whether they are now prepared to stand by those words and vote against this motion. This will be Senator Milne's first test of whether she is serious about parliamentary process or whether she is just another partner of the Australian Labor Party, and when they say, 'Roll' she will roll. Let us see what she is going to do. There cannot be one member of the government who sits back and allows— (Time expired)
I held a press conference at about one o'clock today and announced that the Australian Greens would support the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill and support the process to get it through the parliament in the timeframe that the government proposed. The government has made it clear that it wants this bill through by the end of the week in order for the money to flow in this financial year.
I have also made it clear that this is not the way that the Australian Greens would have spent the money—we would have preferred to see it go towards implementing the Gonski review; we would like to have seen $5 billion go into education. However, that is not how the government has chosen to spend the money. Having said that, this measure will provide access to assistance to more low-income people than currently get the benefit. I will talk about that when we get to the substantive debate.
Waste, mismanagement and reckless spending are part of Labor's DNA. But this proposal takes the cake.They are so desperate to get the cash out of the door that they are doing away with any part of the most basic parliamentary processes, the part of our job actually, of scrutinising the activities and performance of executive government. The Greens, under the leadership of their new leader Senator Milne, are now coming into this chamber and making themselves complicit with the executive government to prosecute a complete abuse of power in pushing this cash splash through the parliament without proper parliamentary scrutiny. It is an absolute disgrace. People across Australia should take note that this government completely disrespects taxpayers' dollars and has absolutely no regard for spending money carefully and wisely and living within its means. And of course the Australian Greens are right next to them, side-by-side, aiding and abetting the cash splash, the waste of money and the reckless spending which has become the hallmark of this bad Labor government.
This government has promised for some years now that it will deliver a surplus budget in 2012. This morning Bill Shorten, the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, was at a breakfast saying, 'We have delivered a surplus. The surplus is here.' Let me say to the Australian people that this government has not delivered a surplus; this government has promised a surplus. It will never deliver a surplus because, when all is said and done, in September 2012, when we look at their past track record, no doubt we will be back in deficit. No number of accounting tricks will hide the fact that this government is trying to achieve a surplus through some sort of dodgy budget of magic. I say to the Labor Party and the Greens: shifting spending from 2012-13 to 2011-12 is not a spending cut. Shifting funding or spending from 2012-13 in the 2011-12 is cooking the books in order to make it look as though there is going to be a surplus in 2013. Everybody knows what you are up to. Everybody knows what you are doing.
Over the last four years this government has given us $176 billion worth of accumulated deficits. This government does not know how to look after money. People across Australia know that the Labor Party never knows how to manage money. The Labor Party in government always stuffs up our public finances. The people across Australia know that it always comes down to the coalition to fix up the Labor mess after a number of years of Labor government. The only thing that is worse now than before is that the Labor Party together with the Greens now have a majority in this place which means they can at will just ram any bad piece of legislation through this parliament. This is absolutely not in the national interest, and I am sure people across Australia would be appalled to realise that this government is ramming $420 million worth of spending through this parliament without any proper scrutiny whatsoever.
Let us reflect on what this is about, on what we have been asked to look at very quickly. We are talking about the government wanting to borrow money so they can give it away. This is not money they have; this is money they are going to borrow so that they can give it away. They are going to give it away without any strings attached. They are going to call it the education bonus that there is no requirement to spend on anything remotely related to education. This can be spent on anything. This is just a complete cash splash. This does not even have to be spent on schoolchildren. In fact, we know that the schoolchildren of Australia will be asked to repay the debt this government has accumulated, with interest. This government have given us deficit after deficit and have taken us from a position of no government net debt to a position where we are now heading for $145 billion of government net debt. The government are spending nearly $30 billion on interest to service the debt they have accumulated, interest payments that will be a burden for generations of children for years to come. It is this Labor-Greens government which is to blame. These processes, without proper parliamentary scrutiny and ramming through yet another Labor Party cash splash, is not the way we in the Senate should be doing business.
I do not know why we should be so aghast and so appalled by this sort of tactic from this government, a government which is supposedly all care but no responsibility, no accountability and no transparency, a government which hopefully is in its dying days. You can almost hear the screech of their fingernails as they slide down the blackboard with this one. It is yet another attempt to avoid accountability and to avoid transparency, with the support of their brothers and sisters in arms, the Greens. It is exactly the same as their avoidance of accountability and transparency with the $900 cash splash under then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, the supposed stimulus for the economy—fail—the supposed stimulus for jobs—fail. Just as with that cash splash, now we have no accountability, no transparency and no checks and balances.
As Senator Cormann said, there is no requirement for any documentation as to what mums and dads have done with his money. There is no requirement that it be spent on anything in particular, just a hope that it will be. It is not unlike the Home Insulation Program, for which there was a litany of failed checks and balances and a government which refused to make transparent written warnings it received about the risks of home insulation, a government which said that the Home Insulation Program was going to stimulate jobs, stimulate the economy and help the environment. We now know some years later that it did none of those. It cost jobs—
It cost lives.
Sadly, it cost some lives—it cost the economy and it did not one jot for the environment. Indeed, arguably it cost the environment because much of the insulation put in then had to be taken out and much of that which was taken out is not biodegradable. This was from a government which takes pride in wham bam thank you ma'am, in wham bam thank you electorate—'Just give us our way.' This measure is all about sophistry to achieve a so-called surplus—that is what this measure is all about. 'Wham bam thank you ma'am; just get it through parliament so we can shower the cash on the electorate.' They want to be able to use this Senate to do their dirty deal again with the Greens—not unlike the dirty deal which this government did with the Greens at the eleventh hour in the House of Representatives as a means of getting passage of the bill to all but neuter the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Remember that dirty little amendment from the Greens in the House which made it so that, even where there is a breach of the industrial law in the building and construction industry, provided that one of the parties to that breach—for example, a perpetrator and another perpetrate or a perpetrator and a victim—reach agreement, reach a side deal, that would prevent the very much watered-down construction industry cop who is now housed in that house of repute, the one in which the Prime Minister places so much stock, Fair Work Australia? It means that Fair Work Australia cannot investigate any further and cannot prosecute just because a dirty little deal has been done on the site.
What is this government thinking, in passing and ensuring the passage of legislation of that nature? If this government really thinks that is good law, then why is it not trying to make it the same for the ACCC, to stop the ACCC prosecuting two parties who are in collusion but reach some side deal? Why is this government not making it so that the Australian Taxation Office cannot prosecute an alleged offender who might have reached a side deal? Because they know it is bad law. But they were at pains to make it so that the bad law was not subject to Senate committee scrutiny, just as they are at pains with yet again another deal, sponsored by the Greens, to make sure that this budgetary measure to achieve surplus sophistry is not subject to scrutiny by the Senate.
What is this about? It is not about the budget yesterday—it was a 'fudge-it', and this is more of the same game: let us spend it in this financial year. I was just sitting in my seat and looking up at the young people in the gallery and thinking, 'I hope these youngsters get a good education and get a good-paying job, because they are going to have to pay a lot of tax.' They have got to pay $8 billion a year in tax, just for the interest bill alone. I have seen it all my life. I will say it again: give Labor the chequebook and they will empty the account; they will send you broke. It does not matter whether it is a state government or a federal government; that is how it has been all my life.
What sort of Australia are we leaving for our young ones when we have them wallowing in debt, when we raise the debt cap to $300 billion? To think that the government, when elected 4½ years ago, was debt free—totally debt free, with $60 billion in the bank for the Future Fund and future commitments for public servants—and now they have got a gross debt of $228 billion and they are raising the ceiling to $300 billion. They are mortgaging our children's future away. That is what this is about. This is simply cooking the books to get payments out before 30 June so they can say to the Australian people, come the following year: 'We are not going to borrow any money. We are going to be $1.5 billion in the black.' Wrong. If that were the case they would not be raising the debt ceiling by another $50 billion. That is the amazing thing.
They are saying they will have the budget in the black, but one thing we can be sure of is that because of this budget—or 'fudge-it' as I called it yesterday—there will be an August election next year. They cannot have it in September because of the football finals, and they will not go until October, because in September we will get the true figures for the financial year on their management. They will go to an election before that, before the Australian people get the truth. That is the biggest problem the government have got. The Australian people do not trust you. They do not trust you with your carbon tax. This is a cash splash of money thrown out to compensate for the carbon tax. People know the cost of living is hurting, and you are going to add to it come 1 July. That is all this is about.
We can rest assured that there will be an election by early September 2013, before Treasury and the Australian Office of Financial Management release the exact facts of this budget. And it will not be in the black. There will be more borrowing, more mortgaging away of our children's future. To think of the finances the government had in the bank when they were elected! I would say with confidence that we were the only nation in the world that was debt free. I said that to an American soldier at Hellfire Pass on Anzac Day and he said, 'Debt free?' and I said, 'Yes, we were debt free.' And now look at the financial mess the government have put us in. That is why we are debating this motion—so that the government can fudge the books again to get spending into this financial year and somehow save their political hide come the next election, whenever that is. It may be sooner rather than later. If the Independents Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor actually come to their senses, it may be sooner rather than later, and the Australian people can have their say.
The time for the debate has now expired. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Collins to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
At the request of Senator Evans, I move:
That government business notice of motion No. 1 may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today until determined.
This is the second motion for the chamber to consider before we can get to the substantive motion for allowing debate on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012.
I relish the opportunity that this second procedural motion provides to canvass the reasons why we find ourselves in this situation today. The reason we are in this situation today is, as I mentioned in my first contribution to these procedural debates, that this government is seeking yet again to avoid scrutiny. It is the intention of this government, if these procedural motions are successful, to time-limit and time-manage this debate tomorrow.
These matters have not been completed over on the other side. They are still in progress. And yet the government are seeking to prejudge what will happen over in the other place—that that legislation will come across here in good time to be dealt with tomorrow. But even if that is the case, even if that does happen, even if the legislation is rammed through the House of Representatives, it does not give this government the justification to seek to deny this chamber the opportunity to provide the appropriate scrutiny that this legislation demands.
We in this place pride ourselves on not being like the other place. We in this place pride ourselves on often being the first people in this building to actually read the legislation. As we know, legislation often goes to a caucus committee—no-one reads it. It then goes to the caucus—no-one reads it. It goes to the cabinet, where no-one reads it. It goes to the House of Representatives, where the chances are no-one will read it. When legislation hits this chamber it is often the first time that legislators have actually read the legislation that has come before this parliament. So our responsibility in this chamber—it is an historic one; it is an important one—is taken very seriously. Clearly it is not by those on the other side of the chamber but we on this side of the chamber not only take our responsibility as opposition senators to provide scrutiny of the legislation of the government of the day very seriously but also take our separate role as senators in a house of review to provide the scrutiny that legislation demands very seriously.
Whenever we read government motions such as the one on the Notice Paper which talk about consideration of the government business order of the day relating to such and such a bill and that the bill listed be considered under a limitation of time we know that 'limitation of time' means denial of scrutiny. Limitation of time means preventing sunlight. Limitation of time means seeking to abrogate the prerogatives and responsibilities of this chamber. Whenever we hear the euphemism 'time limitation' we know what it means. It means the guillotine. We have come to expect nothing else from this government because we have seen time and again under this government procedural tactics used to deny the opportunity to apply scrutiny. We have seen it with the frequent use of the gag. We have seen it with the frequent use of the guillotine. This government have set new standards in relation to the use of the guillotine. They positively broke a hamstring at the start of this year so keen were they to apply the guillotine—so keen were they that the Senate had barely been sitting seven or eight days before the guillotine was applied. There was no possibility that the rationale could be claimed that the opposition had been obstructionist or delaying, because there had been only seven or eight sitting days of the Australian Senate before they sought to use the guillotine.
As I said, it comes as no surprise that the government are seeking to use a number of procedural measures, but we have seen something very interesting today. We know the Greens have long held themselves out as paragons of parliamentary virtue. They always did under the reign of Senator Bob Brown. Over time there was a relationship between the increase in the size of the parliamentary representation of the Australian Greens and their commitment to parliamentary scrutiny. When they were a small and happy few, they held tightly to the concept of parliamentary scrutiny. They would stand against every motion that sought to deny parliamentary scrutiny. But as their numbers grew they became more like the larger party they sit with. We had hoped for a brief time that with a change of leader, with the ascension of Senator Milne, there would be a new Australian Greens, that the Greens would grab hold of the spirit they once had to be a party of review and to support the prerogatives of this chamber. But Senator Milne has continued in the traditions of Senator Bob Brown, I am sad to say.
But we know why we are really here. It is for two reasons. The first is the carbon tax. The whole purpose of the this motion, which is to give precedence to the motion which Senator Collins seeks to move, is so that we can get through the parliament in record time a compensation measure for the carbon tax dressed up as an education initiative. The government are saying, 'We are simply rebadging the education tax rebate which is currently in existence and making it easier for people to get their hands on it.' That is what they say they are doing. Sure, they are rebadging it. Yes, they are making it easier to distribute that money. But the reason they are doing this is that they want to have a sugar hit. They want to give people something which will take a little bit of the pain away, maybe distract them or make them forget that the carbon tax has come and that it will cause a real increase in their cost of living. That is the purpose of this motion. It is to facilitate that sugar hit to the Australian economy. Some would say it is a stimulus of sorts. We know how well those go down. We know how well those have tracked before when the government have sought to pursue sugar hits. But this is really about seeking to distract people from the implementation of the carbon tax.
The other purpose of the suspension motion and this motion to give precedence to the motion that Senator Collins seeks to move is an attempt at a budget fix. The government is seeking to bring forward this spending which was previously under the guise of the education tax rebate together with grants to local government which together will amount to about $1.5 billion. Alone this almost accounts for this fake budget surplus which the government have presented. That is the other purpose of the motion that is before us today.
But the real reason we are here is the issue of economic management. That is why we are here. There had not been until this government a government that were so appalling at managing this nation's finances. How does that manifest itself? The thing that most people grab onto as a key measure of economic competence, of competence in managing the Australian budget, is the surplus figure—is the budget in surplus or in deficit? Why do people grab that? Because it tells you whether a government can live within its means, whether it is capable of managing its finances. I will explain it to you, Madam Acting Deputy President Fisher, even though I know you know this. A surplus means that a government receives more in revenue than it spends in a particular financial year. A deficit means that it spends more than comes in as revenue. The job of a government is to make sure that revenue and expenditure roughly match. If a government has very large surpluses over an extended period of time it tells you that the government is taxing too much. On the other hand, if a government has consistent budget deficits over time that tells you that the government is spending too much. A government's job is to manage priorities and to manage the differences between revenue and spending.
This government does not have a great record, I think it would be fair to say. I know it is a bit of an understatement, but it does not have a terrific record when it comes to that key test of competence of an Australian government. Mr Swan, when he came into government, did something very helpful: he changed the colour of the budget papers. When we were in government we went for basic, simple, classic, elegant white. This government changed them to blue. That colour change is very handy, because it distinguishes easily for everyone those budgets which are in surplus and those which are in deficit. Let me count them: we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 white, surplus budgets. I know this cannot possibly be unparliamentary conduct, Madam Acting Deputy President, because these are budget papers. So we have 10 surplus budgets from the previous government. Thank you so much, Wayne Swan, for changing the colour of the budget papers so that we can more easily distinguish surplus budgets from deficit budgets. What did we have for 2008-09? Any prizes for guessing: surplus or deficit?
Opposition senators: Deficit!
Yes, deficit. Despite what it says inside:
We are budgeting for a surplus of $21.7 billion in 2008-09, 1.8 per cent of GDP, the largest budget surplus as a share of GDP in nearly a decade.
Let us hear that again:
… the largest budget surplus as a share of GDP in nearly a decade.
Wrong: it was a deficit. In 2009-10, any prizes?
Opposition senators: Deficit!
Yes, it was a deficit. Here is 2010-11, our luck's got to change soon, doesn't it? It cannot be all bad luck.
Opposition senators: Deficit!
Deficit. Madam Deputy President, you can hazard a guess for 2011-12: surplus or deficit?
I think we'll call a point of order on that.
Opposition senators: Deficit!
In 2011-12, was it a surplus or deficit? I can see you hazarding a guess there, Madam Acting Deputy President. It was a deficit. I will take the interjection from Senator Collins, who said, 'We might call him to order.' What could be more unparliamentary than pointing out with budget papers which budgets are in surplus and which are in deficit. I know it is excruciatingly embarrassing, but there you have it. That is the key indicator, the key measure, of competence which this government is being judged on. Despite being promised, despite being forecast, surpluses have not eventuated. As we knew he would, this year Wayne Swan got to the dispatch box and projected a budget surplus, but it is nothing more than a projection. We will not know what the final budget outcome is until September next year, which rather conveniently occurs after the next election.
That is why we are here. This motion seeks to give precedence to debate about a budget measure that will bring forward spending from next financial year to this financial year. The reason it is doing that, apart from being a bit of a sop to cover the cost of the carbon tax on households, is to manufacture, fabricate and create the illusion of a real budget surplus. Why has the government gone to such links to do that? Why has it gone to such lengths to shift, to fiddle, to fudge and to frame this budget? It knows that the surplus or, rather, I should say, consecutive deficits have been the key measure of competence upon which it has been judged. It is going all out, to all lengths, to manufacture, to create, to fabricate, to frame a budget surplus. In order to do that it has to seek to deny this chamber the opportunity to properly examine the education bonus legislation. Two things are in conflict here. There is the need to provide appropriate scrutiny to legislation—that is the role of the Australian Senate. Going in the other direction is this government's need to fabricate a surplus. To do that it needs to bring forward spending, but to get that money out it needs to pass this legislation quick smart.
We are finding, yet again, that pragmatism, politics and partisan self-interest triumph over the obligations and duties of the government to provide the opportunity for appropriate scrutiny of legislation. We always know that when you put pragmatism, politics and self-interest against parliamentary accountability, for the Australian Labor Party pragmatism and self-interest will win out every time. Every time, Labor will try to dress up self-interest and pragmatism as the national interest. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have heard a Labor member or senator talk about doing things in the national interest. But saying you are doing something in the national interest does not make it in the national interest. It does not matter how many times you say it; it does not make it true. No matter how many times you say it, the Australian public are not going to buy it. The Australian public are not going to buy that this proposed education bonus is in the national interest. They will see it for exactly what it is: a con and a sham designed to try to further mask the effects of the carbon tax on households. The Australian people will see it as a con and a sham in order to fabricate a budget surplus.
This government always succumbs to temptation. Whenever there is put before it the temptation to do a budget fiddle, it will take it. Whenever there is put before it the temptation to deny parliamentary scrutiny, it will take it. Whenever there comes before it the temptation to put partisan self-interest ahead of the national interest, it will take that opportunity. One of the things about being in government is that there are all sorts of options before you. There are all sorts of temptations, if you are a government, to look to your own party interest rather than to the national interest. We have seen as a pattern—week in, week out; month in, month out; year in, year out; budget in, budget out—since this government has been in office that it has always defaulted to its own interest. It has always defaulted to politics. It has always defaulted, on occasion, to being not entirely straightforward, I hate to say. Parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary accountability are the furthest things from its mind. We know that they conduct themselves in a different manner in the other place, and we know that they have their own issues with certain members of that chamber. We know they have those, and I do not want to go there. But we have always hoped that in this chamber we do things better. We have always hoped that we are a real house of review and that we shine the sunlight on legislation that is needed. If this motion is passed, this chamber will yet again be failing in its duties, in its prerogatives and in its obligations. We on the opposition side will not be a party to that. We will not be complicit in that endeavour. It is for those reasons that I think it is very important that this motion, be it a procedural one, should be defeated.
I move:
That the question now be put.
The question is that the question on the precedence motion now be put.
The question now is that the precedence motion moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, on Thursday, 10 May 2012:
(a) the routine of business from not later than 12.30 pm to 1.50 pm shall be consideration of the government business order of the day relating to the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012;
(b) the bill listed in paragraph (a) be considered under a limitation of time, and that the time allotted for all remaining stages be as follows:
commencing at 12.30 pm until 1.50 pm; and
(c) paragraph (b) of this order operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.
I acknowledge that this motion is unusual on the second day of this sitting, but the reason for the hasty passage of the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012 is threefold. Passage is essential in the first week of sittings so that the Department of Human Services can deliver the lump sum payments for the 2011-12 Education Tax Refund year to 1.3 million families this financial year. What the opposition does not highlight is the consequence of us not proceeding with this measure, because we know that one million families will continue to miss out if we continue with the status quo of the arrangements that have previously been in place. Passage is also necessary so that the Australian Taxation Office can make the necessary changes to the tax materials for 2011-12. These materials need to be finalised by 15 May so that any changes to the Education Tax Refund for this year must be settled by then. Finally, the motion is necessary because the opposition will block debate on this bill, as we know from their behaviour to date, unless the motion is in place.
The opposition, strangely, is trying to prevent a payment to families in June, by delaying this bill. These families would have been eligible for the payment through the tax system. Instead the payment will be made directly to families to ensure that it is received and received in a timely manner. Soon I will come to the opposition's lengthy history in similar matters.
The payment will assist families to meet the cost of educating their children. The opposition has raised spurious arguments about cash splashes, and they are even claiming that parents will spend the allowance on discretionary items. It is outrageous. They are strange times when the Liberal Party is claiming that people are not in the best position to determine how they will spend their money. How offensive it is to the parents of school children to suggest that they are not spending the money on their children's education. Let me be clear: the allowance will provide assistance directly to those who need it most. It ensures that a payment is received by those who are entitled to it and that they receive it in a timely way so that parents can spend the money as they need it, not 12 months later. Having money to spend when it is needed rather than as a tax refund many months later follows the same principle that applied previously for the payment of the childcare allowance. This government rectified that problem.
I recall, when the Howard government introduced the childcare tax rebate, that they did an even more extreme measure. They suggested that families apply for it in the tax year after the tax year of their expenditure. That was one of the measures we rectified almost immediately after—actually, no, that was one issue that we forced to be rectified from opposition! More recently, we have ensured that families can receive those payments in relation to childcare support in the same circumstances as when they are spending it. And it is strange: you do not hear from this opposition arguments that families will not spend that money on their childcare costs, or arguments that families do not spend their family tax benefit, and indeed the improvements proposed in this budget that the opposition has indicated it will support, on discretionary items. But, for some very strange reason, education costs are something that this opposition thinks families cannot be trusted with. So we have more surprises in that the opposition can readily agree to the principle in the case of childcare and family tax benefit but apparently not with respect to education expenditure. So where is the sham that was suggested in the previous motions? I suggest that the sham lies with the other side, with the inconsistencies and the strange tactical positioning over the last couple of days to prevent, as I said, one million families from being paid their full entitlement in a timely fashion.
The other point that was made in the previous motions was the suggestion that the Senate would not have adequate opportunity to consider these measures. I should highlight at this stage that briefings were offered and did in fact occur with the shadow minister, Kevin Andrews. All questions have been responded to, and in fact Senator Fifield was offered the same from me yesterday. So for this opposition to suggest that we are not facilitating a timely consideration of these measures is laughable.
Let us go to the detail of these measures. The bill introduces a new payment through the family assistance legislation called the 'schoolkids bonus', to begin on 1 January 2013. The payment will provide direct assistance to eligible families with children in school and will be paid through the family payments system twice a year, in January and July. The two payments will total $410 per year for each child in primary school and $820 per year for each child in secondary school. The schoolkids bonus will replace the education tax refund. There is no charade here. We have been quite clear that that is the case, the history of which I will come to in a moment.
Consequently, this bill removes the education tax refund from the taxation legislation. As part of the transitional arrangements to the new schoolkids bonus the bill also creates a new payment in the family assistance and veterans affairs legislation to pay the maximum value of the education tax refund entitlement for the 2011-12 year as a lump sum. This lump sum payment will be delivered to eligible families before the end of June 2012. The bill will have a positive impact on families, delivering assistance to help families with the costs of having kids in schools. Paying the new schoolkids bonus twice a year means that families will have upfront support to help meet educational expenses rather than receiving a payment, if indeed they have claimed it, months after the education expenses are incurred. Paying out the 2011-12 education tax refund in full to all eligible families in June also means families do not have to keep receipts or make a claim for a refund at the end of the current financial year. Who in this chamber can argue that any family with a school-aged child is not expending the amounts involved here? It would be laughable for the opposition to suggest that any family with a child in any school is not incurring educational costs within the scope of the level of this allowance.
These changes mean that one million families will receive more money than they did under the education tax refund last year. As we know, and indeed as the general public knows—it is not being hidden; the opposition knows; anyone who reads contemporary newspapers knows—80 per cent of families did not previously claim either the full amount or any amount under the education tax refund. Think about that: 80 per cent of families are not benefiting from the current arrangements. This is where it is really strange: the opposition is seeking to block one million Australian families from receiving a payment in a more accessible way to meet the educational costs of schoolchildren.
We had Mr Hockey say, today I think, that for the baby bonus you need a baby. Well, certainly, for this entitlement the family needs a school-aged child—there is no argument on that point. I suggest that for the opposition to say we need to tie this allowance to the actual receipted expenditure does indeed seek to argue that there are Australian families that do not expend the amounts in the allowances that are proposed here. Think about it: $410 and $820. Are you seriously suggesting that Australian families are not expending those amounts to send their school-aged children to school?
Another aspect I think I should highlight is that this measure in that sense is not a shock. It is not a budget sham; it is not a surprise to anyone who has been following these issues. We have had the Ken Henry tax review suggest that we should make these very changes. We have looked at who has been accessing these entitlements and we have seen there is a serious problem. What stuns me, though, is why the opposition cannot see the same, why they would seek to block families from accessing quite reasonable and quite justifiable support in relation to the education costs of their children. There is no stunt; we have demonstrated very clearly there is an issue. The Ken Henry review supported the fact that there is an issue. The recent assessment of who has been claiming this entitlement tells us there is an issue—and, in these measures, we have set up appropriate arrangements to transition to a more sensible arrangement. How the opposition, when they can accept the fact that that is required for family tax benefit and can accept the fact that that is required for childcare assistance, cannot accept the fact that it is required for educational costs is astounding. This new payment will benefit 1.3 million Australian families with 2.2 million kids in primary school and secondary school. This is important legislation for families and I commend this motion to the Senate so that the bill can be passed before we break for budget estimates.
The Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012 is a bill you would expect from this Labor government. There are no surprises there. It is a government that still has not learned any lessons. This government still believes as of today that you can address issues of cost of living—and Senator Collins is right, cost of living is a big issue—by giving a cash handout.
It is cost of education.
that is a cost of living—by giving a cash handout, a sugar hit. That somehow addresses cost-of-living pressures. We on this side know that does not address cost-of-living pressures. The cost-of-living pressures will only go down when the costs of government go down. I am not too good at budget papers but I did have a look at Budget Paper No. 1, statement 10, page 6. I realised that in fact, despite all the rhetoric, the percentage of GDP on this budget, a so-called horror budget, is higher than any other budget Mr Swan has delivered. It was 23.4 in 2008-09, 22 in 2009-10, 21.6 in 2010-11 and 22.3 in 2011-12, and the estimate for 2012-13 is 23.8 per cent of GDP. In other words, the budget keeps getting bigger, as does the cost of government. A sugar hit, a cash handout, goes nowhere near addressing cost-of-living pressures. All this in a time supposedly of austerity.
The only thing this government can grow is the size of government. That is okay; I concede that this government takes its model from western Europe, countries that have been running in western Europe since World War II, and thank God we have not had Labor governments with the same frequency as they have had social democratic governments in western Europe; otherwise we would have the same problem. The only reason Australia does not suffer the shocking budget deficits and systemic debt that western Europe does is that conservative governments in this country won about two out of every three elections since World War II. In western Europe they have won about one out of every three. That is the difference, and that explains the enormous difference in the budget scope for this country.
I do not know how many times I have had to remind the Senate that every time Labor leaves government it leaves Australia further in debt. This is the golden rule, the indelible ink of the Australian Labor Party. Ever since 1901, ever since John Christian Watson's first government in 1904, every time Labor has been in government and has lost, Australia is further in debt. This is the golden rule of Australian politics: the Australian Labor Party always leaves Australia further in debt. There has never been one exception since Federation. Labor always says that jobs are in its DNA. The golden rule of Australian politics is this: Labor always leaves this country further in debt. There has not been one exception since 1901. The DNA of the Australian Labor Party is debt; it always has been and always will be.
My friend Senator Cormann raised before the issue of intergenerational debt. The problem with social democratic parties is that they believe that it is kind and gentle and fair to get subsequent generations to pay the debt of current generations. The Australian Labor Party believes it is okay to ask future generations to pay the debts of current generations, that it is okay to spend money on overpriced school halls. The hard thing is for the government to spend money and get good value. That is the hardest possible thing for a government. This lot has never managed that. Ever since 1901, when Labor loses office Australia is always further in debt. It has always been so and it always will be.
When I was reading the budget projections I came across a graph. I am not very good at budget papers—I was not very good at economics—but something caught my eye and I was somewhat startled by Budget Paper No. 1, statement 3, on page 21. At the top of the page it says:
On current projections the underlying cash surplus is expected to reach 1 per cent of GDP in 2017-18, the same year as projected in MYEFO.
Listen to this. This is the killer sentence:
Net debt is projected to return to zero in 2020-21.
Let me repeat it very slowly:
Net debt is projected to return to zero in 2020-21.
And in Budget Paper No. 1, chart 2, page 22, there is a graph which shows Australia returning to zero net debt in 2021, in about nine years time, when I suppose the member for Dobell will be the Prime Minister. Who, including the Australian Labor Party, thinks that in 2021 there will be no net debt? What are the chances that in eight or nine years time the Australian Labor Party, if they remain in government, will return Australia to no net debt? Does anyone believe that? Does the government even believe that? I suspect not.
The reason is this: the best guide for future performance is always past performance. What do we know about the Australian Labor Party and debt? Ever since Federation, every time Labor leaves office Australia is further in debt. Every time this lot gets in, when it leaves the next generation has more debt to pay off, more interest to pay off—as Senator Joyce said today, more and more interest for the next generation. So much for equity. This government always talks about equity, as do the Greens. What about intergenerational equity? What about generations paying for their own welfare rather than the current generation's? They never talk about intergenerational equity; it is always about fairness at the moment. It is very easy to spend public money but very hard to spend it well. I need not have worried, because in 2021 we are all going to be back to no net debt, in eight years time. But just in case I am wrong—and some might think I am being cynical, and you know, Acting Deputy President, I am not a cynic, but just in case—the government has raised the debt ceiling to $300 billion. Just in case, the debt ceiling has been raised from $250 billion to $300 billion.
You can never be too careful.
That is right. As Senator Joyce says, you cannot be too careful, because we would not want the government to start borrowing more money now, would we? They have never done that before in Australian history, have they? No. Every time they leave office they leave Australia further in debt.
As my colleagues said this afternoon in this debate, the real reason this legislation is being rushed forward, as Senator Cormann put it eloquently before, is to fudge the figures, the sleight of hand, the dodgy budget figures, to bring forward the spending so it does not operate next financial year and upset the government's surplus. That is the truth.
That couldn't be!
No; that is the truth. Secondly, it is to distract families from the imposition of the carbon tax on 1 July. I tell you what: this sugar hit will not have any impact compared to the ongoing and systematic impact of a carbon tax. This government wants to somehow distract Australian families from the cost of the carbon tax. It was funny last night listening to the Treasurer, Mr Swan; I was listening in my room, and I think the phrase 'carbon pricing' was used once. Is that right? I think that is right. Carbon pricing was mentioned once by Mr Swan in his budget address. And yet that is truly the elephant in the room.
It is the centrepiece.
That is the centrepiece, as Senator Cormann has just interjected. On the government's own figures, it is nearly a $25 billion tax over the forward estimates. So this is not some minor issue; this is all about cost of living. This schoolkids bonus will not come anywhere near touching cost of living over the long term, not at all. The great tragedy for our nation is that this government has decided to introduce a carbon tax—the world's largest carbon tax, as Senator Joyce always reminds me—in a country with a comparative advantage in the export of energy and minerals. I cannot imagine any country actually unilaterally imposing in effect a tariff on itself to make its goods and services more expensive. I cannot imagine what is even worse: a country such as Australia, with a comparative advantage in the export of energy, doing it.
My colleagues no doubt are tired of me saying this; they have heard me make this argument so often. My colleagues say that the great dishonesty was the Prime Minister's not warning Australians that she would introduce a carbon tax. Sure, that was dishonest, but I think the greater lie, the far more worrying lie, is this: the government has always argued that, irrespective of what any other nation on earth does, the unilateral imposition of this carbon tax by our country is in our national interest. That to me is the greatest lie of all. This lot have said from the beginning, following Professor Garnaut's report, that, irrespective of what any other nation on earth does—even if no other nation prices carbon—it is in our national interest to price carbon.
To have the world's largest carbon tax.
Indeed, to have the world's largest carbon tax. That might be madness for a country in western Europe that does not export energy and minerals, but, for a country with a huge comparative advantage such as Australia, it will have an enormous impact on the cost of living and the cost of our exports over the forward estimates and over the next generation or two. That to me is the great failure in public policy of the Australian Labor Party and this Labor government. That is the great failure. Okay, the Prime Minister was dishonest, but that is only half the dishonesty. The dishonesty is to impose this tax on our people, on the Australian people, when other nations are not doing it, and in any case arguing that its unilateral imposition is in the interests of Australians. That to me is the greatest farce, the greatest lie, of all.
The carbon tax is being imposed in a world where Greece is in turmoil. I understand they have even had communists and neo-Nazis being re-elected to parliament in Greece. That is helpful, isn't it! And, in France, there is a new socialist President who is against austerity. That no doubt will help the stock market and help western Europe get back to normal! Even in the United States, there are enormous difficulties. The Western world is facing enormous economic challenges, and this lot believe it is in our national interest to unilaterally impose a carbon tax to make our industry less competitive. They believe that, even when the rest of the world is in turmoil, it is in our national interest to impose unilaterally a carbon tax to make our industry, our employees, our workers, less competitive. That is a great argument, isn't it! No other nation on earth buys that argument. The only people that buy that argument are the Australian Labor Party and the Greens. No-one else buys that argument, and somehow the Australian people have to suffer because of it. No-one other than the Australian Labor Party and the Greens believes that you can unilaterally impose this carbon tax and it will be in our national interest. They know it will drive up the cost of our exports, they know it will make our industry less competitive and they will do it, irrespective of what any other nation on earth does. That to me is the greatest lie in this debate over the last 2½ years, by far.
What is the answer to the cost-of-living pressures that will follow on from the carbon tax? What is the government's answer? The government's answer to the cost-of-living pressures is a schoolkids bonus.
That'll fix it!
Yeah, that'll fix it! If the government gives you a schoolkids bonus, that will somehow address the cost-of-living pressures on families. Yeah, that'll fix it! Great! That is the Australian Labor Party's very cunning public policy. Isn't that wonderful! As if somehow Australian families will benefit sufficiently from that. We know electricity prices have gone up by 60 per cent in the last five years. A sugar hit, a schoolkids bonus, will not match that. But of course this government has not got anything else to proffer. It is the old story: flash a bauble, flash a bit of tinsel, flash anything—take the minds of the electorate off the pain, grab the cash and all the problems will go away. Well, they will not. The Australian people are alive to what Labor is up to. It did take a while, but they are now.
This carbon tax is toxic. The cost-of-living pressures that it will bring are considerable, and the Australian people know, no matter what compensation—such as this schoolkids bonus—is offered, it will not address the fundamental problem, and that is this: the carbon tax will make Australian industry less competitive. That is it in a sentence. It will make Australian industry less competitive. Costs must go up. It will make our exports more expensive. It will make us less competitive in relation to the rest of the world. That is a fact. And they are doing it to a country which is built on exporting energy. Why would you do that? Why would you make it harder for a kid to get a job? Why would you do that? Why would you make it harder for our exporters to export? Why would you do that? Well, this lot have done that. That has been the outcome of their policies.
After all this time debating the carbon tax—God, it seems like forever; two or three years—we are still debating it, and our side will never give up. The carbon tax is wrong, and no schoolkids bonus will answer that. No sugar hit is ever going to wipe away the stain of a tax that makes Australia a less competitive country, that makes it harder for our kids to get jobs. We will never, ever let the Labor Party get away with it.
I know the legislation has gone through, but, when we get in, we will take it back. As Mr Abbott says, if necessary we will go to a double dissolution. We will do whatever we do not because it is the Labor Party's legislation but because the carbon tax is not in our national interest. This lot have never, ever made the case that the carbon tax is in the national interest. That is a debate they lost. They won the election on a lie, and the debate in this chamber was lost by the Labor Party. They could never, ever justify the fact that the prices of our goods would go up and Australia would become less competitive. No amount of compensation, no schoolkids bonus, no other shiny, flashy baubles, will ever—
On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: I have allowed the senator some wide latitude, but the point does need to be made that these measures are not a carbon tax compensation measure. I ask you to bring him to the point or to be relevant to the motion.
There is no point of order.
This is not a schoolkids bonus budget measure; this is a carbon tax offset. That is what this is. This is to somehow distract Australians and make them think, 'We have a generous government which gives us this money for the cost of schoolkids.'
Let me conclude with one final point. No matter what compensation they give, no matter how many schoolkids bonuses they give, this pernicious tax will make it harder for Australian kids to get jobs, will make it harder to export and will lead to a fall in our standard of living.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question on the substantive motion, which is government motion No.1, be put.
The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.
I table a statement of reasons relating to the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012 and seek leave to have a statement incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2012 WINTER SITTINGS
FAMILY ASSISTANCE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SCHOOLKIDS BONUS BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2012
Purpose of the Bill
This Bill will deliver new assistance to families to help with the costs of their child’s education. This new payment – the schoolkids bonus – is a 2012-13 Budget measure that will replace the education tax refund paid through the taxation system.
The Bill will:
Reasons for Urgency
Urgent passage is needed for this Bill so the Australian Taxation Office can reflect the changes to the tax law for 2011-12 in the materials that more than 12 million Australians use to do their tax returns. The tax materials for 2011-12 needs to be finalised by 15 May 2012, so changes to the Education Tax Rebate need to be decided by then.
The Department of Human Services also needs to finalise system requirements to ensure delivery of the one-off ETR payments to families by end June 2012.
The Gillard government's budget is indeed a budget of cooked books, with the toxic carbon tax as its centrepiece and with yet more debt. Before I make any observations about last night's budget, let me make this observation about what has just happened in the Senate. When it comes to spending taxpayers' money as fast as possible, this Labor government has no shame. This Labor government has no shame when it comes to getting taxpayers' dollars out the door as quickly as possible. What just happened is the first step, the first instalment, in executing Labor's cooking of the books. What just happened was all about helping this dodgy Labor government deceive the Australian people, make the Australian people believe that somehow there will be a genuine surplus in 2012-13, when of course when it is all said and done there is certainly no prospect of there being anything near a budget surplus delivered by this Labor government.
This budget does nothing to strengthen our economy in the face of serious economic storm clouds on the global horizon. In fact it does not cut spending and it does increase taxes, and of course it lifts the debt ceiling yet again to $300 billion. And of course it does impose the world's largest carbon tax on the Australian people—a tax which we were promised we would not get, which will push up the cost of living, which will make Australia less competitive internationally, which will increase the cost of doing business in Australia, which will cost jobs and which will impose all those economic sacrifices on the people of Australia without doing anything whatsoever to reduce emissions either on a global level or here in Australia.
In the budget tabled by the Treasurer last night there is no consistent economic strategy and there is no specific focus on increasing our productivity and international competitiveness. It was a traditional Labor budget—a budget with more spending, more taxes and more debt. The government this time around promised that it would deliver a surplus in 2012-13. Minister Shorten this morning was getting a bit ahead of himself—he was already saying at a breakfast with about 600 accountants that the government had delivered a surplus, that the budget was now back in surplus. Of course I had to remind Minister Shorten this morning, as I remind Labor senators in this chamber, that, no, this government has not delivered a surplus; this government has not got the budget back into surplus—all this government has done is promise a surplus, because right now we are of course in a massive deficit situation.
Let me talk for a moment about what we do know about where our public finances are at. We know that in this financial year, according to the budget tabled last night, our deficit will be $44.4 billion. That is quite staggering. There are still six weeks to go in this financial year, so who knows how much more spending they can rack up on the nation's credit card in this last six weeks. I just reflect on the fact that when this government went to the last election, when it released its pre-election economic and fiscal outlook, we were told that the deficit this financial year would be $10.4 billion—and $10.4 billion is already a very serious deficit. It is clearly evidence of a government that does not know how to live within its means, that does not know how to manage money, that does not know how to manage public finances carefully; $10.4 billion is a very serious deficit in anyone's imagination.
Within three months of that statement having been made by the Labor Party before the last election, the deficit for this financial year had gone to $12.3 billion and by the time of the budget last year it was a deficit of $22.6 billion. By the time of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, just before Christmas last year, it was a deficit of $37.1 billion, and now it is going to be a staggering deficit of $44.4 billion. That is a blow-out in the deficit for this financial year of more than $34 billion since the last election. How can anyone take seriously what this government says when it tries to make us believe that somehow in 2012-13 it will deliver a wafer-thin surplus of $1.5 billion. Of course it will not.
The government has used every accounting trick in the book to make it look like it will deliver a surplus in 2012-13. It has shifted expenditure from 2012-13 to 2011-12. Shifting expenditure for next financial year into this financial year is not a spending cut in 2012-13—it is cooking the books to create the illusion that there will be a surplus, to make people believe something that is not there, to deceive the Australian people yet again. People across Australia understand that this is what is being done. People across Australia are not being fooled by this. People across Australia know that this is a government that over the last four budgets has delivered $174 billion worth of accumulated deficits. People across Australia know that this government inherited a strong budget position. This government inherited a budget with no government net debt and with a $22 billion surplus. The government inherited a budget position where we had invested $60 billion in accumulated surpluses in the Future Fund, in order to cover the expense of future Public Service superannuation liabilities. And what has this reckless, incompetent, weak, divided and dysfunctional government done? They have been spending like drunken sailors. They have not been able to balance the books in a single budget so far when they have had to deliver a budget outcome, despite having benefited from the best terms of trade in 140 years and despite having imposed more than 20 new and ad hoc taxes on the people of Australia.
This is not the only thing the Labor Party have done to cook the books. They have done the shifting of spending from this year into next year, rather than cut spending. They have also done the typical Labor Party trick where they have included the most optimistic revenue growth forecasts in 25 years. This Treasurer has a habit of making overly optimistic revenue growth forecasts. To take you back a couple of months to the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook just before Christmas, the government downgraded their GDP growth forecasts and, at the same time, they massively upgraded the expectation of revenue from company tax receipts. Of course it did not make sense and, sure enough, what happened? The revenue did not come in according to expectations. The revenue was lower than expectations because the Treasurer's expectations were wildly excessive and wildly overoptimistic. And when that eventually came out the Treasurer threw his hands up in the air and said, 'The revenue's been falling away. The revenue is not what we thought it would be.' Of course it was never going to be and a prudent government, a government that manages our public finances properly plans for this.
So what has the government done in this budget? The government wants us to believe that between this year and next year government revenue will increase by a staggering 11.8 per cent or $39 billion. The government wants us to believe that revenue will increase to about $369 billion, even though the terms of trade have been downgraded to 5¾ per cent and even though our GDP growth is still expected to be only 3¼ per cent. We have not seen this sort of revenue growth in more than 25 years. At that time we were experiencing significantly stronger growth in the terms of trade.
There is much I could say about this budget but let me conclude by saying this. This is a typical Labor budget. It is a spend, tax, high-debt budget. It is a budget for which generations of Australians will have to pay for many years to come. Of course, already in this budget many Australians are being asked to pay the price for the reckless and wasteful spending of this bad Labor administration over the last four and a bit years.
This matter of public importance this evening is a perfect irony because it mentions the words 'cooked books'. Who wrote the book on accounting tricks? Who made an art form of fiddling the figures? Who are the patrons of nobbling the numbers in this country? If you go to the encyclopaedia and look up the term 'cooked books', four words appear—'Liberal Party of Australia'. That is the definition in the encyclopaedia of 'cooked books'. Some people may say I am taking a partisan critical view of the Liberal Party and that is understandable. I am not the biggest advocate of Liberal Party policies, I must say. But do not take it from me; take it from the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the independent body established by the accounting profession in this country to self-regulate accountants and auditors, to ensure that the people of Australia can trust and have faith in accounting, in accounting practices and in accounting firms.
What was the view of the Institute of Chartered Accountants regarding the Liberal Party of Australia and their election costings? Their view was simple. They fined the Liberal Party of Australia's accountants $5,000 each—two partners—for breaches of professional standards. One may ask how this situation came about. How did it come to pass that the Liberal Party of Australia's accountants received fines for breaches of professional standards? It is quite simple. They received fines because they agreed to audit the Liberal Party of Australia's election costings at the 2010 election. They agreed to produce a work of fiction, to produce a fantasy, to dress it up as reality. In fact, they were hoodwinked by Joe Hockey, they were hoodwinked by Andrew Robb and they were hoodwinked by the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott.
It is incumbent upon me to explain the circumstances under which the Liberal Party of Australia received these fines from the Institute of Chartered Accountants. At the last election, when it came time to submit their election costings to Treasury—a process which they are again opposing and refusing to do for the people of Australia—they came up $11 billion short. It was not $11 million, it was not $111 million, it was not $1 billion but $11 billion. There was an $11 billion black hole in their election costings.
Can you imagine it if a large corporation, if a managed investment scheme, if a superannuation trust produced accounts that were $11 billion in the red and tried to dress them up as if they had balanced the books? Any shareholder, any investor, any superannuation member would be livid, they would be angry. Importantly, they would want the person to be prosecuted. What was the view of Andrew Robb prior to the last election when the process of submitting election costings was criticised by the government, by Treasury and by the media? As the shadow finance minister, Andrew Robb's comment was, talking about their accountants:
If they make a mistake with the auditing of accounts for companies or prospectuses or mislead, they are at risk of being punished and going to jail.
They nearly did. The Liberal Party of Australia's accountants nearly went to jail because they teamed up with the Liberal Party and attempted to dress up these figures which were shown not to be election costings and say that they were an audited set of accounts. What did the Institute of Chartered Accountants find in respect of the fictional work produced by the Liberal Party? They imposed the fines on the Liberal Party's accountants because their costings of coalition policies failed to contain 'a statement that the procedures performed do not constitute either an audit or a review'. That was the view of the independent Institute of Chartered Accountants, the body set up by the accounting profession to self-regulate and ensure that the Australian people have trust and confidence in audited accounts in this country. The Liberal Party failed. The Liberal Party let down the people of Australia.
Prior to that they were saying that the people of Australia can have trust and confidence in their accounts, that the Liberal Party's figures can be trusted. In fact, Joe Hockey, the shadow Treasurer at the time said:
You know what? If the fifth-biggest accounting firm in Australia signs off on our numbers it is a brave person to start saying there are accounting tricks. I tell you it is audited. This is an audited statement.'
They were the words of the shadow Treasurer of Her Majesty's opposition. Then of course the independent Institute of Chartered Accountants found that to be a lie, found that to be a furphy, found that to be a work of fiction. It was not the case at all. The Liberal Party managed to convince—probably reluctantly—a poor firm of small business people, accountants, to sign off on a set of accounts that obviously were not audited books. This is the approach that those opposite take to our nation's finances. They come in here and have the hide and the temerity to criticise this government for delivering a budget surplus, for delivering a set of social programs and for delivering a pathway to economic growth that is fully costed and covered by the revenues in the forward estimates. They claim to be an alternative government, when in reality they are not.
Do not take it from me. Take it from Laura Tingle, writing in the Financial Review on 3 September 2010, in response to this trickery by those opposite in seeking to produce audited accounts to the Australian public in 2010. She said:
… they are liars and clunkheads.
But whatever the combination, they are not fit to govern.
That was the view of Laura Tingle, writing in the Financial Review in 2010 in the wake of this trickery by the Liberal Party of Australia in trying to deceive the Australian public into believing that their election costings would balance the books. Now they are trying to fit up the Australian public again. They come in here and criticise this government for producing a balanced budget, for producing costings covering all of the expenditure items in the forward year and the forward estimates, but they will not indicate to the Australian people how they intend to fund any of these reckless promises that they are making in their election commitments.
We find, through leaks from the shadow cabinet, that they are planning $70 billion worth of cuts to programs and services in this country. I believe, as a representative of New South Wales, that the people of my state have the right to know how the alternative government in this country is going to meet that $70 billion cut in services. Where will the cuts come from? Perhaps some of those opposite who speak after me can enlighten the Senate and the Australian public: which programs are you intending to cut from the federal budget? Will it be the childcare rebate? Will it be the increases to superannuation and retirement incomes that are programmed as part of this government's commitment to retirement incomes and workers? Will it be the increases in the pensions that are foreshadowed in this budget? Will it be the family tax benefit increases that are a crucial part of this federal government's budget? Why won't they and why can't they explain to the Australian people what cuts they are going to make to services and programs in our economy?
When the Leader of the Opposition replies to the budget on Thursday evening, we will get the same trickery, the same platitudes, the same rhetoric about being able to balance the budget, to deliver all these programs that they are promising whilst at the same time getting rid of the minerals resource rent tax and removing the carbon-pricing legislation yet somehow managing to meet their commitment to reduce carbon emissions in our economy by five per cent. Quite simply, they are not fit to manage our economy. They are not fit to manage the local corner store, let alone a $330 billion economy, with the faith and trust of the Australian people.
This week the Labor government delivered the budget, and it is a solid financial and economic management process to manage our economy back to a system of long-term growth, a system that will ensure that, as we reach that long-term growth trajectory, we do so in a non-inflationary manner, we do so by protecting jobs and we do so by promoting investment in our economy. The budget sets out a $1.5 billion surplus over this year, growing to $7.5 billion by 2015-16—again a process of transition to growth over a period of time coming off the back of the write-down in revenue that occurred because of the global financial crisis.
Our policies will iron out the ripples in industry composition of growth, ensuring that the right conditions are in place for non-mining sectors to share in the growth of the minerals boom. We are doing this of course through the minerals resource rent tax, diverting some of the superprofits that are made by these companies back into retirement incomes, into rural and regional infrastructure and into support for small businesses.
In this budget there is plenty of support for small business. From 2012-13 companies will be able to carry back tax losses of up to $1 million so they can get a refund against the tax that they have previously paid. From 1 July they will be able to immediately write off capital equipment expenditure in a particular year up to the value of $6,500. That is met with an instant write-off on vehicles up to the value of $5,000 in the year 2012-13. We have got an agreement through COAG to reduce red tape and we are working through that process with the various state governments. And of course we are rolling out the National Broadband Network, which will see improvements in productivity and ways of doing business in this country.
Last week I was fortunate to travel to Luke Hartsuyker's electorate of Cowper on the North Coast, where I met with representatives of Coffs Harbour City Council. They were telling me how overwhelmingly supportive they were of the Labor Party's program to roll out the NBN. They could not wait for the NBN to come to the North Coast of New South Wales. They get it: they see the advantages that will come in investment. Already, creative industries are beginning to set up in the Coffs Harbour area, in that local government area. Finally, when they have the NBN, those businesses will be able to thrive because they will not have to be based in Sydney. They will have the broadband capacity to send digital files that are produced in those regional areas to Sydney and to Melbourne. They see the job creation opportunities. They have produced a program called Coffs Connect, and they are ready. They are ready to sign up and be part of this revolution that will occur in the digital economy in Australia because of the National Broadband Network. They understand the productivity improvements that will be made because of this important economic program.
The budget contains a wealth of support for families over the coming 12 months and in the forward estimates. The family tax benefit A will be increased from 1 July 2013. That will benefit 1.1 million families in this country. The supplementary allowance will increase by $210 for singles and by $350 for couples. The schoolkids bonus, which we are just about to debate in this chamber, will provide much-needed relief for parents as they meet the costs of sending their kids to school. There are tax cuts for families. There is an increase in the tax-free threshold from $6,000 to $18,000. There are increases in pensions programmed in from 1 July this year. As well as that we are meeting our commitment to deliver a national disability insurance scheme. We are boosting the amount of funding going to aged care and increasing the number of aged-care places in our economy as our population ages.
We are continuing our investments in rural and regional infrastructure in this country. We are pushing up retirement incomes and of course we are doing this in the context of growing our economy.
We are getting towards the middle of the year, towards Christmas in July. There are only three things I wish for Christmas in July. Wish No. 1 is for the Labor Party to keep Julia Gillard as the Prime Minister. They must keep Julia Gillard as the Prime Minister. Wish No. 2 is that the carbon tax must remain the Labor Party's central plank, their central policy. Wish No. 3 is that they must continue to tell people that having $300 billion hocked up on the nation's credit card is not a problem. If I can have all three wishes, I will be a happy person but will not be in opposition for much longer. The only thing I could think of that would be better than that is if they were to make Craig Thomson Australian of the Year, but I do not think that is going to happen. This is really a statement about the complete financial ineptitude of this government and showing the Australian people just how ludicrous it has become.
I woke up this morning and heard that France has elected a socialist Prime Minister who is going to remove himself from the austerity measures that had been negotiated, and therefore the whole austerity plan in Europe is looking like it is going to fall over. I found out that Greece is one step worse—they do not even appear to really have a government at this current time. And the Germans do not seem too keen to keep on bailing people out. Then I read in our own budget papers that we are talking about an 11 per cent increase in our revenue streams. This is marvellous! It is a heroic outcome! Then we see that, as always, they are trying to sneak through the debt. It is easy for people to understand that, if you owe money, you must pay it back. There are no tricks to this. I tried. I thought: 'Maybe I should give them the benefit of the doubt. Today I will ask the finance minister of the Commonwealth of Australia a very simple question that any person who has any basic understanding of commerce and finance would understand, which is: what is your peak debt position?' Any person working in a bank will tell you that that is a fundamental question for any credit paper: what is the peak debt position? The minister's answer is there for posterity. You can watch it any time you want. It is the most agonising three minutes of film you will ever see—Penny Wong trying to answer the most basic fundamental question. A loan officer in a bank would be able to answer, but the finance minister of the Commonwealth of Australia could not.
Why are we giving ourselves a $300 billion overdraft? Why are we getting a $300 billion credit limit? These people who cannot answer the most basic question always run to something else. They said: 'It is not the gross debt, you see. It is the net debt.' It is so easy to fix it—change three simple letters and everything is better. I am curious. I am a very curious person, so I thought I would have a look. I thought: 'Here is our gross debt position. It is $274.231 billion.' You can buy a few Smarties for that. Our net debt was $143.345 billion. That is where they have latched on to it. I thought, 'We have to drill down through this to find out where this figure comes from.' I followed their accountancy statements and went up to the notes where they give the calculation that net debt equals the sum of deposits held, government securities, loans and other borrowings minus the sum of cash deposits, advances paid, investments, loans and placements.
I thought 'loans and placements' was interesting and I wondered how much we had there. There was over $100 billion in loans and placements. I thought I had better start digging through that and see what was going on there. I thought, 'Let's find out what is happening in loans and placements.' So I went and found it in their notes—$107 billion. It is made up of $30.6 billion of investments and deposits. Okay, I will grant you that. You can have that. Book it. There is an IMF quota of $8.8 billion. Well, I do not know about that. I thought I would have a close look at that. Then we have the other one—$68.3 billion of 'other'. It is like sundries. They have said: 'These are other things we do not quite know about, so we will just bang them under "other". If we bang them under "other" no-one will ask. No-one will ever inquire.' What is this 'other'? If this 'other' has $68.3 billion in it, you should grab some of that 'other' and put it in your account. Then you will not have to extend your overdraft limit. Problem solved. If this 'other' is there and the net debt is correct then grab some of the 'other' and put it in your account and therefore you will not have to increase the overdraft to $300 billion. But I think you will find you actually cannot grab that 'other' because it stands for 'other people's money'—predominantly public servant superannuants—and they do not like the idea of you using their money to pay off your debt.
This is the most dangerous thing. A Prime Minister can be fixed. We can forget about Craig Thomson. We can close our eyes and Peter Slipper disappears. When we get to government we will get rid of the carbon tax. But the debt—
Senator Joyce, I understand you are referring to members of the other chamber, so I am just going to remind you that one of those people does happen to be the Speaker of the House. I would just remind you about using their correct titles.
I accept your admonishment, Madam Acting Deputy President. You are dead right: Mr Slipper is the Speaker of the House. How could we forget that? Who put him there, pray tell? There is a question for the kiddies: who made Peter Slipper the Speaker? Let's think about it. It would have been Julia Gillard.
That is the Prime Minister.
Yes, the Prime Minister—
Senator Joyce, I am reminding you that no matter who you refer to in the House of Representatives they have a title to be used.
Mr Peter Slipper is definitely the Speaker of the House. I agree. Mr Peter Slipper, the member for Fisher, is definitely the Speaker of the House and he was most definitely nominated and put there by the Australian Labor Party, whose Prime Minister is Ms Julia Gillard. What a marvellous decision that was by her!
If you are going to believe any person in accountancy or finance the only thing you can judge them by is their track record and their capacity for accuracy—how much of what they say becomes fact. Two years ago the government said that this year we would have a deficit and that we would be out the back door by $13 billion. That was a very bad outcome, so we were worried about that. But they told us about the sunny out plans of fiscal rectitude. They told us better days were ahead. They told us that after they put in place the carbon tax and had taken Jerusalem things would get better. But the next year things got worse. The next year they said that this year it would get much worse, that we would be out the back door by $22 billion. So they basically got close to doubling the figure in their previous statement. They were almost 100 per cent wrong. But we have had some consistency because the next year—this year—we find they are out the back door by $44.4 billion. So there is a consistency here. They are generally 100 per cent wrong one year out. So whatever they have said about the surplus next year, if they follow the trend—and the Treasurer talks about things following trends; he is a very trendy guy—they will be 100 per cent wrong next year as well.
I will take bets with any person who wants to tell me that they will have a $1.5 billion surplus even after they have cooked the books, because they are so totally incompetent that the only thing you can rely on is them being wrong. If this was a credit paper, it would get kicked out the door. You would get absolutely assassinated by the credit bureau. If you worked for them, they would say to you, 'You will lose your job if you keep presenting rubbish like this.' I remember an old boss of mine, Mr Muntz. He would have written all over it what an absurd proposition has been brought up.
Now we have these other mad things. We have all these things wandering off in the capital account, wandering off the balance sheet. The NBN is the classic one. Pray tell: do you honestly believe it is worth what you are borrowing for it? If it is not, shouldn't you be booking a provision for the loss? Do you think you can flog this white elephant off for the $50 billion we are going to borrow to build it? There is not a chance. If it is such a good deal, why aren't you just issuing NBN bonds? NBN would stand for 'next budget nightmare'. NBN bonds are what you should be issuing. If it is such a great proposition the market would love them and go and buy them. But it is not. No-one who is sane would buy an NBN bond, so it is coming through Australian government securities. The reason they would not buy one is that it would not be worth it. Our debt is going through the roof and, as Bill Mortley, my first boss in accounting, told me about this, if you did not laugh you would cry because it is so totally and utterly out of control. But we have to pay it back— (Time expired)
I rise to speak on this MPI because it provides a good opportunity to put on record the positive benefits that will come out of this federal budget for the Australian nation and for Australia's people and to refute some of the claims put forward by Senator Joyce and those opposite, who continue to run a negative campaign that does not serve them well let alone Australians and certainly does not highlight the fact that this budget very much provides a positive benefit for so many Australians throughout our community. Why is that? It is because this budget is about spreading the benefits of the boom to all corners of our country by delivering a much-needed new financial relief to families and businesses who may be feeling under pressure at this time. We of course are returning the budget to surplus in that process. In doing so, we will provide a buffer in the uncertain global times that may lie ahead and give the Reserve Bank room to cut interest rates, which is another thing that will be very much welcomed by Australian families.
Not only are we delivering a surplus, despite various revenue losses; we are delivering reforms which will make our economy stronger, make our community stronger and provide for a much fairer society. Some of those reforms are groundbreaking reforms. They are Labor reforms. They include the first historic steps towards a national disability insurance scheme, something that is so welcomed by so many in the community sector, including those living with disability and their families and friends. On top of that of course is the much-needed aged-care reform to help senior Australians stay in their homes. That is very much welcomed by those in my state of Tasmania, which has Australia's fastest-ageing population. There is also a big investment in dental care, to deliver a blitz on our public dental waiting lists. That is very much welcomed by those in my home state, as it is by people across the country. As we know, the public dental waiting list has become quite long since the time that the Howard government scrapped the Commonwealth dental scheme. There is a huge investment in our health system, featuring 76 major projects in regional Australia. That is important and welcome for those in the health sector and for those who need to access it. This of course is all part of Labor's commitment to manage the economy responsibly in the interest of working Australians, not just the fortunate few.
There is something in this budget for just about everyone, but I am pleased to see the creation of a National Children's Commissioner. That is an important federal policy that looks to our responsibility to look after children who may be at risk. The National Children's Commissioner will have a broader role in the interests of children and children's policy in this country.
There are a number of other areas that will have benefits for the community. I am pleased to see that SBS has received funding additional to its base government funding over the next four years. There will be something like a 27 per cent increase in funding for SBS, which is important for that national broadcaster. SBS has also received funding to enable it to launch a new national free-to-air Indigenous television service, which will be so welcome to everybody in our nation, not just those of Indigenous background. It will be important in enabling the next generation to understand the culture of our first Australians.
Also in the budget were new, reduced limits on the amount of cigarettes and tobacco that people are allowed to bring into Australia. This is an important complement to some of the tobacco measures that have passed through the parliament. We take seriously the issue of tobacco related illness. Because of that, inbound travellers, who presently are able to bring in something like 250 cigarettes or 250 grams of cigars and tobacco products tax free, will from 1 September this year be able to bring in only 50 cigarettes or 50 grams of cigars. That very much complements our antismoking strategy, which includes, of course, the world's first plain-packaging legislation, the 2010 increase in tobacco excise, a significant investment in antismoking social-marketing campaigns, the restriction on advertising of tobacco products on the internet and subsidised nicotine replacement therapies and other support measures to help people quit smoking and discourage people from taking up the habit. We have done that, and the results are very positive. Something like 15.1 per cent of people aged 14 years and over smoke—that is a 2010 figure—as opposed to 30.5 per cent in 1988. Nevertheless, something like 15,000 Australians die from a smoking related disease every year, so there is still much work to be done.
This government's budget is really about sharing the benefits of the mining boom. It is about recognising that a fair go is not just a quintessentially Labor value but a founding principle of this nation. When the colonies came together to form this nation in 1901 they did so on the understanding that a Commonwealth should always mean exactly that: that the wealth and prosperity created in this country is common to all of us. In Australia we manage that wealth through a process of horizontal fiscal equalisation. This principle recognises that not all states have an equal revenue base. Right now, some states like WA and, potentially, Queensland are flush with mining revenue. They have the right minerals and are taking them out of the ground at the right time. Others, like Tasmania, rely on long-term industries such as manufacturing that are facing unprecedented issues such as the extraordinarily high Australian dollar and changes to freight and shipping conditions out of our state. All states should be able to provide a decent standard of care, and the Commonwealth exists to support states during those times.
That is why Mr Abbott's recent calls for the GST to be distributed on a per capita basis are an attack on Australian values and, in particular, on smaller states such as Tasmania. Tasmanian Liberal senators should be embarrassed by their leader's position. They have been incredibly quiet in relation to their leader's position on the GST. They probably are incredibly embarrassed and probably have been called by various constituents on the fact that they are not standing up for Tasmania and Tasmania's fair share of the distribution of GST.
We know that on 2 May, when visiting Western Australia, Mr Abbott responded to the campaign started by WA Premier Colin Barnett and recently joined by other Liberal premiers to change the GST allocation. In the estimation of these Liberal premiers, the policy of horizontal fiscal equalisation that has served Australia and their own states so well in difficult times, such as times of industry infancy when boom towns were gloom towns, is no longer good enough. Conveniently, it is not good enough right now when Liberal governments are reaping the benefits of the mining boom, but it was fine in 2006-07 when WA was a net beneficiary of the HFE policy. Never one to miss out on a short-term political grab, Mr Abbott said to his Western Australian audience that he was sympathetic to Mr Barnett's argument and that the current distribution of the GST needed to more closely reflect an arrangement based on population. That would clearly disadvantage the smaller states, which, naturally, have a narrow revenue base.
The federal Labor government will not disadvantage smaller states. It believes in the common wealth of this nation. It has provided a budget that does very much spread the benefits of the boom to all corners of our country by delivering to our families and businesses under pressure much-needed new financial relief that is very much welcomed by them.
I only have a minute, but you only need a minute to talk about this budget. The budget has no coherent economic strategy to deliver stronger economic growth, sustainable budget surpluses and to tackle debt. What has happened is that the Labor government is on its knees seeking forgiveness from the Australian people over the carbon tax. That explains why it has broken a number of promises in order to deliver a further families package to try to take people's focus off the carbon tax. In the whole speech there was only one reference to the carbon price. People out there are asking, 'Doesn't the government still stand for the carbon tax?' No, they could not mention the name but they had to mention the extra compensation they are now trying to promote in the community in order to assuage the anger of people out there about the carbon tax.
In the course of doing that they have had to break further promises around company tax, foreign aid, our defence forces, flip-flopping on the business carry-back of losses— (Time expired)
Order! I have received letters from party leaders requesting changes in the membership of committees.
I seek leave to move a motion to vary the membership of committees so that Senator Smith can go on a plethora of new committees. I note he will be joining the august ranks of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I am sure he will treasure.
Leave granted.
I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees in accordance with the document circulated in the chamber.
The list read as follows—
Community Affairs Legislation Committee —
Appointed––Senator Smith
Communi ty Affairs References Committee—
Appointed––Senator Smith
Economics Legislation Committee––
Appointed––
Substitute members:
Senator Sherry to replace Senator Bishop for the consideration of the 2012-13 Budget estimates from 28 May to 1 June 2012
Senator Gallacher to replace Senator Urquhart for the consideration of the 2012-13 Budget estimates from 28 May to 30 May 2012, and on 1 June 2012
Senator Furner to replace Senator Urquhart for the consideration of the 2012-13 Budget estimates on 31 May 2012
Participating member: Senator Smith
Economics References Committee––
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Smith
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee––
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Smith
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee––
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Smith
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee––
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Smith
Environment and Communications References Committee––
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Smith
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee––
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Smith
Finance and Public Administration References Committee––
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Smith
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee––
Appointed––
Substitute members:
Senator Singh to replace Senator Bishop for the consideration of the 2012-13 Budget estimates from 28 May to 31 May 2012
Senator Cameron to replace Senator Stephens for the consideration of the 2012-13 Budget estimates from 28 May to 31 May 2012
Participating member: Senator Smith
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee––
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Smith
Law Enforcement—Joint Statutory Committee––
Discharged––Senator Wright
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee––
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Smith
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee––
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Smith
Procedure Committee––
Appointed––Senator Kroger
Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee––
Appointed––Senator Smith
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee––
Appointed––
Substitute member:
Senator McEwen to replace Senator Urquhart till 30 June 2012
Participating members: Senators Smith and Urquhart
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee––
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Smith
Selection of Bills—Standing Committee––
Appointed––Senator Bushby
Senators' Interests—Standing Committee––
Appointed––Senator Kroger
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee––
Appointed––Senator Smith.
Question agreed to.
I rise to speak about the legacy of asbestos in this country and in relation to some recent movements on this issue. I last spoke in this place about this deadly carcinogen during Asbestos Awareness Week, in November. At that time I spoke about the launch of a new parliamentary group for asbestos related disease, as well as the newly identified problem of exposure to asbestos through home renovations, and the obligations of renovation TV programs to raise awareness regarding the safe removal of asbestos. The Block, a Channel 9 program, recently did just that by running an awareness segment a fortnight ago. I have also been advised by Channel 7's Better Homes and Gardens program that they too take their obligations regarding asbestos awareness seriously and, during previous programs, have also focused on the dangers of this substance. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Better Homes and Gardens and The Block and call on other similar programs to follow their lead.
The problems associated with asbestos in this country are far deeper than just this. I recently travelled to Western Australia to meet with Robert Vojakovic AM, president of the Australian Asbestos Disease Society. It may have been an average working day for the majority of people in Perth, but others focused on ensuring that they had their regular check-up with Dr Greg Deleuil. The waiting room was packed, and these were just a small sample of the thousands of people ADSA had helped over 30 years or more. I had always known that the work of ADSA was enormous, but the true breadth of the support they provide to those living with asbestos related disease hit me when I entered ADSA's Perth premises. There were so many people, so many files of deceased sufferers who had lost their lives way too soon.
The majority of victims of asbestos in Western Australia were exposed to the deadly carcinogen from the mining of blue asbestos at Wittenoom, which is today a ghost town. From the early 1940s until 1966 more than 20,000 people resided at Wittenoom, including nearly 5,000 children. These residents were exposed to the blue asbestos fibres being mined in the region, putting many in the high-risk category of developing lung cancer, malignant mesothelioma, asbestos and other pleural plaques. To date more than 2,000 Wittenoom inhabitants, including both workers and their family members have died from asbestos related disease. This burden of disease is not confined to Wittenoom residents alone. Each year, more than 600 Australians die from asbestos related disease, with this figure not expected to peak until 2020. It is vital that medical researchers continue their search for effective treatments and ultimately a cure.
In a bid to raise much needed funds for such research, just last week Robert, his wife and a team of ADSA supporters walked from Kalgoorlie to Perth in a bid to raise funds for the children of Wittenoom. The walk was the brainchild of Derryn Carnaby, and her motivation was highly personal as both of her parents and two of her brothers died from asbestos related diseases they contracted through exposure at Wittenoom. Over five days the group made the 600-kilometre trek from Kalgoorlie to Perth, something I am told many labelled as just plain crazy. The walkers were greeted by more than 150 people when they completed what is now being known as the ADSA Inaugural Walk.
Upon their arrival at the ADSA headquarters, Robert Vojakovic said: 'So many people think that asbestos is a thing of the past, but it is not. It is in the air we breathe and the houses we live in. People need to be confronted with this knowledge so they can take appropriate steps to protect themselves and their children. Awareness is crucial.'
I was pleased to personally donate to this important cause. Also, ADSA were pleased to receive a message from the Prime Minister in support of their efforts. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Robert, his wife, Rose, and all the volunteers and staff who work so tirelessly in a bid to minimise the impact of asbestos related disease in Western Australia.
Of course, the curse of asbestos goes well beyond our sovereign boundaries. In fact some parts of the South East Asia cannot buy enough asbestos building materials for the development of their towns, villages and cities. Without proper safeguards for workers or regulations for inhabitants, it is like stepping back in time to the 1950s in Australia all over again. Too many countries simply ignore the warnings of the World Health Organisation and the ILO in favour of a cheap building product and of progress. They are condemning so many people to illness and a slow death. It is heartbreaking and frustrating all at once.
The global ban initiative continues, though, from trade unions and activists such as Laurie Kazan-Allen, the coordinator of the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat. I met Ms Allen on her recent visit to Australia. She is an inspirational woman who works tirelessly in pursuit of a global ban on asbestos as well as campaigning for the rights of those affected by asbestos related disease. Ms Kazan-Allen and I spoke about a number of asbestos related matters, including the need for internationally recognised guidelines regarding the diagnoses of asbestos related disease, something I have also raised recently with the Minister for Health, Tanya Plibersek MP.
We also spoke of the recent win for victims of the Eternit company, with an Italian court sentencing the former owner and major shareholder of Enternit, a fibre-cement company in Italy, to 16 years jail each over the negligence shown to workers who died from an asbestos related disease. The trial, which lasted five years, set a precedent around the world and is the biggest trial against a multinational for asbestos related deaths.
The push for a global ban must continue, and I believe Australia is very well placed to lead the international community in such an undertaking. The Australian Labor Party has already committed to the idea of leading international calls for a global treaty to ban the use of, and trade in, asbestos. It suggests we do this by leading diplomatic efforts and by hosting a 'Global Alliance Against Asbestos Conference' here in Australia. The ALP updated its party platform at national conference last year to recognise the legacy asbestos leaves, particularly on vulnerable people in the developing world. As a Western nation in the Asian region I believe Australia should play a mentoring role to our poorer neighbours in sharing the processes which led to the 2003 ban and the regulations we have implemented in this country since that time. How countries such as Canada can continue to mine and export asbestos truly beggars belief.
We must remember that the victims of asbestos related diseases are not just confined to the regions in which this cancerous substance was mined, as it was loaded onto trucks, shipped off through the cities and ports of the country and poured, pressed and mixed into manufacture as well. Asbestos invaded the lives of thousands of Australians far from where it came. Australia has experienced two waves of asbestos related disease. The first was associated with the mining of the substance and manufacturing of asbestos products and the second wave from asbestos use was in industry, mostly in the building and construction industry.
But asbestos related diseases are not limited to the thousands of workers who were exposed before the carcinogenic nature of this substance was known. As I have spoken about previously in this place, we are now seeing a third wave of asbestos related disease, linked to home renovations. The reality of this was highlighted by the recent death of Everest-man Lincoln Hall. Mr Hall, who survived a night on Mount Everest in 2006, minus shelter and appropriate equipment, was exposed to asbestos as a child while helping his father build a cubby house with asbestos sheeting. Mr Hall's death is a stark reminder that asbestos does not discriminate.
Last week, seven directors of a company were found to have committed breaches over the company's asbestos compensation fund. That company, of course, was James Hardie. When the company was moved offshore in 2001 it issued a media release which said a compensation foundation was fully funded and would provide certainty for the victims. The reality of course was very different, as the fund was $1.5 billion short and soon faced bankruptcy. The High Court rejected the arguments of the directors, who claimed they had not approved a statement issued to the Stock Exchange before the company moved offshore 11 years ago. I think this is an important reminder that company directors provide accurate information to their board, and those on the board must read this information and ensure the accuracy of public statements that follow. When they fail to do this, they will be held to account—that is what the High Court has now put in place. I commend ASIC in this process for staying the course for five years and seeing this important case out. The decision by the High Court of Australia sets a strong precedent regarding company directors' liability. And through that process justice has finally been served for the many victims of the infamous James Hardie company.
It is my honour this evening to rise to support an application by the Wagin community in the Great Southern region of Western Australia to the Australian government for the Regional Development Assistance Program funding in relation to an integrated food and fibre processing hub to be installed in that region. The Wagin community is a very strong and powerful community, traditionally in wool-growing and wheat, but they are looking now to diversify and in fact to even drought-proof their community. An exciting aspect is that the very technology and concept that they have developed could be used by other local areas around Australia.
Briefly, the objectives are to stabilise and to expand the economy of this region in such a way that they will have, I think, one of the most exciting concepts I have seen—that is, the concept of the hub development, which involves the cogeneration of power, the introduction of a desalination unit both to supply fresh water to the community and to use up saline water which is destroying it; and it will also add a new industry—saline aquaculture, for the community itself.
In brief, the project aims, firstly, to enable green infrastructure power generation, electricity and steam, for industry use; secondly, to remove the saline water table beneath the town—which I will speak of in some more detail; thirdly, to provide a new source of fresh water for an area of the state which, like much of Western Australia, is in need of a reliable freshwater supply; fourthly, to create a supply of saline water for use in a saline water aquaculture project, capable in the first year alone of producing some 125 tonnes of barramundi for tables in restaurants around the state, with the capacity of a lot more expansion over time; and, most importantly, it will retain business in the town and in the district, create new employment opportunities and of course create an opportunity for other councils in the future—all within a context of a genuine partnership between successful businesses, with local and state government support.
The situation concerning a lot of councils and towns in our state is that of saline water beneath the town. People might be interested to learn that, for some years now, the council has been pumping some 600,000 kilolitres a day of saline water from beneath the town. Not only is this very expensive from an electricity point of view, and a maintenance of pumping point of view, but why do they have to do it? To stop the upward movement of salt which is affecting buildings, roads, pipelines and private and public assets in the town site. This cannot go on forever, because of the costs associated with it. But what is exciting about this saline water is that up to 445,000 kilolitres a day can actually be fed into a reverse osmosis desalination plant.
The second component is the use of oat husks in the cogeneration of electricity from a bioenergy source. A food processing company in the town currently processes about 60,000 tonnes of oats and other cereals a year, of which of course oat husks are a by-product. Already they have proved the technology by using oat husks in the generation of steam, which is going back into the operation, but the intention is to actually move towards a power station, with the energy source highly viable from oat husks—and, in the future, if need be from the straw post-harvest and indeed mallee from mallee production. There is tremendous opportunity for expansion into the future.
So the power generated from this powerhouse will go back into the food processing operation. It will also provide electricity for the reverse osmosis plant and will provide heat for the saline aquaculture project. We can all see the benefits of the reduced or even eliminated use of LPG for generating power currently, less trucks on the road and no oat husks going to waste, with concurrent methane production. Equally, there is the capacity over time for the generation of more power and more water for more new industries in the town of Wagin. So the reverse osmosis to salination plant would provide some 300,000 kilolitres a day of freshwater back into the town, back into the community, to be used for beautifying the whole region, and 145,000 kilolitres a day into the saline aquaculture project.
The project itself is already proved up. This is already commercially ready to go; it is not experimental. It means working with the private sector in a project and a process that have been proved up. As I mentioned earlier, not only would there be the employment opportunities from the aquaculture project but the ongoing jobs in transport and processing, in ecotourism and even solids for fertiliser use. So you see the hub concept, Madam Acting Deputy President. What was one person's waste becomes another person's opportunity, and the whole community benefits. I mentioned earlier that 60,000 tonnes of cereals processed now can move up to 100,000 tonnes without any difficulty, an opportunity for new industries, for a greater concentration on aquaculture, and we know the challenge associated with the need to be providing more protein in this country and more fresh product in this country, which is now importing some 70 per cent of the fish that are consumed by weight amongst Australians.
One of the great benefits of the project is to actually prove up this technology so that the IP can then be used in other communities in our state and around Australia and save that cost and risk associated with it. What has been of tremendous interest to me has been the governance that has gone into the planning and into the submission to the Australian government under the Regional Development Assistance Program. I participated in a community information session in the town of Wagin only last week and was very pleased to see the availability of expertise for the wide range of people who attended either as interested and concerned residents or indeed would-be investors. I remind the Senate again that this is technology that is already proven up. The risk assessment process has been very thorough. It involves a public and private partnership between the local shire, which is supporting it very strongly, agencies of state government, research organisations, particularly the Challenger College from Fremantle, which has developed most of the aquaculture expertise to be used, and naturally enough the involvement of companies in the community who are themselves already successful business people.
So, in the final few moments, I ask: why should this be supported by regional development funding? The project itself is some $8 million, of which the proponents will find $4 million to put into it, so they are seeking that equivalent figure of $4 million as the contribution by the Commonwealth. It meets the criteria under the regional development funding scheme and therefore should be supported on the basis that the wheat belt development authority of the federal government, under which Wagin and the Great Southern come, have actually put it forward as one of their three preferred projects for consideration by Minister Crean and his colleagues.
The concept is revolutionary for the wheat belt of Western Australia. The hub concept is one that has been developed offshore but is being used successfully in the industrial belt of Kwinana south of Perth now, where again one group's waste becomes another group's opportunity. If we can prove this up in the wheat belt of WA in an area where population and investment are declining, if we can reverse that and turn it back to a circumstance of new opportunity of developing industries, of expanding the opportunities that are there already, this can only be beneficial to the regional community of that group, our state and the country. It is shovel ready. This is not something we are looking at for years into the future; it can be replicated in other areas without starting from the ground up. I strongly recommend this to Minister Crean, to the Senate and of course to the parliament.
Two weeks ago today, people around Australia stood back and remembered those who fought for our country in the past and those who continue to serve on Australia's behalf today. For me, reflections at this time of year always include memories of my father, who served in New Guinea during the Second World War. My father would usually spend Anzac Day in his shed, a bit more subdued than usual. He did not often talk about the war but in later years he explained to me that he thought about the mates he had lost, especially his best friend, Freddy, who was shot by a sniper on the day before the war ended. Sadly, peace came too late for Freddy, and for many others.
As we remember those who died, we must also pause to think about those who return home to us from conflict zones and what they bring with them. We know there are long-lasting impacts of service, not only on veterans but their partners and families, ranging from financial and employment concerns to physical rehabilitation and poor mental health. As part of my work as Australian Greens spokesperson for veterans' affairs, I have had the great honour to meet many inspiring people and organisations around Australia. Recently, this has included meeting the Partners of Veterans Association. The PVA is a national not-for-profit organisation which provides support for partners, children and widows and widowers of past and present Australian Defence Force Personnel. It was established in 1999 by partners of veterans who recognised a common and unmet need among families of veterans for support, advocacy and, importantly, friendship. Run entirely by volunteers and supported only by limited grants and donations, the PVA provide support through personal advice and by building a stronger community. They also provide leadership and advocacy in the sector, being a vital voice for otherwise isolated people, as well as working on policy and program development strategies.
When I met with members of the association recently both in South Australia and New South Wales, I heard firsthand stories of the long-term, often debilitating impacts of war—not only for those who return but also for their partners and families. One widow, Kathie, told me how her late husband suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, for years, without diagnosis or treatment, after returning from Vietnam. Actually, accounts of the effects of post-traumatic stress were alarmingly common among those I met with, and heart-rending. Manifestations of PTSD can include depression, rapid and severe changes in mood and behaviour, terrifying nightmares, hypervigilance, and in some cases violence.
Twenty years ago, Kathie had no idea what PTSD was or how to deal with it. She told me how much easier life would have been if only she had known about this condition, and described her relief on finding out, after her husband's death, that he had been diagnosed with PTSD later in life—relief because she finally believed that his behaviour and suffering had not been her fault. Other PVA members told me how their partners are so worried about security that they lock the house up at four in the afternoon and refuse to let anyone come in or to let their family go out. It is not hard to imagine the isolating effect this has, not only on the veteran but also their partner and their children.
PTSD and mental health concerns are not unique to the veteran community, of course. But the unique circumstances of Defence Force families create particular needs and make the work of organisations such as the PVA so important. Because of the constant relocation, families often have limited support networks. And the common social stigma still present around mental illness in the wider community is particularly acute in the Defence community, where mental illness can be seen as a weakness. There are pressures to keep it secret where the person is still serving, for the sake of their career, and there may be added isolation for families due to the veteran's hypervigilance. In 2010 Professor Graeme Hawthorne, from the University of Melbourne, noted increasing rates of mental ill health in the veterans' community, and he is just one of many researchers. He reported that, among Australian war veterans, estimates of PTSD range from five per cent to 26 per cent, and throughout the 1990s the number of successful compensation claims for PTSD to the Department of Veterans' Affairs increased very substantially.
Increasing numbers of veterans with mental and physical illnesses are being cared for in their own homes by their partners or other family members. And the number of carers will likely increase in the future, with young service men and women undertaking more frequent deployments to modern war zones, and predictions of increased prevalence of PTSD and other mental health disorders as a consequence.
I was deeply touched by the strength, commitment and loyalty of the partners I met. They play a crucial role as carers, a role which is often underestimated and unrecognised. They often have to give up their own work because of the 24-hour nature of caring for someone who may experience debilitating symptoms at any time. So they sacrifice income during their younger years and the opportunity to accrue superannuation for retirement. Without their unpaid, voluntary work, it is the community which would have to pay.
But there are more than financial costs. A number of studies have identified significant health risks for veterans' partners and their families, related to their caring role. Professor Brian O'Toole, from the Brain and Mind Research Institute, recently reported that partners of Vietnam veterans have mental illnesses at levels 20 to 30 times higher than the general population. More than half of the wives interviewed for his study had a history of major depressive disorder which was related to their husband's combat experience.
Similarly, in 2005 Dr Hedley Peach, of the University of Melbourne, reviewed studies and reported that psychological disorders affect partners and children of veterans at substantially higher rates than the non-veteran population and carry an associated risk of cardiovascular and other physical diseases.
It is crucial that we recognise the work that these partners do, not only with words but with actions, such as the modest reforms sought by the PVA to support these carers in their challenging and generous work. They would like their unique role as carers of veterans to be recognised and administered by the DVA, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which is best placed to understand their circumstances, as it administers the affairs of their veteran partners. Application forms for the carers allowance, overseen by the DVA, should inquire into the all-consuming effects on a carer's life when they must provide 24-hour full-time supervision for a partner who is prone to unpredictable panic attacks, flashbacks, agoraphobia or memory lapses. They advocate for much better education and information for all service personnel and their families about the nature of PTSD and its treatment. They seek practical support, such as accommodation, for carers from rural areas who must travel from home to accompany their partner to hospital.
Perhaps most importantly, the PVA seeks increased respect for and acknowledgement of the vital role of those who care for a person who has been injured in the course of serving their nation in a conflict zone on behalf of all of us. In meeting with partners, I have often been moved by stories of young men—usually men—who went away to war and came back fundamentally altered. One partner told me about her husband, who rarely laughs and finds life very bleak. 'Was he always like that?' I asked her. 'Oh, no,' she told me, 'I married him at 16 and he was the life of the party.' He came back changed from Vietnam, as a young man still, 40 years ago.
As a community, we owe these partners a huge debt. Through the decisions of the governments we elect, their partners are sent away to serve on our behalf in situations of conflict, danger and often unimaginable horror. If we are willing to do this, we must also be willing to care for them fairly and adequately when they return. This includes caring for those who care for them. Not only on Anzac Day but all through the year it is important that we recognise that the true cost of war includes the wounds borne by those who do return and the effect on their partners and families.
Last week, I was very pleased to see the announcement that 19 editors of Vogue magazines around the world had made a pact to project the image of healthy models. They agreed to 'not knowingly work with models under the age of 16 or who appear to have an eating disorder'. Sara Ziff, an advocate for people working in the fashion industry, has said:
The use of under-aged models is linked to financial exploitation, eating disorders, interrupted schooling, and contributes to models' overall lack of empowerment in the workplace. … We simply believe that 14 is too young to be working in this very grown-up industry.
Elissa J Brown, Professor of Psychology at St. John's University, has said:
We know that there is an impact for young girls and boys, by the way of what is put in front of them in terms of media.
After the death of two models from apparent complications from eating disorders in 2006-07, the Council of Fashion Designers of America adopted a voluntary initiative in 2007 which emphasizes age minimums and healthy working environments. As further evidence of the effects of these two deaths, at the London Fashion Week designers are required to sign a contract with the British Fashion Council to use models who are at least 16.
While these are sentiments with which I strongly agree, the issue is much broader than as it applies to the fashion industry. There are a spectrum of concerns that inhibit the chances of children being able to naturally grow into mature adults. We are no longer in the industrial age, when children were forced to work from young ages until their very early deaths. If we did not think children deserved to be allowed to grow up naturally, why would we have a minimum age for children to leave school and children's support programs, government programs to assist families and to assist children to be able to remain at school? Even the Stronger Futures bill aims to assist children to have a sound education.
As I said earlier, the deceptions that are perpetuated in the fashion industry are not the only examples of exploitation. We only have to look at the distortions caused by the frequent Photoshopping of magazine pictures. It is very easy to underestimate the effect of this practice. But, if it is so unimportant, why did the American Medical Association in June 2011, at its annual general meeting, vote to adopt new policies regarding body image and advertising to youth, making the following statement:
Advertisers commonly alter photographs to enhance the appearance of models' bodies, and such alterations can contribute to unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image – especially among impressionable children and adolescents. A large body of literature links exposure to media-propagated images of unrealistic body image to eating disorders and other child and adolescent health problems.
… … …
"… In one image, a model's waist was slimmed so severely, her head appeared to be wider than her waist," said Dr. McAneny.
In Israel a new law was passed on 19 March 2012 which requires male and female models to have a BMI, or body mass index, of no less than 18.5—a standard used by the World Health Organisation—or a note from a doctor saying that they are not underweight before they can be hired for a modelling job. The legislation also bans use of models who 'look underweight', and creators of ads must disclose whether they used Photoshop or graphics programs to manipulate images to make the models look slimmer. Norway's equality minister is pushing for advertisers to be required to use disclaimers such as: 'This advertisement has been altered and presents an inaccurate image of how this model really looks.'
In Great Britain in 2010, the Home Office commissioned a report by a psychologist, Dr Linda Papadopoulos, to report on the sexualisation of children. Using empirical data and expert testimony, her report found that, across advertising and the media, representations of perfect body images and people in a sexualised context had a profound impact on young people who saw them. In France, parliamentarian Valerie Boyer has said:
These photos can lead people to believe in realities that, very often, do not exist.
Another aspect of this is the underreported and poorly recognised phenomenon of baby pageants. I have spoken a number of times in this place about what I believe are the dangers of baby pageants. A leading child psychologist and author, Steve Biddulph, says:
The planned US style Child Beauty Pageants are not something we need in Australia, or anywhere really. They teach little girls that the way they look is the most important thing about them. They also subject them to judgement, failure, and pressure which shouldn't be part of early childhood at all.
Dr Michael Carr-Greg, an Australian psychologist, has reported in his studies that one in four children are convinced by the need for cosmetic surgery. One in 10 boys will consider using steroids. One in eight girls will use diet pills or laxatives. Or, as he has also commented, it is 'about as close to child abuse as you can get'.
In my mind it is quite incomprehensible why a mother would allow her daughter to go into one of these baby pageants. How could it possibly be good for young women's self-esteem to be lined up and compared to one another solely on the basis of their external appearance? And what happens to the losers? Will they feel fantastic? For another example, psychologist Andrew Fuller says:
… this is a good recipe for how to predispose your daughter into having an eating disorder … the risk is that they suddenly fear that their body shape is more important than their intellect.
I know that people say there are other things they are judged on besides their looks. It teaches them to have poise and it gives them confidence, but the hard fact remains that they are called beauty pageants and always will be based on using arbitrary standards of beauty to make one contestant better than the rest.
I believe that here in Australia we should be moving towards ensuring that all our printed media and all our electronic media carry a disclaimer that identifies whether or not a photograph has been altered or digitally enhanced. Tonight I have only mentioned three aspects of the pressures that are being imposed upon children as they are growing up, and that pressure affects their families as well. It is time to stop allowing these forms of child exploitation and child abuse and to allow children time to grow up. They are already under enough pressure. There are enough difficulties for children as they grow up without allowing this mistreatment to continue.
I urge those people in the chamber to voice their concerns in relation to how body image is portrayed through the media, whether it is electronic or printed. It is time for us to take seriously the psychological damage that these images are causing to our adolescents and younger children. It is time we put a stop to these so-called beauty pageants and accepted our children for who they are and what they can be, encouraging them to be the best people they can be.
Senate adjourned at 19 : 33
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 March 2012:
(1) Can a list be provided of all office locations for each department or agency within the Minister's portfolio, detailing:
(a) the department or agency;
(b) the location;
(c) the size;
(d) the number of staff at each location and their classification;
(e) if the office location is rented, the amount and breakdown of rent paid per square metre;
(f) if the location is owned by the department or agency, the:
(i) value, and
(ii) depreciation, of the building; and
(g) the type of functions and work undertaken.
(2) For each department and agency within the Minister's portfolio, can details be provided of all public relations, communications and media staff, listed by department or agency, including:
(a) the number of ongoing staff, specifying:
(i)their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location;
(b) the number of non ongoing staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location; and
(c) the number of contracted staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location.
The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
For answers to question (1) (a)-(f) please refer to the following table:
1 The APSC is co-located with the Department of Education, Employment and Workplaces Relations (DEEWR) in Brisbane and Melbourne and with the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) in Adelaide and Perth. A fee of $10,250 per annum per full time equivalent (FTE) is paid to DEEWR for rent or lease, related utility service charges, routine maintenance and building security services.
2 The Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is located in the same building as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, One National Circuit Barton ACT 2600.
3 Government House, Canberra is the principal residence of the Governor-General and the main administrative centre for the OOSGG. The 54 hectare property is listed on the Commonwealth Heritage list and comprises both heritage buildings and landscape elements.
4 Admiralty House is the Sydney residence of the Governor-General located in Kirribilli and includes a small administrative centre for the OOSGG. The 2 hectare property is listed on the Commonwealth Heritage list and comprises a heritage building and landscape elements.
(g) The type of functions and work undertaken by the PM&C portfolio is outlined in the 2011-12 Additional Estimates statements.
For answers to question (2) please refer to the following table:
asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 22 March 2012:
(1) Can a list be provided of all office locations for each department or agency within the Minister's portfolio, detailing:
(a) the department or agency;
(b) the location;
(c) the size;
(d) the number of staff at each location and their classification;
(e) if the office location is rented, the amount and breakdown of rent paid per square metre;
(f) if the location is owned by the department or agency, the:
(i) value, and
(ii) depreciation, of the building; and
(g) the type of functions and work undertaken.
(2) For each department and agency within the Minister's portfolio, can details be provided of all public relations, communications and media staff, listed by department or agency, including:
(a) the number of ongoing staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location;
(b) the number of non-ongoing staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location; and
(c) the number of contracted staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location.
The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
A list of all office locations including the information requested for each department and agency within the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio is at Attachment A.
A list of all communications staff including the information requested for each department and agency within the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio is at Attachment B.
Attachment A – List of Office Locations
Table of Acronyms
Attachment B – List of Communications Staff
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Communication branch ongoing staff
Tables below correct as of 3 April 2012
Other portfolio agencies under DAFF – ongoing communication roles
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Communication branch non-ongoing staff
Other portfolio agencies under DAFF – non-ongoing communication roles
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry have no contract positions.
Below is a table outlining the other portfolio agencies under DAFF – contract communication roles.
asked the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism, upon notice, on 22 March 2012:
(1) Can a list be provided of all office locations for each department or agency within the Ministers portfolio, detailing:
(a) the department or agency;
(b) the location;
(c) the size;
(d) the number of staff at each location and their classification;
(e) if the office location is rented, the amount and breakdown of rent paid per square metre;
(f) if the location is owned by the department or agency, the:
(i) value, and
(ii) depreciation, of the building; and
(g) the type of functions and work undertaken.
(2) For each department and agency within the Ministers portfolio, can details be provided of all public relations, communications and media staff, listed by department or agency, including:
(a) the number of ongoing staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location;
(b) the number of non ongoing staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location; and
(c) the number of contracted staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location.
The Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism has provided the following response to the honourable senator's question:
(1)—
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism
Function - developing and maintaining government policies and programs for the resources, energy and tourism industries.
The Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism does not own any properties.
* Total including Departmental Secretary.
Geoscience Australia
Function – Symonston – the study of earth processes and technical advisor (to the Government) on all aspects of geoscience and custodian of the geological and geological data and knowledge of the nation.
Function – Alice Springs – satellite data collection facility.
Tourism Australia
Functions – Tourism Australia is the Australian Government agency responsible for marketing Australia domestically and internationally. Employee functions include marketing, public relations and corporate.
Tourism Australia does not own any properties.
National Offshore Petroleum Safety & Environmental Management Authority
Function - The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority is a Commonwealth Statutory Agency regulating the:
Health and safety,
Structural integrity, and
Environment management.
of all offshore petroleum facilities in Commonwealth waters, and in coastal water, and in coastal waters where State powers have been conferred.
The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority does no own any properties.
* Total includes Chief Executive Officer.
Australian Solar Institute
Function – Clerical and administrative
The Australian Solar Institute does not have staffing levels.
The Australian Solar Institute does not own any properties.
(2)—
Department of Resources, Energy & Tourism
* Officer currently located in Perth is in the process of being relocated to Canberra.
Geoscience Australia
Tourism Australia
National Offshore Petroleum Safety & Environmental Management Authority
Australian Solar Institute
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Inclusion, upon notice, on 22 March 2012:
(1) Can a list be provided of all office locations for each department or agency within the Minister's portfolio, detailing:
(a) the department or agency;
(b) the location;
(c) the size;
(d) the number of staff at each location and their classification;
(e) if the office location is rented, the amount and breakdown of rent paid per square metre;
(f) if the location is owned by the department or agency, the:
(i) value, and
(ii) depreciation, of the building; and
(g) the type of functions and work undertaken.
(2) For each department and agency within the Minister's portfolio, can details be provided of all public relations, communications and media staff, listed by department or agency, including:
(a) the number of ongoing staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location;
(b) the number of non ongoing staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location; and
(c) the number of contracted staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location.
The Minister for Social Inclusion has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
The Minister for Social Inclusion is supported by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) and has no portfolio agencies within the PM&C portfolio.
For information regarding PM&C please refer to response to Senate Question 1736.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, upon notice, on 22 March 2012:
(1) Can a list be provided of all office locations for each department or agency within the Minister's portfolio, detailing:
(a) the department or agency;
(b) the location;
(c) the size;
(d) the number of staff at each location and their classification;
(e) if the office location is rented, the amount and breakdown of rent paid per square metre;
(f) if the location is owned by the department or agency, the:
(i) value, and
(ii) depreciation, of the building; and
(g) the type of functions and work undertaken.
(2) For each department and agency within the Minister's portfolio, can details be provided of all public relations, communications and media staff, listed by department or agency, including:
(a) the number of ongoing staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location;
(b) the number of non ongoing staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location; and
(c) the number of contracted staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location.
The Minister for Human Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) (a) (b) (c) (e) (f) (g) Details are provided in Attachment A.
(d) Preparation of lists of the number of staff at each location and their classifications would represent an unreasonable diversion of resources.
(2) Details of all public relations, communications and media staff are:
(a) 92.
(i) Public Affairs Officers levels 1-4 (91 staff) and SES Band 2 (1 staff).
(ii) Duties include the development of communication strategies and solutions for a range of internal and external stakeholders. This includes coordinating marketing initiatives, writing, editing, design of product information and promotional products, website content, media management, internal communications and video production.
In addition, the General Manager Communication Division (SES Band 2) is the department's media spokesperson.
(iii) Caroline Chisholm Centre, Greenway ACT (65 staff); 130 George Street, Parramatta NSW (8 staff); 14-16 Prospect Street, Box Hill, VIC (5 staff); 140 Creek Street, Brisbane QLD (4 staff); 191 Pulteney Street, Adelaide SA (4 staff); 200 St George Terrace, Perth WA (3 staff);
188 Collins Street, Hobart TAS (2 staff); and 80 Mitchell Street, Darwin NT (1 staff).
(b) 39.
(i) Public Affairs Officers levels 1-4
(ii) Duties include the development of communication strategies and solutions for a range of internal and external stakeholders. This includes coordinating marketing initiatives, writing, editing, design of product information and promotional products, website content, media management, internal communications and video production.
(iii) Caroline Chisholm Centre, Greenway ACT (38 staff); and 140 Creek Street, Brisbane QLD (1 staff).
(c) Nil.
(i) Not applicable.
(ii) Not applicable.
(iii) Not applicable.
————
Attachment A
(a) the department or agency; (b) the location; (c) the size in square metres; (d) the number of staff at each location and their classification; (e) if the office location is rented, the amount and breakdown of rent paid per square metre as at 30 March 2012; (f) if the location is owned by the department or agency, the:
(i) value, and
(ii) depreciation, of the building; and (g) the type of functions and work undertaken.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Public Service and Integrity, upon notice, on 22 March 2012:
(1) Can a list be provided of all office locations for each department or agency within the Minister's portfolio, detailing:
(a) the department or agency;
(b) the location;
(c) the size;
(d) the number of staff at each location and their classification;
(e) if the office location is rented, the amount and breakdown of rent paid per square metre;
(f) if the location is owned by the department or agency, the:
(i) value, and
(ii) depreciation, of the building; and
(g) the type of functions and work undertaken.
(2) For each department and agency within the Minister's portfolio, can details be provided of all public relations, communications and media staff, listed by department or agency, including:
(a) the number of ongoing staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location;
(b) the number of non ongoing staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location; and
(c) the number of contracted staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location.
The Minister for the Public Service and Integrity has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
The portfolio agencies under the responsibility of the Minister for the Public Service and Integrity are within the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) portfolio. For answers for these agencies please refer to the response to Senate Question 1736.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 26 March 2012:
With reference to the contract signed in June 2007 by the Commonwealth Government, the Muckaty Land Trust and the Northern Land Council, regarding the location of a nuclear waste dump:
(1) Did the Northern Land Council receive a payment of $200 000 upon the acceptance of the Muckaty Land Trust nomination.
(2) Did the Northern Land Council disburse funds exclusively to signatories on the contract, or have the power to distribute such funds to others at its discretion.
(3) Does the Northern Land Council have a liability in relation to these funds.
(4) If traditional owner signatories wish to withdraw from the contract, will: (a) recipients of funds; and (b) the Northern Land Council, be required to repay funds from the initial disbursement of $200 000.
The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) Yes. It is noted that the Northern Land Council (NLC) provided detailed advice regarding this payment in oral testimony on 30 March 2010 to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee (at page 16 of transcript) and in a written response dated 28 April 2010 to questions on notice from the Committee (Senator Ludlam and Senator Crossin).
(2) The site nomination deed was signed by representatives of the Commonwealth, the NLC and the Muckaty Aboriginal Land Trust, rather than by individual traditional owners in their own right. This accords with the structure and requirements of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The NLC provided detailed advice as to its disbursement of the funds in oral and written testimony to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in 2010 (as referred to above).
(3) No.
(4) As explained above, individual traditional owners are not party to the deed under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Accordingly, any question of such persons withdrawing from it (or associated liability as to payments received) does not legally arise.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 26 March 2012:
With reference to the contract signed in June 2007 by the Commonwealth Government, the Muckaty Land Trust and the Northern Land Council, regarding the location of a nuclear waste dump:
(1) Did the Northern Land Council receive a payment of $200 000 from the Commonwealth Government upon the acceptance of the Muckaty Land Trust nomination in 2009.
(2) Does a clause in the contract allow traditional owner signatories to withdraw from the agreement.
(3) If traditional owner signatories wish to withdraw from the contract, will recipients of funds from the initial disbursement of $200 000 be required to repay those funds.
The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) In 2008, the Northern Land Council (NLC) received a payment of $200,000 from the Commonwealth Government following acceptance of the nomination. The NLC provided detailed advice regarding the payment in its oral testimony on 30 March 2010 to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee (at page 16 of transcript), and in a written response dated 28 April 2010 to questions on notice from the Committee (Senator Ludlam and Senator Crossin).
(2) The site nomination deed was signed by representatives of the Commonwealth, the NLC and the Muckaty Aboriginal Land Trust, rather than by individual traditional owners in their own right. This accords with the structure and requirements of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Accordingly any question of individual traditional owners withdrawing from the deed (or associated liability as to payments received) does not legally arise.
(3) As explained above, individual traditional owners are not party to the deed under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Accordingly, any question of such persons withdrawing from it (or associated liability as to payments received) does not legally arise.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice , on 27 March 2012:
With reference to paragraph 12 of the answer to question on notice no. 1566 (Senate Hansard, 22 March 2012, proof p. 113), can the general background information supplied by the department, relating to India's potential uranium demand and the forecast expansion of its nuclear sector, be provided.
The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
Indian demand for uranium is currently relatively modest at approximately 1,539 t U3O8 in 2011 [Source: World Nuclear Association]. IAEA forecasts suggest that demand will remain low until 2015.
Looking out to 2030, India is planning to rapidly increase its nuclear power generating capacity. In addition to the 20 nuclear reactors currently in operation (4.4 GWe), India has six reactors (4.6 GWe) under construction and another 17 reactors (15 GWe) planned [World Nuclear Association, January 2012]. The IAEA forecasts India's demand for uranium to increase to between 3,600 – 9,400 t U3O8 by 2030.
India currently has 20 nuclear power reactors producing 4.4GWe electricity and has plans to increase nuclear power capacity to at least 20 GWe by 2020 and 63 GWe by 2030. India has little indigenous uranium reserves and has attributed the restarting of some older nuclear reactors and overall increased levels of nuclear power generation during 2010 to the availability of imported uranium. The World Nuclear Association estimates that India will require approximately 1,500 tonnes of uranium oxide in 2011.
The increase in Indian uranium demand around 2020 is likely to correspond with increases in Australian uranium supply as new mines in South Australia and Western Australia are developed. This could provide Australian uranium producers with the opportunity to secure a large fraction of the Indian uranium market.
Projected Uranium demand (t U3O8)
* WNA figures January 2012
^ IAEA low and high forecasts—Uranium 2009: Resources, Production and Demand
However if China's stated goal capacity of 60GWe by 2020 (WNA) was achieved demand would be approximately 12,735 t U3O8.
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General , upon notice , on 28 March 2012 :
In regard to the detention and questioning powers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO):
(1) Have the detention powers of ASIO ever been used; if not, why not.
(2) How many questioning warrants have been issued, including the date and details of each instance:
(a) between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2005; and
(b) from 1 January 2006 to date.
(3) How many questioning warrants have been issued in total.
(4) Has there been a decrease in the annual number of questioning warrants issued since 2004; if so, why.
The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator ' s question:
(1) ASIO has never used its detention powers. ASIO's use of such powers would be as a means of last resort.
(2) As identified in ASIO's unclassified reports to parliament, the following number of questioning warrants have been issued:
(a) financial year 2003/04 – three warrants
(b) financial year 2004/05 – eleven warrants
(c) financial year 2005/06 – one warrant
(d) financial year 2009/10 – one warrant.
Consistent with government practice, it is inappropriate to make public comment on the details of these warrants as they relate to operational matters.
(3) Sixteen ASIO questioning warrants have been issued.
(4) As can be seen from the response to question two, there has been a decrease in the use of questioning warrants by ASIO after financial year 2004/05. ASIO's use of specific special powers in operations is in response to specific information gathering requirements where other methodologies are insufficient.
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 April 2012:
Was the department represented at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting held on 8 July 2011, during which poker machine and gambling reform was discussed?
The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was represented at the Commonwealth Steering Committee on Problem Gambling meeting held on 8 July 2011.
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 4 April 2012:
In regard to the visit by the Indian national cricket team to Kirribilli House on 3 January 2012:
(1) At what time did the team arrive at Kirribilli House.
(2) At what time was the team granted access to Kirribilli House.
(3) Was there a delay in providing access; if so, what was the:
(a) length of the delay; and
(b) reason for the delay.
(4) Did media have access to Kirribilli House at 1.45 pm; if not, why not; if so, from what time were they permitted access.
The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
I am advised that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) The event was scheduled to start at 2.00 pm. Following discussion of the arrangements with Cricket Australia, it was agreed that the Australian Cricket Team would arrive at 2.10 pm and Indian Cricket Team would arrive at 2.20 pm. The Indian team arrived at Kirribilli House at 1.40 pm.
(2) The Prime Minister was promptly advised of the early arrival of the Indian team. The Prime Minister and Mr Mathieson quickly made themselves available to welcome the Indian team. The Indian team was held at the gate to Kirribilli House for a period of 5-7 minutes
(3) See answers to (1) and (2) above.
(4) In accordance with normal practice, the media were invited to Kirribilli House in sufficient time to cover the introductions of both teams to the Prime Minister, and the welcome remarks made by the Prime Minister and the responses of both team captains. They were granted access at the appropriate time for them to undertake their responsibilities.