2008-05-13 41 1 2 REPS 0 0 2008-05-13 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 pm and read prayers. 2545 Miscellaneous The SPEAKER 00:00:00 —I inform the House that on 9 April 2008 I received a letter from Peter John McGauran resigning his seat as the member for the electoral division of Gippsland. 2545 Miscellaneous The SPEAKER 00:00:00 —It is my intention to issue a writ on Monday, 19 May 2008 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Gippsland to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr McGauran. The dates in connection with the by-election will be fixed as follows: close of rolls—Tuesday, 27 May 2008; nominations—Thursday, 5 June 2008; declaration of nominations—Friday, 6 June 2008; polling day—Saturday, 28 June 2008; return of writ—on or before Wednesday, 27 August 2008. 2545 Ministerial Arrangements 2545 14:02:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation will answer questions on his behalf. 2545 Condolences 2545 2545 14:02:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I move: That the House record its deep regret at the death on 27 April 2008 of Lance Corporal Jason Marks while on combat operations in Afghanistan and place on record its appreciation of his service to the country and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. I wish to place before the House our sorrow as a parliament, as a government and as a nation at the death of Lance Corporal Jason Marks while on combat operations in Afghanistan. I want to repeat here my expression of deep condolence to his wife, Cassandra, to their two children, Connor and Ella, and to his parents, Paul and Sharon. I also want to tender my sympathy to the extended family and friends of Lance Corporal Marks, including his fellow service men and women. On behalf of the Australian government and all members of the House, I offer our prayers and our support to his family and friends. Lance Corporal Marks was a loving father and husband. He was also highly respected by his peers and renowned for his dedication and enthusiasm for his job. He led a distinguished career in the Army, rising to the esteemed position of a commando in the 4th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment. He deployed to East Timor and Afghanistan on more than one occasion. He received numerous service medals and was awarded a unit citation for gallantry in 2006. Just before Christmas, I visited Iraq and Afghanistan. I had the great privilege of meeting some of Australia’s service men and women deployed to the region. These men and women display extraordinary strength of character and courage. They are dedicated to serving their country and to lending assistance to those who need it most. The people serving in our defence forces are deployed to provide security, to protect civilians from harm and to contribute to rebuilding countries scarred by war and civil unrest. Our soldiers deployed to Afghanistan are making a significant contribution to the region. They are working with coalition partners and the government of Afghanistan to rebuild the country and provide security for its people. There are hard and difficult times ahead, but we must remain committed to our mission. On Anzac Day, I spoke of the Australian traditions of courage, of fighting for freedom and of fighting for the common good. This tradition is a part of who we are as a nation, but it comes at a terrible cost—and a personal cost. Lance Corporal Marks made a significant contribution to securing peace and nation building in East Timor and Afghanistan, and he did this in a difficult and dangerous operating environment. Lance Corporal Marks lost his life serving his nation with courage and with honour. His sacrifice will not be forgotten. Just over two weeks ago, on Anzac Day, we paused to remember those who had fought for their country and made the ultimate sacrifice. It is with great sadness that today we pause again as a mark of respect to Lance Corporal Marks and honour his service to the Australian nation. 2546 14:05:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Dr NELSON —I join the Prime Minister in offering the condolences of the opposition at the death of Lance Corporal Jason Marks. He was killed on 28 April while wearing the uniform of the Australian Army as a 4RAR commando. He was 27. He leaves behind his parents, Paul and Sharon, his wife, Cassie, and his two children, Connor and Ella. We should also remember, in reflecting on his life and his service, that there were four other Australian soldiers who were wounded in the same battle in Oruzgan, Afghanistan, with small arms fire and rocket propelled grenades. Lance Corporal Marks was born in Broken Hill. He grew up in Yeppoon. As Cassie, his wife, said of him, he had dreamt of being a soldier since the age of 12. He finally achieved his dream in 1999, when he joined the Australian Army. He first saw his way through the Royal Australian Army Medical Corps and finally achieved his ambition of becoming a commando, very much the elite of the Australian Army. In the days after his death, every Australian should remember that he is the fourth Australian who has died in Afghanistan over the last six months. He joins Luke Worsley, Matthew Locke and David Pearce as Australians—Australian men, Australian soldiers—who gave their lives in our name, on our behalf and for everything that we hold dear. Our generation is engaged in fighting a resurgent totalitarianism, the epicentre of which is in Afghanistan, which is the path and the crossroads to Central Asia. All of us should remember that 88 Australians were murdered in October 2002 by three men who trained with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan under the support and patronage of the Taliban. That is why we are there. That is why he gave his life. We are fighting people who have hijacked the name of Islam to build a violent political utopia. They are fundamentally opposed to political and religious freedom. Their attitudes to the treatment of women are incompatible with a peaceful world, let alone a civil society, and they are fundamentally opposed to the liberating power of education because it most seeks to undermine the dogma to which they have signed up. This country is enormously proud of Jason Marks, the sacrifice that he has made and that in particular of his family, and arguably it is the families that make the greatest sacrifice. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —As a mark of respect, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned. 2547 2547 14:09:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I move: That the House record its deep regret at the death on 8 April 2008 of the Honourable John Norman Button, former Federal Minister and Senator for Victoria, and place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. When commentators and historians write of the extraordinary talent of the Hawke and Keating ministries of the eighties and nineties, John Button’s name is always one of the first names mentioned. John Button was an extraordinarily successful industry minister, almost certainly the most effective minister ever to serve in that portfolio in Australia. But his contribution to Australia goes beyond his role in internationalising the Australian economy and the transformation of Australian industry during the eighties and nineties. As his good friend the former Premier John Cain said at his funeral a few weeks ago, ‘John Button was never a one-dimensional politician.’ He played a critical role in party reforms in the sixties, which brought Labor back to the political centre and made it possible for Labor to win federally in 1972. He was crucial to the successful leadership transition from Bill Hayden to Bob Hawke early in 1983, helping to make possible Labor’s win just a few weeks later. John Button made an extraordinary contribution to the community through his passionate support for the arts, education and his beloved football team, Geelong. John Button was born the son of a Presbyterian minister in Ballarat in 1932. He won a scholarship to Geelong College at the age of 13 and then went on to study arts and law at the University of Melbourne, graduating in 1955. After spending two years travelling the world, he came back to work for a well-known labour law firm and in the following years played an increasingly important role in the Victorian Labor Party leading up to his election to the Senate in 1974. John Button was passionately committed to Labor values—to the fair go, the expansion of opportunity through education, the promotion of human rights and the modernising of the Australian economy. From 1965 John Button became active in the small but influential Participants group, pressing for reform within the Victorian ALP. He believed, rightly, that Labor’s job was not to spend its energies on internal fights but to get into government and to deliver for working people. Although it took 10 years, the Participants group played a critical role in the federal intervention of the Victorian ALP in 1970, which in turn helped make Labor viable and politically successful in the 1972 election. Some of his tactics were unorthodox to say the least. For example, he created an alter ego named Arthur Cartwright, who wrote highly critical and, many have said, defamatory articles and letters about key figures in the Labor Party. As he tells the story in his memoirs: Under the nom de plume of Arthur Cartwright, I wrote two articles critical of the performance and ideology of the Ruling Group in Victoria. It was distressing to be told by Bill Brown, the President of the Victorian ALP, in the back bar of the Lygon Hotel, that he thought he and I could talk frankly about our differences but that if he ever got his hands on that bastard Arthur Cartwright he would strangle him. Anonymity has its place! After his election to the Senate in 1974 he served in the shadow ministry from 1976 and became the party’s Senate leader in 1980, a role that he played for the next 13 years. From 1977 he also served on the ALP national executive. Just as he contributed to Labor’s return to power in the early seventies, he also played an important role in Labor’s success in the 1983 election. As a trust-ed friend of party leader Bill Hayden he was influential in persuading him to stand aside from leadership to make way for Bob Hawke. This was a very difficult time. As he retold the story in subsequent years, it was a most difficult task for him personally. But, as even Bill Hayden has acknowledged since, he did it with sensitivity and grace, recognising that whatever his personal feelings the changeover was in the best interests of the party. The unusual feature of John Button’s career in government is that he served in just one portfolio, industry and commerce, throug-h-out his career yet he is remembered as one of the most outstanding politicians of recent decades. He understood that there was no future in manufacturing remaining focused purely on the domestic market shield-ed by high tariff walls. He recognised that the only future for Australian industry was to be globally competitive. But he also recognised that the path from insular protection to global competitiveness would not be easy and that, as the Minister for Trade said recently, it was never just a question of deregulating and dismantling. His best known policy contribution was the Button car plan, but he led reforms to many other sectors, including steel, pharmaceuticals and white goods. Those plans lowered tariffs and other forms of protectionism while assisting industries to modernise and become internationally competitive. He dedicated his decade in the industry portfolio to building a viable future for Australian manufacturing and he succeeded very much against that measure. His legacy is reflected in the competitive manufacturing sector that Australia had built by the 1990s, with exports of manufactured goods expanding rapidly year after year. He was always sensitive to the human impact of the policies he implemented. When structural change resulted inevitably in job losses he worked assiduously to ensure the best possible assistance and retraining so that former employees could find work elsewhere. John Button lived a passionate life and contributed enthusiastically to the community both during and after his political career, including to tourism, the arts, epilepsy organisations, Monash University and, of course, the Geelong Cats, who finally won a grand final after 44 years in the wilderness. Throughout his career he brought a warmth, a candour and a mischievous sense of humour that made him among the most liked politicians of his generation. In 1989 he wrote to the finance minister, Peter Walsh, complaining that he was bored by the view from his Parliament House office window and asked if the finance minister would purchase some sheep for the patch of grass nearby. The Sydney Morning Herald of 6 May 1989 reports him telling a journalist: ‘They ran out of money when they got to this part of the new Parliament House. You must understand that the courtyard is pretty boring to look at all the time. Other courtyards have pools and works of art so I thought I would have some sheep, a sort of moving landscape.’ This was not taken up by the finance minister. In recent weeks John Button has been variously described as funny, witty, mischievous, compassionate, curious, irreverent and profound, all qualities reflected in the three books he wrote after leaving political life—Flying the Kite: Travels of an Australian Politician in 1994; On the Loose in 1996; and As it Happened in 1998. John Button was one of the most significant figures in the Australian Labor Party in the second half of the 20th century. He left an extraordinary legacy of service to the Australian Labor Party, to Australian industry and to the Australian nation. On behalf of all of us here I offer condolences to his partner, Joan, to his sons, Jamie and Nick, and to his close family. 2549 14:16:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Dr NELSON —On behalf of the opposition I join very strongly in supporting this condolence motion, and it is with sadness that it is necessary to support it. John Button was one of those characters in Australian public life of whom all Australians can and should be very proud. He brought integrity, passion, good humour and enormous intellectual depth to Australian life and to the Australian parliament. He was a successful politician by any standard: a senator for 19 years, leader of the Labor Party in the Senate for 12 years and industry minister for 10 years. He was a key figure in the Labor Party’s modern history and instrumental to much of its success. John began his working career as a labour lawyer and he rose to the position of senior partner at the Melbourne firm of Maurice Blackburn and Co. and stayed with the firm until he was elected in November 1974. He had joined the Carlton branch of the Labor Party in 1952 and was one of the ‘four just men’ who resolved in 1965 to challenge the extreme Left, which then controlled the state ALP and had been responsible for rendering Labor unelectable in Victoria. They formed a loose group known as the Participants to push for reform and to revitalise his party, and helped to bring about federal intervention in the Victorian branch of the Labor Party in 1970. On the eve of the 1983 election John Button wrote to his friend Bill Hayden convincing him to stand down in favour of Bob Hawke. At his heavily attended funeral Bill Hayden paid tribute to him and said: ... the quality of a good friend who delivers bad personal news with honesty and courage, and I think I’d add grace. Button was appointed minister for industry following the 1983 election and he stayed there until his retirement in 1993—the longest tenure in a single ministry in the Hawke and Keating governments. He also played a role in establishing the Centre Left faction, bringing a flexibility to Labor’s restrictive factional system and providing the opportunity for many of Labor’s greater talents to attain frontbench positions. As a minister, John Button was central to the Hawke government’s moves to open up the Australian economy and Australian industry to international competition, for which this nation should be very grateful. This included implementing tariff reductions, including in the car industry, at a time when many in the Labor movement were arguing that protection was still required. Following his political career, John Button continued to be active in the community. He served as chairman at the Melbourne Writers Festival, and his books and other writings are a significant contribution to the political history of this country. A Geelong tragic, his involvement with and lifelong passion for the Geelong Football Club is widely known. John Button was also a man whose character embodied those Aussie values of good humour, irreverence to authority and larrikinism. He was a man of great wit and a prankster. Describing Tim Fischer, he wrote, ‘He spoke a strange language, a type of Albury Afrikaans.’ And for years John Button would pen illiterate letters under his pseudonym, Arthur Cartwright, peppering Labor colleagues and public figures with acerbic advice. He also once wrote, ‘I admired Gough Whitlam but not as much as he did.’ John Button was a great Australian: a reformer and a creative policymaker. He was respected and he was well liked right across the political divide. He was a thoroughly decent man and a man of wit and grace. He was someone who added to the general public esteem for government, for parliament and for politicians generally. He was a giant of the Labor movement and should be honoured as such. He also endured what we as parents fear most, and that was the loss of a son under the most tragic circumstances. To his partner of 10 years, Joan Grant, his sons, James and Nick, and his grandchildren, Harry, Lola and Otis, I extend the deepest sympathies of the opposition and the Liberal Party of Australia. 2550 14:21:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —I am a very great admirer of John Button and, as a person who has spent an awful lot of money on steel in my lifetime, I do not think I could leave without putting on the public record exactly what John Button did in the steel industry—he and John Prescott. The Australian steel industry produced 80 tonnes per man per year at the same time as Kaochin plant was producing 600 tonne per man per year. His program, along with that of John Prescott, the head of BHP, led the Australian steel industry to move from 80 tonnes per man not to 600 tonnes per man, which was the international benchmark, but to 720 tonnes per man per year, which was the most efficient steel industry in the world. I have to disagree with the leaders when they say he was a great champion of deregulation, because he had done that by a $360 million subsidy. He was a clever fellow because he had actually promised $780 million on condition that BHP put in $1,500 million. They ended up putting in $1,800 million but the federal government put in $386 million. He was responsible very much for discussions with the unions—and there was deregulation as far as that went—that enabled this industry to become the most competitive industry on earth. What a great monument to leave to the Australian people. In the car industry it was a desperate fight against, from where I sat, deregulation and the removal of tariffs to the circular arrangements in the car industry—and I do not wish to discuss that today—that preserved that industry and fought off its demolition for some 10 or 15 years. My last memory of John Button was when I ran into him in the street in Melbourne. I said, ‘You rescued the Australian car industry, you rendered the Australian steel industry internationally competitive and you were sacked for your achievements,’ and he roared laughing. I said, ‘Can we have lunch some time?’ and, roaring with laughter still, he said, ‘Love to.’ 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —As a mark of respect I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned. 2550 Miscellaneous 2550 14:24:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, I seek indulgence to make a statement on the 40th anniversary of the Battles of Fire Support Bases Coral and Balmoral from the Vietnam War. Forty years ago today, on 13 May 1968, Australian soldiers in the South Vietnamese province of Bien Hoa were coming to grips with the first engagements of what would become known as the Battles of Fire Support Bases Coral and Balmoral. The Australian forces had only deployed to their new positions late on 12 May. Their defences were still unfinished when the first contacts were made in the early hours of 13 May. When the North Vietnamese army attacked in the vicinity of a mortar platoon and a gun battery at 3.30 am the battle began in earnest. The first night was a harrowing experience for the soldiers fighting against overwhelming numbers of enemy, fighting in the flare and trace of darkness, fighting a bloody engagement that left 11 Australians dead. We do not know how many North Vietnamese army soldiers died although they left 52 dead scattered around the base. In the morning one soldier recalled looking around and seeing that everyone was covered in grey mud. There was a strong smell of cordite and gunpowder. It was an open-ing action in which our troops in the words of one senior officer, ‘Performed with steadiness and bravery second to none.’ The battle that started that night ebbed and flowed for nearly four weeks. That is an extraordinarily long military engagement. Our troops—including tank and APC crews, air crews, artillery, infantry and support troops—defended their positions against repeated attacks. They patrolled into areas held tight by the North Vietnamese army and in the end they prevailed. The North Vietnamese army was forced to withdraw, badly mauled by the Australian forces. It was a hard won victory for the Australian troops. It cost 26 Australian lives and over 100 wounded. Coral and Balmoral saw Australia’s first all-arms brigade-sized action since the Second World War. It is recognised as the longest and most sustained series of engagements fought by Australian forces in the Vietnam War. Today I want to ask the House to join me in expressing our thanks to all the Australians who fought in the Battles of Fire Support Bases Coral and Balmoral. The veterans of Coral and Balmoral added another chapter to the proud history of the Australian military. They showed all the qualities that Australian troops first displayed to the world at Gallipoli and during the Battle of the Western Front in the First World War and in the great battles of the Second World War and conflicts since—courage, determination and ingenuity. We in Australia have sometimes fallen short in our duty to recognise the veterans of the Vietnam War. We should not fall short in that duty any longer. Today I want to make clear to everyone that the Australian government is proud of our veterans. The Australian government is proud of the way in which they have served. The Australian government on behalf of the Australian people is grateful for the veterans who have served their country with honour including in this action in Vietnam. Today we remember the veterans of Coral and Balmoral, some of whom I had the pleasure of meeting last night together with the Leader of the Opposition. Today we also remember those who fell. We remember those who gave their lives in serving their country. We honour their memory. Today we also remember their families. The family members of those who died, whose suffering 40 years on still remains and remains felt deeply. To those family members I say that we cannot repay the price that you have paid but we can assure you of one thing—and that is the thanks of a grateful nation. Today we honour all those Australians who fought at Coral and Balmoral. 2551 14:28:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Dr NELSON —On indulgence, I join the Prime Minister in supporting this statement. Forty years ago last night Australia was a different country and it was quite a different world when brave Australian men, Australian soldiers, again in our uniform, went to Coral and Balmoral Fire Support Bases some 20 kilometres north of Bien Hoa in South Vietnam. Over a 3½-week period 2,000 Australian soldiers would be engaged in what was very heavy contact. As the Prime Minister said, almost 60 Vietnamese were confirmed dead, but the reports are in the order of some 300. Three and a half weeks after the initial movement on the evening of 12 May, 26 Australians would have given their lives and 100 would be wounded, but every single one of those men that returned to this country was a different man from that which he had been when he went. It is very easy for us in this century to look back and settle for the broad brush strokes of our history and to not fully appreciate individual sacrifices that have been made in our name. But in our uniform, under our flag, under the Australian Army rising sun, they were wounded, they gave their lives and they suffered emotional and other traumas. Their families made enormous involuntary sacrifices to allow them to serve our nation. In doing so, their deep unyielding grief for those who were lost and those who were wounded in emotional and physical terms should remind every Australian that there are some truths by which we live that are worth fighting to defend. As I said last night at the reception for these men and their families and the men and women who wear our uniform today, there are many things of which our country can be and is enormously proud. These men are one of the highest, if not the highest, examples. But one of the things that we must seek to do as a nation is this: whatever the circumstances and whatever the decisions taken by our governments to send men and women forward in dangerous ways in our name to fight for our values and our beliefs, we should never repeat the way in which these men were treated when they returned from the conflict in South Vietnam. We will honour them not only by this gesture but mostly by the way we choose to live our lives and shape our nation. We thank them for what they have done for us. Lest we forget. 2552 Miscellaneous 2552 2552 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 14:31:00 —by leave—I move: That the orders of the day relating to the resumption of  debate on the Prime Minister’s motions of condolence in connection with the deaths of Lance Corporal Jason Marks and the Honourable John Norman Button, and further statements by indulgence relating to the fortieth anniversary of the battles of Fire Support Bases Coral and Balmoral, Vietnam, be referred to the Main Committee. Question agreed to. 2552 Condolences 2552 2552 14:31:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House of the death on Thursday, 27 March 2008, of Ruth Nancy Coleman, a former senator who represented the state of Western Australia from 1974 to 1987. As a mark of respect to the memory of Ruth Coleman I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the House. 2552 Budget 2552 14:32:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I wish to make some general remarks, for the information of members, to ensure that arrangements for the chamber galleries for the budget tonight and the budget reply on Thursday run smoothly. I ask members to ensure that their guests arrive at the galleries in a timely way for the addresses. This is particularly important tonight, when there are a large number of guests to accommodate. Guests should arrive at the galleries about 30 minutes prior to the budget speech to ensure that they can undertake the security clearance and be seated in the galleries in a timely way. I understand that there may be some that are moved to applause at the conclusion of the speeches, even though this strictly speaking is contrary to the standing orders. As with any other proceedings of the House, there is the principle that any member with the call is entitled to speak without interruption. The chair will take the necessary action to ensure that this is the case for both addresses. Security staff will be directed to remove from the galleries any individuals who persist in intervening in proceedings, just as they would during normal proceedings. I trust that there will be cooperation from members and from their guests in the galleries and that budget night and budget reply night will proceed smoothly. 2553 14:34:00 Questions Without Notice 2553 14:34:00 2553 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Manager of Opposition Business 0 Mr HOCKEY —For you, Mr Speaker, we will hold back our enthusiasm tonight! My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall his words of 30 April this year when he said: ... the Government’s agenda for the public service is to ensure a robust, evidence-based policy making process. Policy design and policy evaluation should be driven by analysis of all the available options, and not by ideology. Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to open government and evidence based policy, will he provide the House with all departmental modelling and advice on the impact of his government’s changes to the Medicare surcharge? 2553 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. When it comes to evidence based policy and taking proper advice from departments and sounding things out, those opposite should reflect on the lead-up to the decision by this country to participate in the invasion of Iraq, but let us leave that to one side. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —You supported it. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Public Service departments were not consulted on a solemn decision to take the nation to war. The decision had already been taken politically and ideologically by members still present on the benches opposite. On the question of the Medicare surcharge, when those opposite introduced the Medicare levy surcharge back in 1997 they indicated that $50,000 represented a high income. They said that that was their benchmark for a high income. Furthermore, in the period since then, despite multiple representations from the community at large to do something about the indexation of that figure, in budget after budget those opposite declined to do so—including the then Treasurer, who seems to have burst out of the blocks again this morning with some rolling commentary on the upcoming budget week, which I thought was an interesting development. By any person’s definition, $50,000 is not a high income today. Working families and working Australians are under financial pressure. Therefore, for those opposite to continue to argue that that represents an acceptable benchmark for the future is remarkable. We believe that this is necessary to provide some relief to working families under pressure. That is why we are proposing this measure, and we intend to implement it. 2553 2553 14:36:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 Mr PERRETT —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the current situation in Burma following Cyclone Nargis and update the House on Australia’s contribution to relief efforts? Will the Prime Minister also inform the House of developments overnight in China? 2554 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. This cyclone hit Burma with devastating force on 2 and 3 May. Burma’s state media has put the death toll at 23,000, with 37,000 unaccounted for. The United Nations by contrast estimates up to 100,000 deaths and 1.5 million people left homeless. The cyclone has caused massive damage to property, infrastructure and communications. The concern now is that a population that is already weak and vulnerable will face a very real risk of the spread of disease and of starvation. It is hard to get a clear picture of precisely the impact on the ground in Burma because of the attitude and posture adopted by the regime. It has been appallingly difficult to get assistance into Burma and, once in, to have any guarantee of its proper distribution. The response of the regime in Burma to this crisis has been absolutely callous. Those paying the price for this callousness have been the long-suffering Burmese people. I am pleased to inform the House that we are making some very modest progress. Some relief supplies from international donors have been getting through, although it is estimated to be only about one-tenth of what is needed. I am pleased to say that this morning a Royal Australian Air Force C17 Globemaster arrived in Rangoon and unloaded much needed supplies. At our request the Burmese government agreed to let our military aircraft land to deliver its supplies. On board the C17 are around 31 tonnes of supplies from Defence and AusAID. It includes water containers, water purification tablets, bedding, blankets, tarpaulins and medical supplies. Thus far we have announced that we are providing $25 million in assistance to Burma, the largest contribution of any country to date. FU4 Robb, Andrew, MP Mr Robb —Pathetic still! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The honourable member opposite has intervened to say that that amount is pathetic. I have here a list of some 25 nation states; we are the largest contributor. Of the $103 million committed to Burma globally this government has contributed one-quarter of that amount, and those opposite describe that amount as pathetic. This is a gross partisan intervention in a humanitarian intervention of which the government and the country should be proud. Half of that money will go to the United Nations flash appeal; the other half will be for the Australian non-government organisations and UN agencies in Burma. The supplies that have been distributed into Rangoon through the RAAF flight will of course be distributed through the Burmese authorities, as is happening with the humanitarian supplies delivered by other countries right now. We would have preferred them to have been delivered by the UN and by NGOs; that has not been possible. In a crisis like this you have to deal with the cards that you have got. That means working with the Burmese authorities. As the situation becomes clearer we will consider further assistance, including for the reconstruction phase. We will continue to work with our friends and partners around the region, and to work to press the Burmese government to improve on their response to the crisis which to date has been demonstrably inadequate. On Friday, on this matter, I spoke to the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon. He expressed to me and has said publicly that he is immensely frustrated at the exceptionally slow response to the crisis, because getting access to Burma is so difficult. Over the course of the weekend I have spoken also to the Prime Minister of Singapore, the current chairman of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations—which Burma is a member of—and to the President of Indonesia about how we can work together more to get more assistance into Burma. The Minister for Foreign Affairs discussed our responses with the Japanese minister for foreign affairs in Tokyo last week and has also been in contact with the UK Foreign Secretary. We have also been liaising closely with our friends and allies in the United States, and also with Thailand and other partners in the region. And we are using every available diplomatic channel, including calling in the Burmese Ambassador here in Canberra to urge the regime to allow greater access, as we have urged also through our representative in Rangoon. We are doing what we can to assist these people in Burma who are suffering most grievously from this natural calamity. Natural disasters have affected our region on a wider scale, as we have seen from events overnight in China. We have now reports of a major earthquake in south-western China that has caused massive damage and significant loss of life. Communications and roads have been cut off in the worst affected areas. There are reports of up to 80 per cent of housing in some areas being destroyed. The death toll is still not known; it is regrettably very high. Media reports are suggesting that it could be 10,000 or more. This is already the highest death toll in an earthquake in China since the Tangshan earthquake of 1976. On behalf of all Australians I extend our sympathy to those affected by the earthquake in China. I have written to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao this morning expressing this and offering Australian assistance, including search and rescue capabilities of the states and territories of Australia through Emergency Management Australia. This has been followed up directly with Chinese officials. Australia stands ready to offer assistance. These crises remind us afresh of the importance of developing effective regional mechanisms, and to have those in place to respond to major natural disasters across our vast region where, regrettably, natural disasters on a massive scale are becoming far too frequent. With this in mind we will be working closely with our ASEAN and other partners in the region to enhance the region’s natural disaster monitoring, coordination and response mechanisms because I have great concerns for the future should disaster strike again, particularly in the region’s more remote parts. In the meantime, on behalf of the government, the parliament and the nation we express our sympathy for those who have suffered immensely and whose lives have been lost as a consequence of these recent calamities in our region. 2555 14:43:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Dr NELSON —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I strongly support the Prime Minister in offering sympathies on behalf of the parliament, and I do so also on behalf of the opposition, to the people of Burma and to the people of China. I urge the Prime Minister to continue to do everything he possibly can to support the people of Burma, in particular, and to assist the Chinese authorities. 2555 2555 14:43:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister’s professed commitment to open government and evidence based policy—not ideology—will the Prime Minister provide the House with all departmental modelling and advice on the impact of his government’s changes to our workplace relations system? 2555 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for her question. The key thing when it comes to industrial relations is whether you have in place an industrial relations system which rewards productivity. The hallmark of the industrial relations reforms that we are introducing as a government is that they drive productivity. Whether it is the elements which are contained within the proposed modernisation of awards, whether it is the elements contained within the future of enterprise bargaining, whether it is the elements contained in the future arrangements which will govern common-law agreements, productivity must be at its centre and its core. For those reasons, we believe that this is the right way forward to build long-term productivity growth. If you are concerned with the war against inflation, you must not only have an effective strategy to build productivity through your workplace relations system but also do so across the instruments of government policy. You must make sure that you have got a decent supply of labour, a decent supply of skilled labour and a decent supply of trained labour. These are areas of gross and continuing neglect on the part of those who had 12 years to act in this area and failed to do so. Another driver of long-term productivity growth and fighting the fight against inflation is to ensure that your capacity constraints in infrastructure are being dealt with. Once again, we find that those opposite— RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In relation to the question itself, it is about the advice consistent with what the Prime Minister said to the Fairfax journalists last week. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Before calling the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister will sit there quietly. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Therefore, if you are concerned about how you ensure that you are fighting an effective fight against inflation through the industrial relations system, through the proper provision of skilled labour and through the proper provision of effective infrastructure across the country, you require a long-term strategy for the nation. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was about the Prime Minister’s promise of open government and whether he would release the documentation. He should come to the question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Menzies will resume his place. The Prime Minister has the call. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I thank the member for Menzies for his encouragement in the direction of moral improvement. Can I suggest in response to the— 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr Downer interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —If the member for Mayo has some advice for me, he can get up on his feet and make a point of order. Otherwise, he can sit there quietly. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find the words of the Prime Minister offensive, and I ask that they be withdrawn. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Regrettably, because of the general hubbub and the advice I was getting from several quarters, I honestly did not hear what the Prime Minister said, and I am not in a position to understand what the objection is. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister reflected on the morals of the member for Menzies, and this should be withdrawn. It should be withdrawn. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. If the Prime Minister reflected on the morals of the member for Menzies, it should be withdrawn, and I would ask for it to be withdrawn, but I am not in any position to know whether there was such a reflection. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —For the benefit of the House, I will withdraw. The question at issue goes to what industrial relations systems we have in this country and how we will be reforming it. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, the question is not as the Prime Minister phrased it. The question is whether he will, in the interests of open government, release to the House all departmental modelling and advice on the impact of his government’s changes to our workplace— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the question. The Prime Minister will address the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The policy challenge for the House, for the government and for the nation is: how do you bring about an industrial relations system which builds non-inflationary productivity growth? On the question of advice to governments, I find it quite interesting that the member opposite and those responsible for the previous industrial relations system were always so frank and forthright in the provision of their advice, to wit: modelling prior to the introduction of Work Choices! I find that remarkable. On the general question of access to information contained within government, could I also say this: those opposite used and abused the freedom of information system. We have put forward a program to reform FOI. We made it in direct response to the ‘right to know’ campaign led by media organisations in the lead-up to the election. We have made those commitments quite plain, and during the period ahead we will be implementing them. 2557 2557 14:50:00 Bidgood, James, MP HVM Dawson ALP 1 Mr BIDGOOD —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House Australia’s need for a new era of responsible economic management? DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for North Sydney! 2557 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I find the interjections from those opposite interesting, given that as they exited office they were sitting on levels of expenditure growth on the part of government which are almost right up there with the Australian Guinness Book of Records: 4.5 per cent real at a time when we needed to be reining it in. Instead those opposite were saying, ‘Here’s another bucket of kerosene. Let’s throw it onto the fires of inflation,’ and, of course, pretending all along that there was no problem with inflation to start with. As we approach this budget, what this country has been plagued with for far too long has been short-termism: governments delivering one budget after another driven by the short term rather than the long term, one budget after another driven by the electoral cycle rather than by the decade ahead and one budget after another—as we have seen over the last 12 long years—where we have seen repeatedly the triumph of politics over policy. The mood of the nation and the need of the nation now demand that we change. Therefore, we are about to embark upon a new period of responsible economic management—an era that places the budget squarely in the centre of a framework for long-term economic reform for the nation. This is not simply a budget-eve series of bribes, a series of handouts, all with an eye to the next election but, instead, we are taking seriously the long-term fundamental requirements of economic reform—‘economic reform’: words which barely crossed the lips of those opposite as one budget after another was delivered from this dispatch box. In framing the budget, the government has confronted difficult economic times: a global financial crisis which is now impacting on real levels of economic growth in North America, across Europe and into our own East Asian hemisphere. While those developments unfold abroad, we are faced also with the challenge of inflation at home. This, however, has not deterred the government from embarking upon an approach to the framing of the budget which has three core pillars—firstly, responsible economic management, given the need to fight inflation; secondly— Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —They jeer about inflation. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney! The member for Goldstein! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Inflation is a real challenge for working families dealing with rising mortgage rates—12 rises in a row—dealing with rents going through the roof and dealing with petrol prices, grocery prices and what is happening with childcare costs, and those opposite say that inflation is a fairytale, that it does not exist. They say that inflation is a charade, that it does not exist. Well, we have news for those opposite. We have news for the Liberal Party. Inflation is real not just for businesses; it is real for working families, which demands therefore a responsible approach. That is why as we embark upon this budget our first responsibility is to fight the fight against inflation, and we will not resile from that. We will make sure that those who are impacted by this budget know that the overall long-term wellbeing of this economy is being properly attended to. When we assumed office, we inherited an inflation rate running at 16-year highs. RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson —Rubbish! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The Leader of the Opposition says ‘rubbish’. Sixteen-year highs—that is in fact the truth. We had in the March 2008 quarter 4.2 per cent inflation. Anyone around the world looking at the emergence of the inflation genie from the bottle has to ensure that they deal with a problem before it becomes much bigger and begins to plague the totality of the economy. That is where responsible economic management lies—and, can I say, the International Monetary Fund is of a similar view. Presumably those opposite, who have a higher wisdom than the IMF, a higher wisdom than most economic commentators in the country, a higher wisdom than the Treasury and others, believe that inflation is purely a fairytale and a charade. The member for Higgins, I am sure, had much to say about this in his intervention in the budget debate today, joining the three-ring circus of the Liberal Party leadership race. Then we go to the second pillar of this budget strategy. We are fighting the fight against inflation through bringing about a responsible government surplus and attacking government expenditure, despite the fact that those opposite have argued there is no economic case for cutting government expenditure—that is their bottom line, that there is no economic case for cutting government expenditure. We will in fact take, by contrast, a responsible course of action. The second pillar lies in helping working families under financial pressure—about whom those opposite said, ‘Working families have never been better off.’ Those opposite happily supported that proposition. That is how you describe working families, and you add to that by saying that working families do not have an inflation problem. Well, they do have an inflation problem, and our responsibility in the framework of this budget is to ensure that those families get relief through the tax system, get relief through the childcare tax rebate system, get relief when it comes to education costs and health costs endured by families and get relief when it comes to the challenge of housing affordability. Then there is the third pillar. The third pillar is this area of systemic neglect on the part of those opposite. How do you invest in this nation’s long-term productive potential? What do you do about the enormous backlog in infrastructure, the skills deficit and, right across, the needs of our health and hospital system? Responsible governance, presiding over the revenue windfall that those opposite had off the back of the resources boom over the last half-decade— SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. It relates to the use of question time for ministerial statements. It is a fact that Paul Keating once took 20 minutes to answer a question. This seems another record this Prime Minister wants to break. 849 Sidebottom, Sid, MP Mr Sidebottom interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —If the member for Braddon is happy, we will proceed. There was no point of order, but I will make the observation that the level of conversation, particularly on my left but then latterly on my right, is way too high. Really, if this is to be the way that this budget session goes, I do not think that the people that are observing what is going on will be very proud of their representatives. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney has a comment, does he? No? Well, come on. If I hear about the tax on the Tarago from the member for North Sydney again, he will get his hour. The member for North Sydney, is this a point of order? DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I just raise a point in relation to your last comment. I think all members endeavour to behave well in the House overall, but I am not sure that the comment from the chair in that situation was fair. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —As I have learned, often the perception of people not in the chair is different to that of those in the chair, and I accept that. But I think that a fair observer would indicate that there has been a very high level of interjection by many people. In fact, I was actually going to do the reverse and name four or five people that have actually sat through quietly. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The third pillar of our approach to economic policy is to deal with these areas of long-term neglect for the future. If you are in receipt, as the previous government has been, of significant revenues flowing from the resources boom, the responsible course of action would be to invest that in the long-term capacity needs of the economy, in infrastructure and in education and also to deal with the chronic problems in our health and hospital system. This, therefore, is a necessary additional discipline which we will apply to the budget and economic policy process. In framing this budget, these are our three pillars: firstly, responsible economic management—cutting government expenditure and producing sizeable government surpluses to fight inflation; secondly, helping working families under financial pressure; and, thirdly, assisting with the long-term provision which we need to invest in of education, infrastructure, climate change and, of course, health and hospitals. We were elected on a platform of governing as economic conservatives, and we intend to govern as economic conservatives when it comes to the question of ensuring proper custodianship of public finance. We take seriously the responsibility of producing a sizeable government surplus. Those opposite, apparently, by saying that there is no economic case to cut government expenditure, do not. On top of that, this government is committed to an activist approach to microeconomic reform policy. We will ensure that the overall task of productivity growth is advanced through the policy instruments available to government. This is the architecture which underpins our approach to the important fiscal document which the Treasurer will release tonight. This underpins and underlines the government’s overall long-term economic strategy—all about the long term, not about the short term. 2560 2560 15:01:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the average price of unleaded petrol in Melbourne today is 140.8c per litre whilst the average price in Perth is 147.2c per litre under FuelWatch? Prime Minister, isn’t FuelWatch supposed to save motorists money? 2560 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The government appointed Mr Pat Walker as Petrol Commissioner and announced a national fuel watch scheme, which is to come into force later this year. The commissioner will oversee the ACCC’s formal monitoring of unleaded petrol prices as well as providing an annual report on the ACCC’s findings. The government has directed the ACCC to monitor prices, costs and— 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question clearly asked why motorists in Perth were paying quite a lot more for petrol than motorists in Sydney, who should be paying more. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Mention was made of pricing in Melbourne and Western Australia and it asked whether FuelWatch will save people money. I call the Prime Minister. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The government has directed the ACCC to monitor the prices, costs and profits relating to the supply of unleaded petrol products in the petroleum industry, including imports, refining, wholesaling and retailing. Furthermore, the commissioner will also be responsible for a renewed focus on the informal monitoring of LPG and diesel and will advise the government on whether any further powers for the ACCC are necessary in this area as well. The national FuelWatch scheme is to commence on 15 December 2008. FuelWatch will apply to unleaded petrol, premium unleaded petrol, LPG, diesel, 98 RON and biodiesel blends. We believe that this is a positive step forward. It does not represent a silver bullet when it comes to petrol prices; it does, however, represent a government which (a) recognised that petrol prices were hurting working families and (b), rather than sitting on its hands, directed the competition policy regulator to act in this area. Therefore, we believe long term that this will assist overall in dealing with the challenges of higher fuel prices faced by Australian motorists. I contrast that with a statement by one of those opposite. Peter Dutton is the shadow minister for what? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Finance. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Thank you. He said: I think Brendan Nelson would have a greater capacity to deliver lower petrol prices for families ... Given that the shadow minister for finance—the alternative minister for finance—has said that Brendan Nelson would have a greater capacity to deliver lower petrol prices, I simply ask: by what means? 2560 2560 15:05:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 Mr RAGUSE —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Will the minister inform the House of the steps the government is taking to respond to the skills challenge and reduce inflationary pressures in the economy? 2560 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for his question. Of course, responsible economic commentators are all talking about the skills crisis that this nation is going through and its pressure on inflation. I refer particularly to the Australian Industry Group-Deloitte national CEO survey, which was released in April. That estimates that as many as a quarter of a million full-time employees are necessary to satisfy current skill needs. It also found that current skills shortages are severely impeding Australia’s innovation performance. The survey found that almost 70 per cent of the firms involved claimed that skills shortages had impacted on their business over the past year. This is CEOs telling us what is impacting on their business today. Of course, we know this is a crisis that has not grown up overnight. The Reserve Bank has produced more than 20 warnings about the skills crisis and its impact on inflation. These warnings went unheeded by the former government. Indeed, the member for Goldstein, who at that stage was responsible for vocational education and training, made the stunning admission: ... we’ve got a problem with skill shortage ... I mean we knew it was coming but it has arrived with a force. …            …            … And you know, it’s only going to get worse. That level of lack of understanding and concern about the skills crisis and its upwards pressure on inflation is shared by the opposition generally. They do not know anything about inflation any more, apparently. We have contradictory statements every day. On one day, the Leader of the Opposition will come out and say, ‘There’s no case for budget cuts because there’s no inflation problem. It’s a charade.’ Then the shadow Treasurer will come out and say that there is a case for budget cuts. Then the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come out and say that she is concerned about wages inflation, but there is no analysis from the opposition, let alone solutions, about the truly inflationary impacts that their policies left on this nation. There is no greater inflationary impact than the current skills crisis. Mr Speaker, I think we should note that, when it comes to the current skills crisis, the current Leader of the Opposition and the current Deputy Leader of the Opposition bear unique personal responsibility—having been the last two ministers for education in this country—for the generation of this skills crisis because they did not invest in education and training. We have been treated today to an unusual press conference by the former Treasurer, who is floating around like Banquo’s ghost. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not recall the Deputy Prime Minister being asked for a comic act or to reflect on alternative policies. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There is no substance to the first part of the point of order but there is a little bit of substance to the second part. The Deputy Prime Minister will return to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you, Mr Speaker. Returning to the question: the press conference by the former Treasurer bears on the question of the skills crisis and investment in education and training because, when he gave this press conference, he said: Now, I set up the Higher Education Endowment Fund, which would be investing that money to build world-class education. Here is the former Treasurer taking personal credit for the only major education initiative of the Howard government in its last term—nothing to do with the Leader of the Opposition, nothing to do with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but out of the mouth of the former Treasurer, who is there rattling around like Banquo’s ghost, giving his commentary on the budget, whether or not anybody is interested in it. Whilst their track record is one of indifference and neglect and their current contribution to the economic debate is inconsistent gibberish, day by day the government is getting on with the job of resolving the skills crisis. Amongst the important investments being made by the government, we are investing in 450,000 new training places, the first 20,000 of which were available in April. We are delighted by the interest of registered training organisations in the delivery of these places. Already with these training places students are enrolled in areas of skill shortage. Whilst the places go right across the skill shortage spectrum—including mining, construction and other areas—I think it will be of interest to working families who are concerned about getting aged care for their elderly relatives and child care for their children that amongst the skill shortage areas that have had good take-up are childcare and aged-care packages. That means we will have new workforce in our aged-care centres and childcare centres, which desperately need them. These are the kinds of interventions which were not made by the previous government, which buried its head in the sand when it came to the skills crisis—did absolutely nothing, left a legacy of the highest inflation rate for 16 years—because it never understood the need to invest in future skills training for Australians. 2562 2562 15:11:00 Coulton, Mark, MP HWN Parkes NATS 0 Mr COULTON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to open government and evidence based policy, not driven by ideology, will he provide the House with all departmental modelling and advice on the impact of his government’s changes to the new tax rates on ready-to-drink alcohol? 2562 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. Here is some evidence for you. The 2005 Australian Secondary Students Alcohol and Drug Survey noted that, by the age of 14, around 86 per cent of students had tried alcohol; by the age of 17, around 70 per cent of students had consumed alcohol in the month prior to the survey; in any given week, approximately one in 10, which equates to about 168,000, 12- to 17-year-olds reported binge drinking or drinking at risky levels, defined by the NHMRC as seven or more drinks for males and five or more for females; and, for 16- and 17-year-olds in any given week, one in five drank at risky levels. Rather than reduce the excise on these drinks, as those opposite did, we have decided to act responsibly. RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am interested in that answer. Are those figures going down? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is no point of order. 2562 2562 15:13:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 Mr DANBY —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Minister, can you inform the House of the government’s view on reckless spending? What problems with respect to wasteful and inefficient spending does the government intend to address in this budget? 2562 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —I thank the honourable member for his question. The budget to be delivered tonight has been framed in extremely challenging circumstances. One of those circumstances in particular has been the fact that the government has inherited a rate of government spending growth running between 4½ and five per cent in real terms, which is putting serious upward pressure on inflation and interest rates. The budget we inherited from the former Liberal government was awash with wasteful, inefficient, short-term, vote-buying initiatives. For example, in the last 16 months of the Howard government we had $457 million spent on government advertising—they go a little bit quiet when they hear that statistic, don’t they, Mr Speaker?—$350 million spent in one year on the infamous Work Choices scheme; $417 million spent over a number of years on the now completely discredited Regional Partnerships scheme; Public Service numbers soaring, most particularly a 44 per cent increase in the SES level, the fat cat level; and virtually no serious savings initiatives in any budget since the 2003 budget, so for four budgets in a row. It is against that backdrop that the government has adopted key targets to deliver a surplus of a least 1½ per cent of GDP, requiring $3 billion to $4 billion in savings and no revenue windfall being used to deliver that outcome. We are pursuing these targets for three key reasons, which were outlined by the Prime Minister earlier: to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates, to move the focus of the budget from short-term wasteful, vote-buying expenditure to investment for the long-term future of this nation and to protect the living standards of working people, particularly those who are struggling to make ends meet in the face of rising prices on a variety of fronts. I have learnt to expect almost anything in Australian politics but it amazes me that these objectives appear to be highly controversial. The objectives I have just set out—downward pressure on inflation and interest rates by cutting government spending, moving from short-term vote-buying to long-term investment, and protecting the living standards of working people—are apparently controversial. The Leader of the Opposition has followed in the footsteps of the member for Wentworth by dismissing the inflation problem that this nation faces as a charade. He said before that it was rubbish that we have the highest rate of inflation for 16 years—when that is a simple statistical fact. The Leader of the National Party and his party have refused to disown the infamous Regional Partnerships and other regional rorts programs that were used by the former government for vote buying. The Leader of the National Party seems to think that the biggest issue in Australian politics this year is the defunding of the fishing hall of fame by the Rudd government. That is the big event that has occurred during his time as Leader of the National Party. No-one from the opposition has disowned the extraordinary expenditure on government advertising over those past 16 months of the Howard government. Some of the opposition also seem to think that working people in this country should be paying taxes to fund welfare for millionaires. Half of the opposition appear to think this and the other half are not quite sure. We are not quite sure which side of the argument the member for Wentworth is on on any particular day. He swaps from one side to the other depending on which day it is. You can guarantee that, come tonight and come Thursday night, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Wentworth will be nitpicking about individual savings measures, complaining about specific budget cuts and refusing to acknowledge that there is a need to cut government expenditure. The Leader of the Opposition was very aptly described by a journalist a couple of weeks ago as a ‘piece of emotional blotting paper’—he feels everybody’s pain. Whenever anyone has a complaint about a decision taken by government, you can guarantee the Leader of the Opposition will be there feeling their pain. He feels everybody’s pain. If a little kid falls off his bike and grazes his knee, Brendan will be there feeling his pain. You have to take tough decisions in government. This budget will involve tough decisions, but it will be a Labor budget. It will be a tough budget, but it will be a fair budget that looks after the living standards of working people. We will be making the decisions that are required in order to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates and look after the interests of the working people of this nation and invest for the longer term future of this country’s prosperity. 2564 2564 15:18:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —My question is to the Prime Minister. It also relates to the Prime Minister’s commitment to open government. I ask the Prime Minister whether he will provide the House with all departmental advice on the real cost of his government’s proposal to provide computers for every secondary school student in years 9, 10, 11 and 12. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Have you ever asked me? 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr Anthony Smith —You don’t know the answer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —If the member for Casey and the Deputy Prime Minister want to have a discussion, I can arrange it by asking them to leave the chamber. Otherwise, it is the Prime Minister who is getting the call. 2564 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —If we are to build long-term productivity growth in Australia, we need an education revolution. If we are going to have an education revolution, we have to make sure we have digital classrooms, which means that every kid across the country has access to the tools of the new economy. It does not matter whether you are in a private school or a public school, in regional Australia, rural Australia or metro Australia—we want every kid to have a decent start in life. That is why in opposition we gave an undertaking that we would introduce our computers in schools policy. In order to provide Australian students with the best job and life opportunities in the future, the Commonwealth government is investing $900 million through the National Secondary School Computer Fund to provide new, upgraded ICT for students in years 9 to 12. The first $100 million from the fund will be directed to the most needy schools by June 2008. However, the Council of Australian Governments has also agreed that, to the extent that there are any legitimate and additional costs to the states and territories as a consequence of this commitment, the costs will be considered by treasurers in the final determination of the new specific purpose payments arrangements at year’s end. We believe in investing in the future and investing in education’s future. If you are going to have an education revolution and position our young people as world-beaters in the 21st century, this is what you have to do—not spend 12 years raking in the money from the mining boom and not investing any significant quantity at all in the future educational needs of young Australians and Australia’s workforce of the future. 2564 2564 15:21:00 Marles, Richard, MP HWQ Corio ALP 1 Mr MARLES —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Would the minister outline further evidence of wasted spending in the Regional Partnerships program? 2564 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —There are indeed many examples of wasted spending in the Regional Partnerships program that were identified in the report done by the National Audit Office—or, as I like to call it, ‘the Nationals Audit Office’. These examples include wasting money on ethanol plants that did not exist, cheese factories that closed down, rail lines that burnt down and pet food factories that never opened. That is why I was most intrigued this morning when the shadow Treasurer did a doorstop about reckless spending. This is what the shadow Treasurer said: ‘Every program and any program that is inefficient or is not delivering value for money should be changed, revised, removed.’ That is a very clear commitment from those opposite that stands in stark contrast to the way that they presided over the ‘regional rorts’ program during their period in office. When I saw these comments I wondered what the shadow Treasurer would have to say about the case of Coonawarra Gold. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not recall the minister being asked for alternative views in the question. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —It was a waste of spending. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will resume his seat. The minister is in order. It is not about alternative policies; it is about reckless spending. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —They have been asking for evidence all day, Mr Speaker. I am about to give them some and they might like to listen. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will answer the question. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Coonawarra Gold was a grape seed oil company in South Australia. On 20 June 2005 the former government approved $433,000 of taxpayers’ funds for this company. It was to put odour control filters into the company—a worthy objective to assist with the odour that would otherwise go out to the local community. As part of my duties as a diligent regional development minister I visited Coonawarra in January this year and I looked for the Coonawarra Gold factory. I could not find it anywhere. I began to think that the only odour that was around was the stench from the Regional Partnerships program. Indeed, that was the only odour that was around because it turns out that the company went bust on 11 November 2005. But just one month earlier, they got $433,000 of taxpayers’ funds even though they were going bust. You might think that perhaps the National-Liberal Party did not know about this company going bust—you cannot expect them to know every company that exists in their electorate. But the general manager of Coonawarra Gold was Mr Pat Trainor—he is known to those opposite. He was the Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Florey in the state election that was held at that very time. That is the stench that comes out of this program. The opposition are not interested in producing results for regional Australia; they are interested in producing votes in regional Australia. But this is not the only cruel hoax being played on regional Australia because, on the one hand, you have taxpayers’ funds going to organisations that do not exist but, on the other hand, you have pledges of taxpayers’ money that are never realised. For example, $1 million was approved way back in January 2004 for a program and, four years later, there was no contract, not a single dollar. I have yet another example: the Dalby Wambo Event Centre in the electorate of Maranoa put in an application in May 2005, three years ago, for $2 million. It was approved in March 2006 but there was no contract and no money—just a cruel hoax. Regional Partnerships was a program designed by the National Party to secure votes so that they could run around prior to election campaigns and say, ‘Everything is fine; the cheque’s in the mail.’ But it did not actually get delivered. They do deliver money where nothing exists, but they do not deliver on their commitments. The same opposition today cannot be believed when you hear the comments of the shadow Treasurer and compare them to how they acted in government with their wasteful expenditure and their wasteful pork-barrelling. 2565 2565 15:27:00 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Calare NATS 0 Mr JOHN COBB —My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to open government and evidence based policy not driven by ideology, will he provide the House with all the departmental modelling and advice on the impact of his government’s decision to buy back $3.1 billion of water entitlements in the Murray-Darling Basin? 2566 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —Anyone around the country will tell you that we have a real problem in terms of management of the nation’s water resources. Anyone will also tell you that in the 12 months or 14 months which elapsed between when the previous Prime Minister stood at this dispatch box and announced his national plan to take over the Murray-Darling nothing happened. That integrated body for the management of Australia’s greatest inland water system did not come to fruition. We had one series of negotiations after another and as a consequence of that by the time we came to the election there was no body. It took this government—in fact, at its second meeting of COAG—to strike a deal with the states to bring about a single authority for the proper national management of this nation’s inland water system. This is a reform which stared the nation in the face for the better part of a decade. Of course, at one year to midnight the then government decided they needed to do something about it; they did not bring it off and, after three to four months in office, we actually achieved that outcome. Managing effectively the nation’s water resources is going to be difficult but buying back water entitlements is part and parcel of the process of responsible management of the inland water system as well as ensuring that it is on the basis of providing proper compensation for those who wish to sell those entitlements. We believe that this is an essential part of properly dealing with our national water crisis both rural and urban. Secondly, the long-term manner in which you deal with the water crisis for the nation must also embrace a proper response to climate change—another area of long-term systemic neglect on the part of those opposite. Therefore, what I would say to those opposite—the Liberal Party—is: if there was a serious commitment at all on the part of those opposite to deal with the huge challenges of water scarcity in Australia, where did we see the evidence of this in the 12 years in which they were in office? We saw nothing. What we have done within four to five months of taking office is create a national mechanism to preside over the better management of our inland water system, and we intend to get on with the business of doing it. 2566 2566 15:29:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 Ms REA —My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Minister, what is the latest information on the government’s commitment to increase the core capability of the Australian Federal Police? 2566 Debus, Bob, MP 81S Macquarie ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 Mr DEBUS —I thank the honourable member for her question. It was just a few months ago that a ceremony was held in Sydney to mark the 30th anniversary of the bombing of the Hilton Hotel in Sydney, an event often described as the first act of terrorism on Australian soil. Images of that time shocked the nation—the scene of devastation that left three dead and a public in disbelief that it could happen here. Following the bombing, former commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police Sir Robert Mark was engaged to report on Australia’s national policing needs, and the result was the formation of the AFP in 1979. There is an often quoted statement from the Mark report: Arrangements for the governance of States which were adequate for trade, public order and the social requirements of the nineteenth century are not appropriate for dealing with serious wrongdoing which transcends State jurisdictions and affects the interest of the Commonwealth as a whole; terrorism, narcotics, and organised crime being perhaps the three most obvious examples ... There is today an undoubted need for one federal agency to coordinate the efforts of all police forces against interstate crime and terrorism. On the AFP’s first day of operation, drug liaison officers were attached to Australian embassies in Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, London and Wellington. Officers were also attached to Interpol and Scotland Yard. And, a month later, the AFP’s first headquarters opened in Canberra. Australian peacekeeping duties in Cyprus became the sole responsibility of the AFP, marking the beginning of its International Deployment Group, which has now got 385 people deployed in eight countries. Over the past few years, against the backdrop of September 11 and the Bali bombings, the AFP has had to adapt. Like all law enforcement agencies, it has had its share of fierce criticism, but it is fair to say that a lot of the AFP’s quite extraordinary work and success has often gone unnoticed and little reported. For instance, after the 2002 Bali bombings, the AFP with Indonesian police coordinated identification of more than 200 victims, and it did the same in 2005 at the time of the tsunami and after the plane crash in Yogyakarta where officers had to identify two of their colleagues. In 2002, there was no model for disaster victim identification. Today, the process developed by the AFP, learnt by trial and error and dedication, is contributing with Interpol to the development of an international benchmark. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 75 and under standing orders governing ministerial statements, this is clearly a ministerial statement. I would be happy to respond to it as the shadow minister responsible for the AFP. The Minister for Home Affairs should give this as a ministerial statement, and I will quite properly give a speech about the AFP— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will resume his seat. The question was in order and the response is in order. 81S Debus, Bob, MP Mr DEBUS —I should say that the AFP has also cemented its reputation in Asia through the operation of the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation, known as JCLEC, which aims to improve counterterrorism capabilities in the region. Since 2005, more than 2,000 participants from 33 countries have been trained at JCLEC in intelligence, forensics and other disciplines. This year is also the 30th anniversary of the AFP’s world-class Australian Bomb Data Centre. That bomb centre has provided early advice in the event of very significant overseas incidents, not least when it identified the explosives used in the London Underground bombing—information which informed key agencies in the United Kingdom. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I heard the question asked, and it was asking what the government was going to do in the future about the Federal Police, about which I would be most interested to hear. The history is well known to most of us that have been here a lot longer than the bloke that is lecturing us. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House, the member for Banks and the Minister for Resources and Energy—very much an unlikely trio—are not helping the chair. The answer is relevant to the question which was asked about what the government is doing to increase the core capability of the Australian Federal Police. 81S Debus, Bob, MP Mr DEBUS —I must say that those opposite have spent very little time actually explaining the important role of the AFP to the members of the Australian public. It is my belief that they have been so busy in the past playing the politics of fear that they did not feel it appropriate to describe successful initiatives to deal, for instance, with counterterrorism in South-East Asia, which I will come to. There is no doubt of the importance of the role of the Australian Federal Police in that respect. Just recently I was speaking to Dr Rohan Gunaratna, the very well known head of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at the Singapore technological university. And this, Mr Speaker, whatever those opposite might think, will be of great interest to others. He said to me— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 75 previous Speakers have ruled that when ministers give very lengthy answers to questions it is provocative and you cannot expect the opposition not to interject. We have now listened to the honourable minister for a great deal of time and I would ask you to draw his answer to a conclusion. He can speak on a ministerial statement or even on the adjournment but, really, he does not need to answer this question at such length. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! For the member on my left who interjected that that was ‘a good point of order’: I am afraid it was not. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I warn the member for Sturt! Whilst there are standing orders about tedious repetition, we haven’t got to the repetition bit yet! The members on my left will settle down and the minister will resume his answer and bring it to a close. 81S Debus, Bob, MP Mr DEBUS —I reiterate that Australia’s offshore counterterrorism policies and strategies have been spearheaded by the AFP, and if it was not for Australia’s assistance to South-East Asian countries, and particularly Indonesia, the threat of terrorism would have increased considerably since the Bali bombings. That is why the government are pleased to be delivering on our election commitment to boost the AFP’s numbers by 500 to focus indeed on the AFP’s domestic investigations including drug trafficking, organised crime, fraud and money laundering. Five hundred new officers will build on the excellent work being done by those dedicated police professionals. 2568 2568 15:40:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, with rising interest rates, petrol and grocery prices, and pre-budget confirmation of increased taxes on cars and alcohol while cutting support for essential services, isn’t this a budget of confusion from a government that does not know what it is doing? 2568 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I find the conclusion to the question by the Leader of the Opposition interesting indeed. The Leader of the Opposition has made a number of comments about the importance of the budget and the disciplines associated with the budget. On one day he says that there is an inflation problem; on the next day he says that there is no inflation problem. If people were to be confused, one would be reasonable to conclude that there is a fair bit of confusion lying on the part of those opposite. But this is the one that I particularly like in terms of consistency of policy position on the part of those opposite. It goes to the framing of budget— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a specific question about his own budget in the light of existing circumstances, rising interest rates, rising costs and selective budget leaks. He was not asked about alternative policy. He was not asked about our position on the budget. He was asked about his own— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! While I am not sure what I am warning him for, I warn the member for Mayo for his constant sniping! If he wants to assist proceedings, as I have invited him to do on several occasions in this parliament, he can rise on a point of order. The problem with this at the moment is that the question was a very broad question relating to matters that are to be revealed later tonight and I think on that basis it is an opportunity for a fairly broad answer. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The question goes to the coordination and coherence of government and budget policy. In January this year we made it very plain what our approach to the fight against inflation was—five points. First, we have got to deliver a substantial budget surplus so that we can draw down public demand so as not to fuel the fires of inflation, because fighting inflation is a critical part of the economic challenge. Second, we said that we would be in the business of investigating necessary measures to increase private savings in the economy, again to draw down overall total demand in the economy, which again fuels overall demand in the economy and then fuels inflation. Third, you then go to the question of the supply side constraints—firstly, on skills policies and, secondly, on infrastructure policy—and act decisively in those areas to boost the supply side measures, because if you fail to do so then you are failing to act on the 20 sets of advice which the previous government received from the Reserve Bank and failed to act on. And through all these measures you need to make sure that you have a coordinated approach to fighting the fight against inflation. That is what we have said since January. We have taken it as the right way through. By contrast, what we have from those opposite is this: an argument which says that there is no—repeat no—inflation crisis, that inflation is a charade, that inflation is a fairytale. I say to those opposite: say that to the mums and dads in Australia tonight who are confronted with the inflationary impact they face, the consequences of which flow through to their mortgages, to their rents, to the prices they have to pay, to childcare costs and the rest. Secondly, they not only say that inflation is a charade; they further advance this argument—this is the economic credibility of those opposite: there is no economic case to reduce government spending. RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister knows that what has been said by me and the shadow Treasurer is that there is no inflationary crisis but there is a challenge. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There are other forms in the chamber that might be used. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —There is their argument that not only is there no inflation crisis; inflation is a fairytale and a charade! Furthermore—and this is the ultimate underlining of their economic irresponsibility—they say there is no economic case to reduce government spending. That is what the alternative Treasurer of the country said barely a week or so ago. I have not heard any recanting of that yet—that there is no economic case to reduce government spending. This from the Liberal Party—the Liberal Party attacking this federal Labor government, from the left, with a single argument saying: ‘You should be spending more on government spending.’ I find it remarkable that their third point is this—this is the trifecta of their new economic orthodoxy: we should preserve welfare payments to Australia’s wealthiest. That is their orthodoxy: firstly, there is no inflation problem; secondly, there is no case to cut government spending; and, thirdly, we should preserve welfare payments for the wealthiest. But when it comes to consistency, I conclude with this on the question of revenue—and revenue measures were touched on specifically by the Leader of the Opposition himself in question time today—and it goes to the excise on alcopops. Brendan Nelson on 27 April said: The proposed increase in the excise on alcopops is something that will be supported by us ... Brendan Nelson on 1 May said: What we’ve learnt is that they spin a few things out into the newspaper like the outrageous half a billion dollars tax binge on ready-mixed drinks ... I presume that means you are now opposed to it. What a long time a week constitutes in politics. Supporting the introduction of this tax one week, opposing it the next. And the opposition has the gall to ask the government about consistency of economic policy! The opposition needs to take a long hard look at itself. It is no longer articulating any credible economic policy position in the lead-up to this budget. 2570 2570 15:47:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 Mr TREVOR —My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Will the minister inform the House of the implications of the expansion of Australia’s continental shelf for the resources sector? 2570 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I thank the member for Flynn for this question. As a member who represents a resource-rich seat, he understands and appreciates the importance of this United Nations decision. The decision flows from the ratification by the previous Labor government of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. Giving credit where credit is due, I would also like to compliment my own agency, Geoscience Australia, which, in partnership with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney-General’s Department, pursued an extension of Australia’s continental shelf over a period in excess of a decade. For Geoscience Australia this amounted to work at sea over a 10-year period, including two years full-time seismic work. They are to be complimented on the dedicated manner in which they pursued this application on behalf of Australia, the most successful application to date by any nation through the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. It effectively represents an extension of our continental shelf of 2.5 million square kilometres. That is a great achievement, the application being for 2.8 million square kilometres. It is an area that is potentially resource rich for Australia, a potential bonanza for this nation not only in terms of scarce oil and gas reserves but also potentially for biological resources such as micro-organisms that could be used in medicines. The area is effectively five times the size of France, seven times the size of Germany and 10 times the size of New Zealand. It is now our responsibility as a government building Australia’s foundations for the 21st century to work with industry to put in place a modern 21st-century incentive regime which enables us to explore these opportunities. That is not going to be easy because we are talking about deep sea drilling—highly risky and extremely expensive. On behalf of the government I simply say that we are going to go forward with this challenge in partnership with the private sector. It is exceptionally important for resource and energy security not only for Australia but also for the region in which we live. Just think about this: why do we need to succeed on this front? Australia will potentially have a $25 billion trade deficit in petroleum products by 2015. So it is our responsibility to work with our agencies to try to secure a new Bass Strait. That is about a proper focus on the exploration industry’s attention to new deep sea frontiers. In conclusion, I simply want to say that this is about enhancing our nation’s future energy security. It is one of the prime responsibilities of government. Just as we are building the foundations of a sound economic future for Australia in the budget pro-cess this evening, we will also pursue energy security—one of the key concerns of Australia and the global community. 2571 2571 15:51:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 Mr BALDWIN —My question is to the Minister for Defence. Can the minister confirm that on his recent visit to Afghanistan he made a speech to the seriously injured troops not once but twice, and the only reason he went back for a second time was that he forgot to mention the Prime Minister in the first speech? 2571 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP Minister for Defence 1 Mr FITZGIBBON —I thank the member for his question. I am delighted to confirm for the House that, fortuitously, I was able to recently visit the injured troops in Taran-Kowt. I was fortunate to be in the region, travelling through Dubai on my way home from Gallipoli, where I delivered the dawn service speech and other speeches. I went to Taran-Kowt also, of course, to pay my respects to Lance Corporal Jason Marks, who lost his life only days before. It is true that I visited the wounded troops in the hospital and it is true that I did so twice—for a very, very good reason. I spoke to the injured soldiers once and then received a phone call from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister asked me to extend his best wishes to the injured soldiers. As you would expect, I returned to the hospital and extended, on his behalf, the Prime Minister’s best wishes. I am very surprised that the opposition would seek to make political capital from the defence minister’s visit to a fallen soldier and to other soldiers severely woun-ded defending our country in the most dangerous of circumstances. Shame on them! 2571 2571 15:54:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —My question is to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. What is the government doing to recognise the 40th anniversary of the Battles of Coral and Balmoral? 2571 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 Mr GRIFFIN —I thank the member for Dobell for his question. As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have already said today, we honour a select group of Australians who, 40 years ago, did their duty by our country at a very difficult time in our history. The funding that has been provided to support a range of commemorative activities has come from my department, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. I acknowledge the member for Dunkley, the previous minister, for the work he did in a bipartisan fashion with respect to ensuring that these matters are properly commemorated. A veterans committee, set up under Don Tait and Garry Prendergast, has done what is I think, as those who know Vietnam vets well would know, a difficult job. It has ensured the provision of proper commemoration in a manner for which there has been broad support within the veterans community. I pay tribute to them and their organising committee for the work that they have done. A series of functions have been held. On a public basis we had last night, as was mentioned, a ceremony here in the Great Hall where some 1,400 to 1,500 veterans, their families and next of kin were present, as well as many members of parliament from both sides of the House. Comments were made on behalf of both sides of the House and respects were paid to those who had lost family members in that particular battle. Some 26 young Australians died at that time. Today I was joined by the Prime Minister, the member for Mackellar and the Governor-General, amongst others, at a commemorative ceremony at the Vietnam Forces National Memorial on Anzac Parade. It was a very moving occasion—but a bit more sombre than last night—where, again, respects were paid to the many who were lost so long ago. Tomorrow there will be a function on Mount Pleasant at the Artillery Memorial for the 102nd Field Battery where the title of ‘Coral’ will be bestowed by the Governor-General. It is a specific honour title and is the first time it has happened to an Australian battery. It acknowledges publicly and clearly the very serious role that they played with respect to the battle of south Coral. We then move on to Townsville later this week, where there will be a dawn service and further com-memorative activities on the weekend and an opportunity for even more of those who were involved to get together with their mates and share some memories about what occurred 40 years ago. Spending some time last night talking to the families of those who lost loved ones so long ago was a particularly moving experience. It was a difficult time for those who lost, in some cases, their sons, brothers or hus-bands. The good thing about last night was the overwhelming sense that this was a commemoration which needed to occur and an opportunity for many people to have some closure. There were beers last night, there were tears last night and there was an opportunity for many to catch up with people they had not seen for a long time. As other people have said, we need to remember at this time the courage and sacrifice of those who fought on our behalf so long ago. As well, we remember today what our forces are doing overseas, which was also part of what was said earlier today in question time. 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson —Do not forget Bill Rolfe. VU5 Griffin, Alan, MP Mr GRIFFIN —I thank the member for Dunkley. There is no doubt that the work of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs has been an important part of ensuring this has worked well. I would particularly like to mention Brigadier Bill Rolfe, the Repatriation Commissioner, who, from the military side, has played a very important role in getting this together. He should be congratulated for his work. I would urge all members to remember on this occasion the sacrifice of those so long ago. Remember their families. Remember their mates. What happened 40 years ago is an important part of our military history. It is something we should honour our veterans for, as we honour them on all other occasions. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 2572 2572 15:59:00 Ramsey, Rowan, MP HWS Grey LP 0 Mr RAMSEY —My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. I refer the minister to the shocking Mullighan report, handed down last week, which found that 14 per cent of the children have been sexually assaulted on APY lands in South Australia, with some of these children as young as 10 years of age. Given that the minister admitted on ABC radio on Wednesday, 7 May that Indigenous abuse is a national problem, why isn’t the government doing anything about this horrific issue? 2572 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms MACKLIN —I thank the honourable member for his question. I want to say a couple of things at the outset. Every single member of this House is horrified by the revelations in the Mullighan inquiry. Unfortunately, they are not new revelations. They are revelations that have been known to many people for a long time. They are revelations that, unfortunately, are being replicated in other parts of Australia. We are all very well aware of what is happening in the Northern Territory, the Kimberley and Cape York, to name just a few places where we have shocking levels of child abuse. The new Australian government have taken the view that we should provide some leadership and develop a national child protection framework, which we are doing. We intend to release a discussion paper on this issue very shortly. I look forward to contributions from all members of the House on the whole question of what the national government— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —A discussion paper when kids are being mistreated? Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order! The minister has the call. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —These are very serious issues and very difficult issues to resolve. I hope and expect that all of us can work together to address what is a critical issue for everyone: protecting children. Last week, when the Mullighan inquiry report was tabled by the Premier of South Australia in the South Australian parliament, this government here in Canberra responded immediately by committing an additional $19 million for both additional police facilities and homes for additional police officers and child protection officers so they can finally be located on the APY lands. We are also putting additional money—$2.8 million, in fact—into additional places at boarding colleges in Adelaide so that children from the APY lands can come to Adelaide to continue their education. There is additional money for mental health services. I have asked the South Australian government to move swiftly so that we can proceed to build the $25 million worth of housing that is urgently needed on the APY lands. The South Australian government has created a taskforce to respond as quickly as possible to the Mullighan committee of inquiry recommendations. They have already had their first meeting. Just today I asked that a senior member of my department join that taskforce. I have asked the South Australian government and the minister to respond as quickly as possible to every one of the recommendations in the Mullighan inquiry report. 2573 2573 16:03:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —My question is to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister advise the House of the likelihood of a successful outcome to the World Trade Organisation Doha Round? Why is this important to Australia, Minister, and to the global economy? 2573 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP Minister for Trade 1 Mr CREAN —I thank the honourable member for his question. He knows the significance of improved trade opportunities for his state and his electorate. Let me deal with the second part of the question first: why is it important? It is important to improve trading opportunities because world trade grows at three times the rate of world output. The message is pretty clear from that. If countries want to secure their economic future, they not only have to engage with trade but have to do what they can to liberalise and open more markets so that that trade opportunity can happen. It is also the fact that after each successful round in the multilateral trade forums there has been an important boost to trade opportunities. That is why getting another boost is important in the current context in closing out the Doha Round. It is also important in the current economic circumstances because in times of global economic uncertainty it is important to inject an amount of certainty. It is also significant that a conclusion to the Doha Round can be a key component in solving the high food price problem that many countries are facing. As to the likelihood of an outcome, that has been significantly improved because of the more active engagement in the multilateral round by the Rudd government. This is something that should not be underestimated. We have recalibrated the focus of trade policy to put primacy of focus on the Doha Round and not have the predominance of the focus on the bilateral agreements—the free trade agreements. We have engaged a new level of activism, not only in Geneva but through the Cairns Group, through the regional architectures and through bilateral arrangements. It is true to say that, since the political will injected in Davos in January of this year, there are now new frameworks to conclude this round in—a framework that has laid out the basis for dealing with sensitive products and domestic support, a framework for goods and a framework for services. We still do not have the framework for dealing with special products from developing countries. This is something that we are actively engaged in at the moment. The truth is that we are closer now than we have ever been to getting an outcome in the Doha Round. Problems do remain but, in a funny way, the problems exist because we are making this sort of progress. I only make the point because this is a huge opportunity for this country. But it is a vital opportunity for global prosperity. This government will leave no stone unturned in trying to find and secure an outcome to the Doha Round. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 2574 Personal Explanations 2574 16:06:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Dr NELSON —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr NELSON —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr NELSON —The Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation during question time asserted that I have said that there is no inflationary problem. What I have said quite clearly is that there is no inflationary crisis. There is an inflationary challenge to be addressed by Australia but there is no inflationary crisis and the inflationary crisis is something confected by those in government. 2574 Questions to the Speaker 2574 2574 16:07:00 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr PEARCE —Mr Speaker, I seek your assistance under standing order 105(b), which refers to questions unanswered after having been on the Notice Paper for 60 days. The normal protocol is for the question number to be read out; however, I regret to advise that there are 53 questions that have been outstanding for more than 60 days so, if it serves the convenience of the House, I seek leave to table a list of the questions outstanding rather than recite the whole 53 questions. Leave granted. 2574 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —Under standing order 105(b), I will take the appropriate action. 2574 2574 16:08:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 1 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —Mr Speaker, I had the privilege of attending the Parliament House 20th anniversary celebrations here last Saturday. I ask if you could advise the House of the contribution made by the staff of the parliament which I believe helped to ensure such a successful public occasion and such an important one? 2574 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I am ashamed to indicate that the member for Canberra did tip me off about this earlier in question time! Can I briefly, and importantly, say that there were a series of events last Friday and Saturday to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the opening of this building, which is often described as ‘new Parliament House’ by locals but is ‘Parliament House’ to most of the nation. The purpose and the theme of the celebrations was to commemorate the contribution of those who were involved in the design and construction of the building. As the member for Canberra has indicated, it was a very successful occasion. It included an open day on the Saturday at which there were—I have seen one report say—8,000 people, but I was not out there counting them. I think that it is quite proper for us to congratulate all those from the parliamentary departments who were involved in what was a very successful occasion. The feedback from those who were involved in design and construction was that they felt that it was a very suitable way in which we commemorated the 20th anniversary of the opening of this place. 2575 Auditor-General's Reports 2575 2575 16:10:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I present the Auditor-General’s Audit reports for 2007-08 entitled Audit report No. 27, Emergency Management Australia: Attorney-General’s Department; Audit report No. 28, Defence’s compliance with the Public Works Committee approval processes: Department of Defence; Audit report No. 29, Parent school partnerships initiative: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations; Audit report No. 30, The Australian Taxation Office’s use of data matching and analytics in tax administration: Australian Taxation Office; Audit report No. 31, Management of recruitment in the Australian Public Service; and Audit report No. 32, Preparation of the tax expenditures statement: Department of the Treasury. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. 2575 Documents Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth —Deputy Leader of the House) 16:10:00 —Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. 2575 Matters of Public Importance 2575 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Curtin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The threat to jobs from Labor’s rollback of workplace relations reforms and the Government’s attempts to hide Treasury advice that its reforms will increase inflation and destroy jobs. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 2575 16:11:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —Mr Speaker, in an act of breathtaking arrogance, in an interview on Sky News on 19 March, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion gave her personal guarantee that no worker would be worse off due to Labor’s roll-back of workplace relations laws. We now know that the government has advice from Treasury—that is, from the government’s own economic advisers—that potentially thousands of workers will be worse off because they will lose their jobs under Labor’s roll-back of workplace relations reforms. While the minister clearly does not think this is a matter of public importance—she is not even in the House to answer it—and the minister clearly does not believe that losing your job makes you worse off, every member of the coalition can assure the minister, on behalf of their constituents, that losing your job has a devastating impact on people and their families because job security underpins personal security and underpins family security. The most concerning aspect of the minister’s arrogant but worthless guarantee is that the government has plenty of advice that its roll-back of workplace relations laws will drive up inflation and will destroy jobs. This is in spite of the Prime Minister’s statement on 30 April when he committed the government to evidence based policy—evidence based, not ideology. He said in a speech to public servants: A third element of the Government’s agenda for the public service is to ensure a robust, evidence-based policy making process. Policy design and policy evaluation should be driven by analysis of all the available options, and not by ideology. …         …         … Policy innovation and evidence-based policy making is at the heart of being a reformist government. Again, it was a hollow, shallow, worthless statement because the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion, who is not at the table and not even in the House, continues with the pretence that no such Treasury advice exists and that there is no modelling and no econometric analysis within government that reveals the impact on inflation and on jobs of Labor’s roll-back of workplace relations reforms. It is remarkable that the minister has said consistently that the Labor government has done no modelling, no research and no analysis of the impact of its workplace relations policies. That is as remarkable a statement as one could think of. It is a defence of the indefensible. What is the minister relying on for her policies? The Prime Minister said it had to be evidence based, but the minister says there is no modelling, no evidence, no analysis and no research of the impact of Labor’s policies to roll back workplace relations reforms. So what is the minister relying on—divine intuition? As a matter of fact, the minister claimed on ABC radio that she did not need modelling or research; she did not need the assistance of experts. In an interview on 7 May on The World Today, the interviewer asked: So can we take it then that you have not sought any advice and you haven’t been given any advice from within the bureaucracy about the economic effects of your industrial relations policy? The minister answered: We understand the economic effects of our industrial relations policy. We understood them on the day we released it ... What kind of arrogance is that? The minister does not need analysis, she does not need expert advice and she does not need Treasury advice! She can ignore Treasury advice because, through divine intuition, she understands the economic effects of her industrial relations policy! Oh no, she does not. The fact is that Treasury, the government’s own economic advisers, has provided the Labor government with not only advice provided to the previous government but also advice dated 13 December 2007. How do we know about this advice? Because the media organisations, the ABC, have sought, through the freedom of information laws, access to Treasury advice about the economic impact, particularly on inflation, of Labor’s workplace relations policies. Why would they do that? Labor says that it has a five-point plan to fight inflation, and within those five points there is no mention of the impact of workplace relations reforms or re-regulating the labour market, as the Labor government’s policy will do. It says it is about fighting inflation but it leaves out of its plan the most important factor, according to Treasury, to fight inflation—that is, a deregulated labour market and flexibility in the labour market without a roll back of the reforms of the last 10 years. In accordance with the Prime Minister’s commitment to open government and in accordance with the Prime Minister’s professed belief in opening up the freedom of information laws, members will remember that he recently said in a speech to Fairfax newspapers that he wanted to ensure that the FOI laws ‘are compatible with a culture of disclosure and transparency’. The Prime Minister said: Labor is committed to a culture of greater disclosure and transparency in government … So, when the government is asked to produce the Treasury advice after the election—the advice that came on 13 December 2007 that goes to the very heart of this issue of inflation—about the impact of Labor’s workplace relations roll-back, what do you think it gave in response? Thirty blank pages. An opposition member—Is that a policy paper! 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —That is a Treasury executive minute seen by every member of the cabinet in response to an FOI request—30 blank pages. This goes to the very heart of the issue of inflation and the impact of Labor’s laws. Is this open and accountable government? How does the Prime Minister justify his claim that it will be an open, accountable and transparent government when 30 blank pages are produced in response to a freedom of information application? We have seen the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and the Prime Minister hide behind the bureaucracy. Their response was, ‘Oh well, the bureaucrats made that decision.’ Every member of the cabinet had this advice and any one of them can release this advice at any time. This advice goes to the heart of the question of the inflation challenge facing this country and Labor’s roll back of workplace relations reforms. This is a disgrace. There is no justification for it. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the government’s response to a freedom of information request for Treasury advice dated 13 December 2007. Leave granted. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —The Prime Minister’s commitment to open government and to FOI law reform has been proved to be worthless by this response to a request for Treasury advice. This is important because the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has now been caught out, because she has said repeatedly, ‘There is no advice.’ She said that they have received no advice. They have received advice; it is in that Treasury document. 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —Will she say it in here? 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —No, she will not say it in the House. The minister said it on Sky News. The minister has said repeatedly that there is no advice. We know that there was advice on 13 December 2007. But while on Sunday she was busily telling Sky’s Agenda that there was no advice within government—as remarkable as it seems, she said that with a straight face—over on Channel 10 on Meet the Press the Minister for Finance and Deregulation was being asked about this advice. He took the ‘The bureaucrats are to blame’ defence and said, ‘We do not release Treasury advice.’ Yes, they do. The Treasurer had released Treasury advice on savings just a week before because it suited their purposes. But, because the advice will prove that Labor’s roll-back of workplace relations laws will drive up inflation and will cost jobs, they are hiding that advice from the Australian people. But then the Minister for Finance and Deregulation said in response to a question: ‘Our advice’ does not support that proposition. ‘Our advice’ does not support that? I thought they had no advice. So I say to the minister—I would say it to the minister if she had bothered to come into this matter of public importance debate—through whoever is sitting on the front bench: which is it? Does the government have advice, as the finance minister said, or does the government not have advice, as the employment minister says? One of them is not being frank with the Australian people. The minister for employment says there is no advice; the minister for finance says they have advice—‘our advice’. We know that the Treasurer has advice, dated 13 December 2007. In an approach that is becoming, shall we say, the minister’s trademark, when in another interview on Sky’s Sunday Agenda the minister was asked about how many jobs would be lost under Labor’s roll-back of industrial relations laws she continued to claim that there would be no job losses. But—problem!—the Treasurer admitted last week that there will be job losses under Labor’s policies. He has admitted that unemployment will increase under Labor. As the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—there are plenty of jobs there to go around, aren’t there?—was asked about this repeatedly, she refused to answer the question. Labor is hiding from the Australian public the advice they have on how many job losses there will be under their roll-back of workplace relations reforms. They have refused to release the modelling, analysis and research that we know exists, that they know exists and that the media certainly knows exists on the future of job losses in Australia and the future of people’s job security. So we ask again: how many jobs will be lost, will be sacrificed, on the altar of this minister’s ego and this government’s arrogance? They are hiding this information from the Australian people, all the while pretending that they do not have advice when they do, and hiding behind bureaucrats by blaming them for the decision to produce 30 blank pages in response to a freedom of information request. Sadly, there is a sense of deja vu about this government. We just have to cast our minds back to the last time Labor was in government, when through its industrial relations policies unemployment was driven to 11 per cent. There were one million people unemployed in this country the last time Labor was in government. Then we had 10 years of workplace reform, during which unemployment decreased to the lowest level in three decades. Unemployment reached four per cent—less than half what it was when we came to government in 1996. It was 11 per cent under Paul Keating, down to four per cent under Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello. That was because of a series of reforms—waterfront reform, tax reform, workplace relations reform and welfare reform. The policies of the previous government drove down unemployment. Over 2.2 million jobs were created and real wages increased by 20 per cent. Through our policies of labour market deregulation we saw more jobs created than at any single time in Australia’s history—2.2 million new jobs. We were able to contain inflation by continuing to put flexibility into the workplace, and real wages were able to rise by 20 per cent over a decade without the wages inflation spiral that drove this economy into recession the last time a Labor government was in power. (Time expired) 2578 16:26:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance 1 0 Mr McMULLAN —I recall from a rather bitter 11 years that the question time and the MPI on budget day are really painful when you are in opposition, and I have never seen a more obvious example of it. I never enjoyed it, and I cannot recall but I suppose a time or two I had to deliver the MPI on budget day, because it is a short-straw system and someone always draws it. But there is no question that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition showed the strain of having to cope with drawing the short straw. Let us have a look at the issues that this debate is actually supposed to be about. It is about the industrial relations changes and inflation. It is about issues of freedom of information and open government. Let me talk first about industrial relations and then I will talk about freedom of information, open government and a few related issues along the way. The core reality of contemporary industrial relations is this: the opposition still wants AWAs and the government does not. There is a lot of other debate. There are a lot of issues that go backwards and forwards about the relative merits of this subclause and that paragraph, but there is a core issue—and it is the core issue the Australian people passed a judgement about at the last election. Do we want to have our industrial relations system based on individual contracts or do we want to have our industrial relations system based on the collective rights of working people? That is the core question, and it is the core question that, strangely, the shadow minister did not talk about. But that is where the change exists. It is not the issue that determines whether industrial relations will drive up inflation. That relates to whether or not your model is enterprise based—not whether it is individual or collective but whether it is enterprise based. The data is very clear. From the time that this country shifted to an enterprise based model as a result of the 1993 reforms to industrial relations—which I had the privilege of putting through the Senate at that time, over some strenuous opposition from the then opposition—the shape and character of inflation in this country have changed significantly. You would think, if this government’s industrial relations changes—moving away from the collective based model to an individual one—were going to cause inflation, that the introduction of Work Choices and the introduction of the individual based model would have reduced inflation. But the problem is, in the period after the introduction of Work Choices, inflation went up. I do not know if that inconvenient fact is going to arise in the course of any of the contributions from members of the opposition. But, if you look at the first quarters of 2006—in the period immediately after the introduction of Work Choices—you will see that unemployment went up in the March quarter, it went up in the June quarter and it stayed above the December 2005 level for about 15 months. So this revolutionary anti-inflationary measure was remarkably counterproductive. The truth of it is, of course, that the factors underlying inflation are much more complex than the sort of puerile assessment we occasionally get from people who think that if only you attack workers’ rights you will do something good about inflation. The core reality of our industrial relations contest is not about inflation; it is about whether you believe in collective rights or individual contracts. It is a fundamental difference and it is a difference around which the current opposition cannot make up its mind. The issue has been raised of whether the minister in question or the Treasurer have received advice that the government’s policies on industrial relations will lead to inflation. My advice both from the Deputy Prime Minister and, through her, from the Treasurer is that neither of them has received any such advice. That really is the core question here. We can debate the real causes of inflation—and I will have time to come back to them—its history and some of the global pressures that are underpinning it. But, regarding industrial relations and any advice on the impact of the government’s changes, that is my advice to the House. I will divert for a moment to talk about the other aspect of the debate, which relates to freedom of information. It is remarkable to hear these claims today from somebody who was a minister in the previous government, which for more than a decade hid behind the most restrictive possible interpretation of the freedom of information legislation and retained the capacity to issue conclusive certificates. That means that, after the bureaucratic process determines that materials should be made available in the public interest, a minister can override that advice and issue a conclusive certificate, which is, as the name implies, entirely unreviewable and creates the situation where the public is denied access to material that the independent assessment processes say should be available. We as a government are committed to the abolition of those conclusive certificates. Maybe not everybody thinks that a government will carry through with such a commitment—because freedom of information is always easier to talk about in opposition than to have in government. But the government has been recommitted to this action not only by the Deputy Prime Minister, by the Attorney-General and by the Special Minister of State, who is responsible for this area, but in question time today by the Prime Minister. The record of the previous government with regard to the release of industrial relations information is extraordinary. We had from them not the refusal to release modelling but rather the refusal to release the results of AWAs. Surveys were undertaken which started to reveal that AWAs were damaging the interests of workers. So the government had two choices: they could change the policy or stop releasing the information. So they abolished the survey and stopped releasing the information so that the damage could continue without them having to tell anybody about it. And they come in here and ask to talk to us about FOI! My colleague the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, the member for Rankin, tells me that when we were in opposition he spent a large amount of time and money on an unsuccessful FOI request regarding a report on the coalition’s proposed industrial relations changes commissioned by the previous government from the Centre of Policy Studies. So, of course, they raced to release it! No, perhaps they did not—they actually refused, saying it was not in the public interest to do so as it would mislead the public. The shadow minister comes in here and says, ‘We have to release this information. It is in the public interest to do so’—but when in government they always refused to. We also had the circumstance concerning the Treasury portfolio where the tax office proposed to release information. The then Treasurer, the member for Higgins, issued a conclusive certificate and said: ‘This information can never be released’—and it never was released. He overrode the public assessment of the legislation. That is wrong. This government is going to have a different approach to this general issue of governance. It will always be the case—as when the legislation was first introduced under the previous government and now under Labor—that there will be some criteria under which some information and advice to the government cannot be released. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —How’s it different? 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMULLAN —There will be no conclusive certificates. Ministers cannot intervene and override public servants like your government did. That is exactly the significant difference and the point of principle. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —So no phone calls? 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMULLAN —It would be illegal, and they do not happen because public servants take records. If you did it as a minister you would be a mug. It does not rule it out as a possibility, but you should not. This process needs to be at arm’s length from ministers, against legislated criteria that are reviewable. That is the process of best practice government, not that there is no information in the government that cannot be released—of course there is—but there is a legislative framework that says what can be released and it is administered at arm’s length from ministers and is reviewable. Those are the princi-ples that we will be applying. They are the principles of good government; they are the 21st-century principles that people expect. If the opposition think that is not good enough when the legislation comes in, let them propose some amendments to broaden it. I will be amazed because they had 12 years to do something about it but they did nothing. The core question under debate is really not about freedom of information. The opposition do not believe in freedom of information. They undermined it at every possible point. It is about industrial relations. It was the defining issue of Australian politics last year, it is the defining issue of Australian politics this year and, by all indications, it is going to be the defining issue of Australian politics for the rest of this term because the opposition, to the extent you can discern a continuity of view in their position, still support individual contracts. They are still out of touch with working families. The party that created Work Choices still support Work Choices, but they do not mention the words. It sounds like a scene from Fawlty Towers: ‘Don’t mention Work Choices!’ They always love to talk about individual contracts. The opposition are always going to be associated with the extremism of Work Choices. Significant parts of the Liberal Party, including the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister, remain firmly and publicly in support of Work Choices and AWAs, but we are about a different model, a 21st-century productive model which meets the challenges of the future and can deliver for working families. The shock is, I suppose—and this is causing some real difficulty for the opposition—that we are proposing to do in government what we said in opposition we would do. I know that is an extraordinary proposition. It never occurred to you. You ought to try it sometime in the distant future. The public might like it. You have two hurdles: one is you have to win; the second is you have to change your spots because you never tried it in government. I think the most demeaning and undermining statement of contemporary Australian politics is the concept of the non-core promise. Australians found it a revolting concept and they were right—it is a revolting concept. Sometimes you have to stand up in public and say, ‘I wanted to do this but circumstances have changed and I cannot.’ We have not confronted that crisis but every government does. People do not mark you down for that, if you stand up say, ‘I wanted to do it but now I can’t.’ But to say, ‘I never really meant it,’ is most undermining of the democratic process. It undermines the confidence of Australians in political parties and in political processes. It eroded the trust of Australians for a decade. We are going to try a new model of governance. Industrial relations is a core issue. Governance is not so front of mind, but people are seeing a different approach. They like it and we intend to continue to deliver it. We intend to continue to say that modern governance demands something better than the previous government offered. It demands that people say what they are going to do, do it and tell them they have done it. If you cannot do it, you fess up and say why. That is what people expect of their governments. Governments are made up of human beings. They make mistakes. You cannot get everything right and circumstances change, but what they want us to do is look them in the eye and be honest with them—do what we promised or explain why not. I do not know—and if I knew I could not say—what is going to be in the budget. One of the key characteristics of which I am aware so far is that it is about implementing election commitments. I think you ought to think about that as a concept, the revolutionary idea that when you promise to do something you ought to do it. We promised to get rid of AWAs and we did. We promised to change the FOI laws and we will. The Australian people will welcome this new and more decent approach to governance. Sometime you should try it. 2582 16:41:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 0 Mr CIOBO —How extraordinary! We have just had a lecture from the member for Fraser about how important it is that governments actually implement the policies they took to the election. The member for Fraser likes to talk about how fundamentally important it is—another of their revolutions—that when the Labor Party got into power they went about implementing their core policies. What did we hear from the Labor Party prior to the last election? We heard a lot of talk about this level of inflation and how the Labor Party were dedicated to putting downward pressure on inflation, downward pressure on prices, downward pressure on petrol pricing and down-ward pressure on grocery prices. They were the things we heard about. We were told that Labor had a five-point plan to do this. But what this MPI goes to the very core of today is that Labor’s policies are not about implementing what they said they were going to be about; they are about the exact opposite. That is what irritates the Australian people, the fact that the Australian Labor Party went to the last election with full knowledge that the results of the implementation of Labor policies would be not that inflation would go down but that inflation would go up. That is the consequence of Labor Party policies. You do not have to take my word for it because there is something in the public eye that perhaps holds more credibility than me—that is, the Treasury. If you do not believe it when I say that the Treasury has credibility, let us listen to what the Labor Party say. On 29 November last year Mr Rudd said: Treasury has been an under-utilised resource in the past. I want it to be seen to be brought to centre stage of what this government does in the future. We cannot afford to fall behind when it comes to national economic reform and I intend to harness the full resources and capabilities of the Treasury in doing so. What does the Treasurer say about Treasury? He says: The Howard government ignores the advice of Treasury at the economy’s peril. Treasury is the government’s central economic policy agency and contains some of the best and brightest minds in the country. Treasury has guided governments of all persuasions through key reforms that have strengthened and increased the resilience of the Australian economy. That is what Labor say about Treasury. Labor say Treasury has to be listened to, that governments ignore Treasury advice at their peril. So what is Treasury advice—because that is the question that really is at the core of this MPI? Treasury’s advice is very clear. Basically it was summed up by Dennis Shanahan in an article in the Australian on Wednesday, 7 May. Dennis Shanahan said: In the face of a huge Victorian teachers’ pay rise and more claims (made under existing laws), Swan declared he wasn’t concerned about Labor’s new laws because wage rises would be based on productivity. Yet Treasury’s summation of Labor’s scrapping of Work Choices is as devastating as it is concise: likely job losses; rising inflation, prices and wages; more interest rate rises; productivity and real disposable income falls; and greater difficulty for the “most vulnerable job seekers to find work”. That is a summation of Treasury’s advice about Labor Party policy. We have heard the excuses from the Deputy Prime Minister and the excuses from the Prime Minister, who said, ‘Oh no, the Treasury minute wasn’t possibly about Labor’s policies, because our policies were released after the Treasury minute.’ But what the Prime Minister fails to mention is the fact that in his speech, when he delivered it, he outlined in complete detail their policy with respect to industrial relations and, specifically, Labor’s policy with respect to unfair dismissal. To quote the Prime Minister—the then opposition leader: Our laws will return the right to basic working conditions—like penalty rates, overtime and public holiday pay. What did Treasury say about that? Treasury’s minute says: Higher unit costs, either through higher real labour costs, lower productivity, or a combination of both, will place upward pressures on prices, which effectively lowers real disposable incomes, consumer spending and thus employment. Further, the Prime Minister—the then opposition leader—said: Our laws will ensure a minimum wage, set by the independent umpire that keeps track with living standards. Again, Treasury’s assessment of this was damning. Treasury said: Linking wages growth directly to living standards (headline inflation) may expose the economy to wage-price spirals—higher inflationary outcomes lead to higher interest rates. Higher inflationary outcomes lead to higher interest rates, and we see evidence of that already when we see teachers unions in Victoria claiming wage rises in excess of 20 per cent. Make no mistake: the real consequence for working families will be Labor Party policy driving up inflation, driving up wage-price spirals and putting upward pressure on interest rates. That is what Labor policy will deliver to the people of Australia. That is Kevin Rudd’s gift to the people of Australia: higher inflation, higher prices, wage-price spirals and higher interest rates. And Labor have done it every single time. They go to elections and they say: ‘We believe in looking after working families. Our policies are safe. We’re economic conservatives.’ Well, do you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker? They are not economic conservatives; they are economically reckless, because time and time again we see the Labor Party destroy the Australian economy. If you want proof positive, Mr Deputy Speaker, do not listen to what they say; look at what they do. We have heard members opposite in the government state time and time again: ‘You know what? The Howard government weren’t masters of the economy; rather, they were just the lucky beneficiaries of the mining boom.’ We heard the Prime Minister state today in question time, ‘You happened to be there for the 12 years of the mining boom.’ Do you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker? Why is it that, on a federal level, the coalition were able to repay $96 billion of debt, were able to pay off the budget deficit and put the budget in surplus and were able to reduce unemployment from eight per cent to four per cent when we were in government but, at the same time, the state Labor governments put us in debt? Every state Labor government in this country was receiving record GST, record royalties from coal, record payroll tax and record stamp duty—revenue that was just about knocking state treasurers over, it was such an avalanche—and what did they manage to do? Labor governments across this country over that period put us $80 billion in debt. That is what state Labor has done, and I make a prediction: it is not going to be very long at all before the Rudd Labor government and this inept Treasurer, Wayne Swan, bring this national economy back to its knees. They will do so with mountains of debt. If you want an example, Mr Deputy Speaker, look at tonight’s budget—because what do we know about tonight’s budget? We already know a couple of key things. We know that they are taxing us more and they are spending less. That is what we know about this Rudd government already. There is half a billion dollars of extra tax on ready-to-drinks already. That is what we know about this new Rudd Labor government. They say that their concern is about making sure that inflation does not get out of control. They say the core of their policies is making sure that inflation does not get out of control. Why is it that, if you are concerned about inflation, you would implement a whole range of policies that push prices up? It does not seem to make sense. What we have seen from the Labor Party in the last couple of weeks is that they are going to increase the prices of new cars—cars like Taragos—which are going to be put up by eight per cent thanks to the Rudd Labor government. We know they are going to increase by 76 per cent the tax on alcohol, which will force the price of alcohol up. We know that they are going to destroy private health in this country and force hundreds of thousands of Australians back onto the public system, which will do two things: it will mean not only that you have to wait in public hospitals for so much longer but also that health insurance premiums are going to go up by about 10 or 12 per cent. So straightaway we see that the Rudd Labor government are putting up the price of alcohol, are putting up the price of private health insurance and, in fact, are not putting downward pressure on prices at all. A key concern of mine, which was completely ignored by the previous speaker, is unfair dismissal. The Labor Party says it is going to reintroduce unfair dismissal laws and basically abolish the exemption that the previous government put in place. The consequence of that will be, according to the Treasury minute: It is unclear what impact this would have on employment in businesses with less than 100 employees that are currently exempt from unfair dismissals. However; employment is likely to decline and red tape is likely to increase. We do not know for sure, because here we are six or seven months after the election still waiting for a clear enunciation of Labor’s policy on unfair dismissal. There is no direction on contestability, no direction on onus of proof and no direction on how small businesses need to comply with the so-called fair dismissal code. Instead we have got a confused government that is saying one thing and doing the complete opposite. The Australian people will wake up to this government and to the fact that this government is driving up inflation and interest rates, and when they do it will be on the heads of the Rudd Labor government and their economic ineptitude, which is going to once again force this country backwards when it comes to economic growth. 2584 16:51:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 0 Ms JACKSON —I am going to take some time—perhaps for the benefit of the member for Moncrieff and certainly for the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—to go back in time a little bit to last year. It is apparent that you have not quite realised yet that Australia voted for a change of government last year. A key part of that was a vote to change the workplace relations laws. Funnily enough, I would have thought with the passing of the transition bill recently, which saw the end of Australian workplace agreements, that the opposition had finally conceded that, but apparently not. Indeed, the arguments outlined by the member for Moncrieff do not appear to have changed. I want to remind people of the sequence of events. It is not as though workplace relations was a hidden issue in the federal election. Indeed, I think everyone would concede it was one of the key issues in the federal election. Yes, Labor was out there very early on in the piece promising it would abolish AWAs. In late April last year, it outlined and published in great detail its Forward with Fairness policy. That policy was complemented some months later by a policy implementation plan which set out the transitional arrangements that the Labor government would adopt for implementing its Forward with Fairness policy. Every Labor candidate in every electorate around Australia campaigned long and hard on the issue of workplace relations. Indeed, our leadership team campaigned long and hard on the issue of workplace relations. I would argue that most Australians understood that one of the key differences between the major political parties at the last election was our industrial relations policies. Australians knew what they were voting for and they knew they were voting for substantial workplace reform. It was not—as is the incorrect premise of the MPI—that they were voting to go backwards on anything. They were voting to go Forward with Fairness. That raises my concern generally about the premise of this MPI. It frankly outlines the nonsense that the opposition continue to peddle, despite the fact of the obvious rejection by the electorate of their workplace relations policies. It is quite inappropriate to characterise Labor’s legislation as a roll back of workplace relations reforms. The opposition likes to make believe that for years we had these wonderful reforms promoted by the Howard government and that the policy whose name dare not be spoken, Work Choices, was the only thing that people rejected. That is simply not true. That is a complete fabrication of what was happening out there in the greater community in Australia. People were well aware that the Howard government would do anything it could to try to promote some view or justify the continuation of AWAs and the impact that those AWAs had. But everybody saw through it. Not even a last-minute fairness test introduced in the death knells of the term of the Howard government was enough for people to give it a tick—they saw through it. I can assure you that we were not out there campaigning that we were going back to a pre-Work Choices situation. We went out there with a very clear, detailed policy, debated in electorates across Australia, that we were going Forward with Fairness. We campaigned on the kinds of changes we intended to introduce when we were in government and the Australian people voted for those changes. They voted to change the government and they voted to change the workplace relations system. This is something that, frankly, most members opposite still have not come to terms with. The second part of the MPI that I take issue with is the question of Treasury advice. Most of the member for Moncrieff’s speech concentrated on an article that appeared on the front page of the Australian referring to Treasury advice. This was Treasury advice that, it subsequently became apparent, was dated 18 April 2007, advice that predated the actual publication of Labor’s industrial relations policy—contained in a minute which apparently predated the August detailed information about the implementation plan. I think, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, that fails the first test of common sense. It is hard to rely on some Treasury advice that is an analysis of Labor’s IR policies which did not exist at the time. One can only assume it was based on a series of assumptions that was given to them by former ministers of the Howard government. Why didn’t this apparent advice have some consideration of the then Howard government’s own fairness test worked into it or the contrast to it? It seems to me that people need to be careful jumping backwards and forwards between two pieces of advice, one of which was referred to in an article in the Australian, which we can only assume, to be perfectly honest, was part of some sort of attempt by the previous government to make further false claims about Labor’s policies. That is something that those opposite have a track record of: making false claims about Labor’s IR policies. I guess you have to ask yourself: why do they want to misrepresent these policies; why do they want to misrepresent the truth in this way? The only thing I can assume is that the Liberal Party of Australia are still committed to Work Choices. They are still committed to the extreme ideological industrial relations policies that we saw implemented by the previous government. Those policies did rip off the most vulnerable of Australia’s workers, despite the fact you tried to hide and failed to disclose the level and the extent to which workers were losing entitlements such as overtime penalties, shift work penalties and many other conditions of employment which were taken off some of Australia’s most vulnerable workers. I can only assume from that that you continue to be committed to those policies that endorse the ripping off of working families and the ripping off of those conditions of employment that saw the gap in men’s and women’s wages increase. I assume that you are still committed to that and, frankly, I cannot believe that the opposition can continue to defend such policies. I cannot believe that the opposition can continue to be involved in scare tactics. The argument from the member for Moncrieff was classic Chicken Little: the sky would fall in and doom would follow the introduction of Labor’s policies. It is the same sort of rhetoric we heard before the election, when clearly the policy position that was in front of the electorate was an economically responsible one. We have said that we want to put in place a balanced industrial relations system. We want to see a system that works for all Australians, that is fair and flexible, that is simple and productive, that will not jeopardise employment, that will not allow for industry wide strikes or pattern bargaining and that will not place inflationary pressure on the economy. We have a policy that aims to drive productivity and cooperative workplace arrangements, because we believe that the path to the future lies in responsible economic management, helping working families under financial pressure and making sure that we have the right responses for the future. And you know, our policy is not solely about industrial relations; it is part of a broad breadth of policies aimed at ensuring that we finally begin to tackle the issues that have seen our productivity go backwards in this country. We are not just concentrating on industrial relations; we are looking at investing in skills, we are looking at cutting wasteful government expenditure and we are going to deliver a budget that delivers for working families. I am sure it will be one that all Labor members will be proud of. 2586 17:01:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —When the Prime Minister released his five-point plan to reduce inflation, there was a sixth point that should have been there—that is, workplace relations. This is an element that the OECD would recognise as important in reducing pressure on prices, and in reducing pressure on inflation. There is a reason why the Labor government will not talk about workplace relations as one of their strategies to fight inflation—that is, because they know that the policies that they are promoting will be adding to wage inflation, will be adding to inflation and will be going on to increase interest rates and so on. And if the opposition are wrong, it is very simple: release the Treasury minute. Release the 38-page Treasury minute, but release it uncensored. We do not want the blacked out version, the completely blank 38 pages. What we want to see is what Treasury’s honest, frank and fearless advice was to the Rudd Labor cabinet on their workplace relations proposals. We need to look at the situation as it is now, and what we see is inflation. On the forecasts of the Reserve Bank’s quarterly statement released on Friday, inflation will not be back in the two to three per cent band until the end of 2010. Look at wage inflation. The wage price index for the year ended December 2007 had growth of 4.2 per cent. It is the highest in 10 years. Looking at a broader measure of earnings, the average growth in average earnings is around five per cent. Generally the Reserve Bank sees wage increases over 4½ per cent as inconsistent with the inflation between two to three per cent. As we look around the country, there are disturbing signs of wage break-outs. We have seen Brian Boyd, the Secretary of the Victorian Trades Hall Council, saying, ‘We’ve put up with 11 years of industrial relations laws that have been aimed at restricting our ability to find a fair price for labour.’ That is in the face of all evidence of what actually happened during the Howard government. We are seeing a 15.2 per cent pay rise for Victorian teachers. For anyone who has any familiarity with Australian economic history, for anyone who has lived through the previous periods of wage break-outs in the 1970s and 1980s, this is looking very familiar. In 1974 we saw wages go up by 31 per cent in one year, and there is a reason why we always talk about having the lowest unemployment since November 1974. November 1974 was the period when the Australian economy was destroyed through wages rising by 31 per cent. In 1982 average earnings went up by 17½ per cent in the year to September 1982. Both of these periods led to very severe downturns or recession in the Australian economy. We see a number of economists predicting that unemployment will rise to about five per cent, and that is why we think it is very important we know what the Treasury advice is. We have seen already a number of studies on the public record. Econtech predicted that winding back IR reforms that have occurred since 1993 would reduce productivity, cause the loss of 316,000 jobs, reduce GDP by 4.8 per cent and lead to higher wage inflation, lower productivity, higher inflation and higher interest rates. The Treasury advice of 18 April, based on a speech by the Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition, said that, on Labor’s known approach at that time, it would cut jobs, put upward pressure on prices, put more flow on wage claims and allow unions to bid wages above their market level. What we know is that inflation is high, wage inflation is high and there are already two analyses of wind-backs of industrial relations which point to them putting pressure on inflation. That is why we call for the Treasury— (Time expired) 2587 17:07:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 0 Mr CHEESEMAN —I am particularly pleased to be able to speak on this matter of public importance. I am pleased because this is a debate that brings out more evidence of exactly where the Liberal Party sit on workplace relations. Firstly, I can say that the accusation of secrecy is nonsense. It is untrue. The reality is that this is a Liberal Party in hiding. They are hiding from the fact that they had lost the election because of Work Choices. They are hiding the divisions this is creating in their own ranks, as we have seen recently with the Victorian Liberal Party bloggers and in other places such as this place. Not very effective hiding, Mr Deputy Speaker. The only thing that they are not hiding is their love for Work Choices—that and their desperate desire to return to Work Choices. And that is what this is all about. The member for Hasluck is right. Both the honourable member for Curtin and the Leader of the Opposition have recently expressed their desire to return to the Work Choices regime. I quote the Leader of the Opposition from the Brisbane Club on 6 May this year: We believe very strongly in individual statutory agreements. We will go to the next election with that as our first principle of industrial relations. I now quote Julie Bishop in a speech to the AMMA conference: The introduction of AWAs in 1996 played a major role in revolutionising workplaces for the better in this country ... The nation must deal with the maze of laws, regulations, awards and so on that makes our workplace relations system one of the most complex in the world. I want to talk about some impacts of Work Choices in my own electorate, first of all on local families. So many local families could not get a home loan or a car loan because they had no job security. They were part of the former government’s great casualisation process under Work Choices. Work Choices also deregulated hours, which meant that there was no guaranteed family time anymore. Work Choices, the policy the opposition desperately want back, is antifamily. Work Choices is antichildren. Work Choices destroys job security. Then there are the impacts on local sporting clubs. Many local sports clubs were devastated by Work Choices. People could not commit to participating in sports or volunteering to help out. Parents could not commit to taking their kids to sports. Work Choices, the policy the opposition just love, is anticommunity. It is also unhealthy. Work Choices was physically unhealthy for our community. The community knows this but the opposition just do not get it. That is why their leader is Mr Nine Per Cent. My local observations are not just anecdotal evidence. The raw, cold facts are as follows: at the time, the Office of the Employment Advocate revealed that 100 per cent of AWAs cut at least one so-called protected award condition; 64 per cent cut annual leave loading; 63 per cent cut penalty rates; 52 per cent cut shift work loadings; and 48 per cent cut monetary allowances. Those are the facts—the raw, cold facts. Nobody’s job was safe under Liberal policies. Nobody’s accrued entitlements were safe. Nobody’s wages, nobody’s penalty rates, nobody’s working hours, nobody’s family lives and nobody’s weekends were safe. But, most importantly, 99 per cent of the Australian workforce could be sacked for no reason, with no comeback. (Time expired) 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Order! The time for the discussion has concluded. 2588 Committees 2588 2588 2588 17:11:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —I seek leave of the House to present, on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, a report concerning the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office for 2008-09, and I also seek leave to present a copy of my statement. Leave granted. 00AMP Grierson, Sharon, MP Ms GRIERSON —I rise on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit to report on the draft budget estimates of the Australian National Audit Office. This is a requirement of the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 and reflects both the committee’s status as the parliament’s audit committee and the Auditor-General’s status as an independent officer of the parliament. The Audit Office’s revenue from government in 2007-08 was $63.4 million. The Auditor-General has advised that estimated revenue from government for 2008-09, excluding some new funding to audit major Defence acquisitions, will be just under $62 million. This includes the 3.25 per cent efficiency dividend being applied to all public sector agencies in this year’s budget. The Auditor-General advised the committee that he had sought additional funding in the 2008-09 budget of some $13.7 million over five years, with an ongoing amount of $2.9 million annually. This funding was to be applied in three areas. First, the Audit Office sought $6.5 million to conduct an annual review of major Defence capital equipment projects. By way of background, my committee recommended in late 2006 that the Audit Office be funded to annually review progress in major Defence capital equipment projects, in a manner similar to a review conducted by Great Britain’s National Audit Office. This recommendation arose from the committee’s inquiry into financial reporting and equipment acquisition at the Department of Defence and the Defence Materiel Organisation, following a series of critical reports by the Auditor-General on individual projects. The recommendation made by the committee was similar to one previously made by the Senate, and which the Audit Office had unsuccessfully sought funds for in previous budgets. We made this recommendation because we believed there would be considerable benefit from ongoing early review of Defence equipment acquisition projects, and that the modest funding sought by the Audit Office should be considered in light of the substantial savings that may accrue from better management of these capital projects. I am pleased that the government has agreed to provide $1.5 million annually to the Audit Office, from 2009-10 onwards, to conduct the Defence capital equipment projects report, with initial funding of $750,000 in this year’s budget. The committee notes that the Audit Office has not received the full $1.5 million it had sought in this year’s budget, nor has it been reimbursed $500,000 in funds it had sought towards the funds it spent on preparatory work in 2007-08. However, the funding that has been provided will at least enable the Audit Office and the DMO to proceed with some confidence and certainty on this annual process. The committee looks forward to reviewing a trial report on nine Defence projects, which is likely to be tabled later this year. The Audit Office has also sought just over $6 million over four years, and $1.4 million ongoing annually, to audit more comprehensive government financial reporting following the introduction of a new accounting standard. In brief, the new standard creates a different reporting framework for the Australian government from the 2008-09 financial year onwards. Amongst other things, the standard provides for the preparation and audit of general government sector statements. This will be the first time that such statements have been audited. The new standard aims to achieve a single set of government reports which are auditable, comparable between jurisdictions and directly comparable to relevant budget statements. While these are welcome developments, the Audit Office has not received any additional funding to undertake its statutory obligations in relation to the new standard. There will be a significant increase in audit workload arising from the new general government sector financial statement, and the Audit Office will need to become skilled in auditing statements incorporating information which was not previously required. The Audit Office also sought a one-off amount of just under $1.1 million for additional work resulting from the abolition of four government departments in December 2007. The Financial Management and Accountability Act requires that financial statements be prepared for the former departments, so that there is an appropriate accounting for their functions. The Audit Office had therefore sought funding to conduct ‘close-down’ financial statement audits for the abolished departments. While this request was unsuccessful, the committee notes that the Department of Finance and Deregulation has proposed that the abolished departments be dealt with in the notes to the financial statements for those departments that have taken over the relevant functions, rather than separate ‘close-down’ statements for the former agencies. The impact on the Audit Office’s budget might therefore not be as great as feared, but the Auditor-General will monitor the situation and may seek additional funds if necessary. Finally, and most importantly to our committee, the Auditor-General also wrote to the government to propose that the Audit Office’s funding be placed on a more sustainable long-term footing by indexing its budget to the rate of growth in the public sector. This reflects the reality that growth in the Audit Office’s resource base has lagged well behind growth in the public sector over the past decade. Between 1998-99 and 2007-08 the Australian government’s combined revenue and expenditure increased by 49.5 per cent in real terms. In the same period, the Audit Office’s expenditure on financial statement auditing increased by only 11.5 per cent in real terms, while spending on performance auditing actually decreased by 4.5 per cent in real terms. This mismatch obviously challenges the Audit Office’s capacity to provide comprehensive oversight of the public sector. In the interim, the Auditor-General put forward a short-term proposal to adjust the Audit Office’s funding by $5 million over four years, which would have effectively negated the additional two per cent efficiency dividend applied in this year’s budget. This funding would have been directed to continued development of the Audit Office’s Better practice guides and a continued focus on areas it has previously identified in its performance audits as having a strong flow-on benefit for public sector administration, in particular contract and project management. The committee notes that these proposals for a more sustainable long-term funding base have not been supported at this time. The overall impact of these decisions on the Audit Office has been a 3.25 per cent reduction in base funding in addition to being obliged to absorb the significant new audit responsibilities I mentioned earlier. The Auditor-General has advised that he has taken steps to limit the impact of the budget reduction, including closely reviewing the Audit Office’s corporate expenditure on a line-by-line basis. Despite this, the budget reduction will limit the Audit Office’s capacity to deliver to the same level in its audit work. This will be reflected in the following ways. First, the Audit Office’s capacity to conduct detailed checking in its annual audits of agencies’ financial statements will be reduced at a time when new accounting standards are being implemented. The Audit Office will instead look to a multiyear view for system assurance where appropriate, it will place more reliance on management assurance processes within the audited agency and it will limit any growth in its IT audit capacity. Second, the number of performance audits and Better practice guides the Audit Office can produce will also be reduced. The target for performance audits has been reduced from 51 to 45 for 2008-09, while the annual target for Better practice guides has been reduced from four to three. These budget pressures come at a time when the Audit Office is facing staff turnover in excess of 25 per cent due to high demand for the accounting and auditing skills possessed by its staff; price pressures, including for contract audit services, greater than the indexation levels applied to its resource base; and limited cash reserves. The committee notes advice that the Audit Office will invest modestly in staff learning and development, and systems and methodologies, to ensure that it develops its staff and is able to continue to produce high-quality work. To the extent that the Auditor-General’s direct appropriation for 2008-09 is sufficient for him to discharge his statutory responsibilities, we endorse the budget proposed for the year ahead. However, this endorsement comes with significant reservations. As I have noted, the proposed budget will necessitate a reduction in the Audit Office’s discretionary audit work program. While the Audit Office will of course design its work program to fit within available resources, we do not believe that the parliament is well-served by this. The committee believes that the Audit Office cannot continue to consistently deliver the outcomes expected of it by the parliament, the Australian community and its agency clients on its existing funding base. Going forward, it is imperative that we reach agreement on a long-term sustainable funding model, given the importance of the Audit Office being progressive in its approach to its audit role. Both the Auditor-General and I have written to the Prime Minister on this matter. The Audit Office is the front line in ensuring government accountability and probity and in creating an environment where corruption has limited opportunity to arise. In the committee’s experience, the modest budget of the Audit Office should be seen as a cost-effective mechanism for curbing waste and excess, and identifying areas for better administration on behalf of the parliament and the Australian community. I present a copy of my statement. 2591 Bills R2916 2591 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 2591 2591 17:23:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008 will enable the Offshore Petroleum Act 2006 to come into force as soon as necessary amendments are made to all the state and Northern Territory mirror legislation. As I noted in my second reading speech, the amendment bill is of a largely technical but nonetheless important nature. It has three key elements: first, to clarify provisions to ensure they operate in the way that was intended; second, it includes a policy change repealing section 327 of the act, which gives the minister certain emergency powers in the Bass Strait; and, third, to convert geodetic data references of the area descriptions in the act from Australian Geodetic Datum to the current Geodetic Datum of Australia. These amendments are necessary to ensure that the regulatory regime continues to support the efficient exploration and development of our oil and gas reserves. The amendments were introduced into the last parliament, and the bill passed the Senate as non-controversial, but it did not pass the House of Representatives prior to the parliament being prorogued. The Senate Standing Committee on Economics examined the bill and recommended that it be passed due to its primarily technical nature. In closing this debate, the oil and gas industry is crucial to the Australian economy. As has been noted by other members, the oil and gas industry is a creator of significant wealth in the Australian economy. The value of oil and gas produced in Australia in 2007-08 is estimated to be in excess of $27 billion, with exports valued at around $16 billion. The industry employs approximately 15,000 people and will pay $3.6 billion in resource taxation to the Australian government in 2007-08. Oil and gas account for 33 and 21 per cent respectively of Australia’s primary energy consumption. They are exceptionally important. The amendments in this bill are required to ensure that the regulatory regime continues to support the development of our vital oil and gas reserves. As we all appreciate, this issue is of critical importance to our nation. Whilst Australia is very well endowed with gas, with more than 110 years of gas reserves at current production rates, we only have about eight per cent of known oil reserves remaining at today’s consumption rates. Consequently, Australia is looking down the barrel of a $27 billion trade deficit in oil and condensate by 2015. Therefore, it is very important that we work to open up more frontiers. While the International Energy Agency predicts that Australia will become the third largest exporter of LNG in the world within the next decade, the big challenge is to find major new oilfields. Australia, in a sense, is very much underexplored by world standards, and most undiscovered petroleum resources are thought to exist in frontier offshore areas. Fortunately, there is considerable exploration activity occurring. Exploration spending for oil and gas exceeded $2 billion in 2006-07, and in mid-2007 there were 220 active exploration permits, 49 retention leases, 65 production licences and 52 pipeline licences in Australian government waters. In ending my remarks, I wish to thank those members who have contributed in such a constructive way to this debate—the former minister for resources and member for Groom, the member for Lyons, the member for Brand, the member for Wakefield, the member for Moreton and the member for Kalgoorlie. I note and appreciate especially the member for Groom’s constructive support of the legislation as the former minister. I also note his remarks regarding the retention lease regime. I simply say to the member for Groom that he knows full well that I am not given to knee-jerk remarks but that as minister I will take the matter of Australia’s energy security very seriously. To that end, I will ensure that the retention lease regime, which has always had a ‘use it or lose it’ provision, is rigorously applied to get the balance right between corporate interests and Australia’s national interest. I would also like to assure the member for Kalgoorlie that the government is committed to continue with the impacts approval process in parallel with the strategic assessment of the Kimberley. The minister for the environment has assured me that the project will be considered on its merits and appropriately so. I also note the member’s concerns about the need to remove unnecessary regulation. I understand that COAG will consider later this month whether a study of multijurisdictional regulation should be undertaken. I very much support such a study. In conclusion, the Offshore Petroleum Act will provide a much more user-friendly enactment and reduce compliance costs for the upstream petroleum industry and governments. It will therefore help ensure Australia remains one of the most attractive places in the world to explore for and develop petroleum resources. I thank the members for their support of this bill and commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 2593 Bills R2908 2593 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 2593 Dr KELLY (Eden-Monaro —Parliamen-tary Secretary for Defence Support) 17:29:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 2593 Bills R2920 2593 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 2593 Dr KELLY (Eden-Monaro —Parliamen-tary Secretary for Defence Support) 17:31:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 2593 Bills R2904 2593 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 2593 Dr KELLY (Eden-Monaro —Parliamen-tary Secretary for Defence Support) 17:31:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 2594 Bills R2909 2594 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 2594 Dr KELLY (Eden-Monaro —Parliamen-tary Secretary for Defence Support) 17:32:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 2594 Bills R2950 2594 Bills R2955 2594 Bills R2956 2594 2594 17:33:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —by leave—I move: That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. I point out to the House that this motion enjoys the support of the honourable member for Fairfax, the Chief Opposition Whip. Question agreed to. 2594 Bills R2937 2594 Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its amendments disagreed to by the House. 2594 Bills R2905 2594 Bills R2923 2594 Bills R2935 2594 Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request. 2594 Motions 2594 Motions 2594 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Mr Speaker has received advice that Mr MJ Ferguson has resigned as a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia. 2594 17:35:00 KELLY, Mike, MP HRI Eden-Monaro ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support 1 0 Dr KELLY —by leave—I move: That: in accordance with the provisions of the National Library Act 1960, this House elects Mr Melham to be a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia and to continue as a member for a period of three years from this day; and in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Archives Act 1983, this House appoints Mr Somlyay as a member of the Advisory Council on Australian Archives for a period of three years. Question agreed to. 2595 Bills R2934 2595 Bills R2914 2595 Bills R2907 2595 Bills R2912 2595 Bills R2940 2595 Bills R2941 2595 Bills R2939 2595 Bills R2911 2595 Bills R2918 2595 Bills R2913 2595 Bills R2906 2595 Bills R2905 2595 Bills R2923 2595 Bills R2937 2595 Bills R2935 2595 Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills. 2595 Bills R2957 2595 Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Swan: That this bill be now read a second time. 2595 17:37:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 0 0 Mr KEENAN —I am very pleased to rise to talk on the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008 because all the measures contained within it were announced by the previous coalition government. I think that is a very important point. It does not seem to be particularly well understood at this stage by the government, who seem to want to claim all the good work we did as their own. This bill provides a very grievous example of that. We have had press releases from Senator Sherry, the Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law, saying that the now opposition failed to undertake some of the measures that are contained within the bill, even though they were clearly announced by the previous government, although we did not have a chance to implement them on account of the election intervening. So the opposition is pleased to support these measures. The first of them, schedule 1, deals with amounts misappropriated by an employee or an agent. This measure fills a gap in the existing taxation laws. It is a measure that the coalition announced in May 2007. The measure, which is in schedule 1 of the bill, addresses the inequity of the taxpayer effectively being taxed on an amount that the taxpayer has not received. Typically, this situation could happen where the taxpayer sells an asset that has been depreciated for tax purposes. In broad terms, selling for a price that exceeds the asset’s adjustable or written-down value results in the taxpayer being assessed on the excess. That would be the case were it not for this much needed amendment, an amendment that I have previously noted—and I note again—was announced by the coalition when we were in government. Under the measure, the taxpayer still includes the excess in their assessable income but, in recognition of the fact that the proceeds have been misappropriated by the employee or agent, a deduction is allowed for the amount of the sale proceeds. Where the asset is not eligible for depreciation or similar relief but is taxed under the capital gains tax rules, a sale would ordinarily result in the proceeds being taken into account in calculating the amount of the gain. This is the result even where the taxpayer does not actually receive the proceeds due to the misappropriation. Under the measure, the amount of the proceeds will be reduced by the amount that was misappropriated by the taxpayer’s employee or agent. A taxpayer who uses a depreciable asset for taxable and non-taxable purposes and whose agent misappropriates the sale proceeds on disposal of the asset will be allowed, under the measure, to reduce the proceeds by the amount of the misappropriation. Specific rules are being introduced to cater for the situation where the taxpayer has calculated their tax position as a result of the misappropriation but later recovered some or all of the moneys that were misappropriated. The opposition supports this measure. Schedule 2 of this bill extends the superannuation guarantee levy late offset. As I have said, this measure was announced by the coalition last year—notwithstanding the fact that the current minister issued a press release in March of this year saying that Labor called on the then coalition government to fix the harsh treatment of employees but to no avail. This totally disregards the announcement that was made by my colleague the then Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer in October of last year. I would like to table, for the benefit of the House, a document where he announced these changes. So the changes that are contained within this bill were announced by the then minister in October of last year—although that did not stop the new minister putting out a press release in March of this year saying that it was all their idea and the coalition government never took any action on it. We see in this place the government totally rewriting the history of the past 12 years of the coalition government and, of course, this is a particularly grievous example. Another example I note will be when the Treasurer claims the tax cuts that he is introducing in tonight’s budget as his own, when we all know that all they are is a copy of the coalition’s tax policy announced at the last election. Returning to the bill: as I said earlier, this measure was announced by the coalition. The employer who is late in paying their compulsory superannuation contribution has a contribution shortfall. Where the employer is late by more than a month, the employer is liable for the superannuation guarantee charge, which comprises interest, an administration charge and the amount of the contribution shortfall. Currently, the employer who is late in paying a superannuation contribution for an employee must also pay the same amount to the Australian Taxation Office as part of the superannuation guarantee charge. Under this measure, the employer who pays a late superannuation contribution will be able to offset that payment against the liability for the superannuation guarantee charge. Thus, the employer pays the amount of the superannuation contribution only once, as opposed to doing so twice as is currently the case. The employer is still liable for interest and an administration charge for not making the payment of the employee superannuation on time as is appropriate. So they are still getting a sanction for not doing it but they are not being automatically charged double, which is, a lot of people would agree, particularly harsh. A deduction is not allowed for either the amount of the offset or the superannuation guarantee charge. So there are incentives for employers to make timely payments of employee superannuation contributions, as we would all expect. The measure reduces the incidence of harsh penalties being incurred by some employers who attempt to do the right thing by their employees and incorrectly pay contributions for superannuation rather than pay the superannuation guarantee charge to the ATO. The measure will apply in respect of employers who elect to use the offset after the date of royal assent. Employers who have been assessed with the superannuation guarantee charge before this date can use the offset, provided the superannuation guarantee charge has not already been paid. As I have said, the opposition supports this measure. Schedule 3 of the bill relates to the CGT market value substitution rule for interests in widely held entities and is another measure that my colleague the member for Dickson announced last year. It is a very sensible measure that will ensure that shareholders in widely held companies and unit holders in widely held trusts are not disadvantaged when their interests in the entity are cancelled. The disadvantage or unfairness can arise where capital gains tax event C2 occurs. This CGT event happens when ownership of an intangible asset, which includes shares and other equities, comes to an end. Typically, this CGT event is triggered on cancellation or redemption. The current position is that the market value substitution rule will replace the actual market proceeds received, say on cancellation, with the market value of the equity where the capital proceeds are more or less than the equity’s market value. What the coalition wanted to ensure when we announced this measure was that the equity owner would be taxed on their actual capital gain based on the amount agreed to be paid to them, not on the other value that they did not receive following the cancellation. I think all Australians would agree that it is only just and fair that they pay the real capital gain that they actually received. Where the amount payable for the cancellation was set in advance of the cancellation occurring, there could be circumstances where the market value substitution rule required a different amount to be used in calculating the capital profit. The opposition supports the measures in this bill. It will give taxpayers a high degree of certainty as well as fairness. It will also simplify the current legislation that applies to transactions or dealings covered by this type of CGT event. Schedule 4 of the bill, again a measure announced by the coalition last year, relates to Endeavour research fellowships and Endeavour executive awards. The Endeavour awards, as many in the House would know, are available to overseas citizens to study or to carry out research or professional development in Australia. These awards may also be provided to Australians to conduct similar activities abroad. Last year the coalition announced the decision to exempt from income tax any amounts received from a research fellowship under the Endeavour awards or from a fellowship award under the Endeavour executive award. The Endeavour awards offer participants the opportunity to build international linkages and networks and to develop their own knowledge and skills. There are Endeavour research fellowships for postgraduate students to undertake short-term research projects of approximately four to six months. The Endeavour executive awards provide Australians of merit in business, government and education the opportunity for professional development in a foreign country, whether through work placement, a short course or peer to peer learning. The coalition’s decision sought to align the taxation treatment of a number of awards made under the Endeavour awards program. The taxation treatment differed depending on the recipient’s status. Some parts of the Endeavour awards program, whether a research fellowship or an Endeavour executive award, would be assessable if the recipient was not a full-time student. Both the research fellowship under the Endeavour awards and amounts received under the Endeavour executive award comprise a number of payments. In all cases, the monthly stipend com-ponent would be assessable income where the recipient was not a full-time student. Such a recipient may also have been assessed on certain allowances depending on their form. However, a full-time student was exempt from tax on all components of the research fellowship. I think everyone would agree that these taxation rules resulted in some unnecessary complexity. Under the measure contained in this bill, which the coalition supports and introduced, amounts received from research fellowships under the Endeavour awards or from the Endeavour executive awards will be exempt from tax from 2007-08, regardless of whether the recipient is a full-time student or not. Schedule 5 of this bill deals with the early completion bonuses for apprentices. The coalition gave strong support to apprentices and technical education when we were in government and that support continues now that we are in opposition. In government, we recognised that a trade and a technical career should be seen as a highly valuable, satisfying and rewarding career. In the previous 13 years before that, the Labor Party talked down the trades. When we came to government in 1996 there were 154,000 apprentices in training. By March 2007, the number of apprentices in training had risen to 415,000, an increase of some 168 per cent. Not only had the coalition boosted apprenticeships but it restored the value of a technical education. So effective were the coalition’s policies that in 2007 there were around 160,000 people aged 25 or older who were undertaking apprenticeships. In other words, there are now more mature aged apprentices than the total number of apprentices under Labor. Men and women who are today in their late 20s and 30s who should have been undertaking apprenticeships or studying at TAFE in the late 1980s and early 1990s but, because of Labor’s denigration of a trade career did not, have left a major gap in our skilled workforce. This is particularly acute with unemployment being so low, thanks to the policies of the coalition government. The coalition established 21 Australian technical colleges around the country. Australian technical colleges allowed students to complete their final years of high school while at the same time starting an apprenticeship that would put them on track towards a successful and rewarding career in the trades. This support for apprenticeships was backed by an increase in investment in vocational and technical education from $1.1 billion to $2.9 billion, which was an 87 per cent increase in real terms. As further evidence of this support, the coalition announced in 2007 that the first $1,000 of an early completion bonus paid to an apprentice would be exempt from income tax. The measure in schedule 5 of this bill will carry this decision into effect. Early completion bonuses are payable under schemes offered by a state or territory. The bonus serves to reward an apprentice who completes their apprenticeship more quickly than normal and should also go some way to reducing skill shortages in the trades. Regulations will prescribe what kinds of occupations are eligible for the early completion bonus tax exemption so that skills shortages and the relevant time frames for completing apprenticeships are addressed. Currently, an early completion bonus is available only from the Queensland government, but I would urge other state governments to take account of the Queensland example and institute these bonuses themselves. To be eligible for the Queensland bonus, a full-time apprentice must complete their apprenticeship at least six months before the nominal completion date. Part-time apprentices have to complete their apprenticeship 12 months before the nominal completion date. I note that the government intends to list the Queensland early completion bonus scheme in regulations as soon as the bill receives royal assent. Further, I note that the measure will apply to assessments for the 2007-08 income year and subsequent years. In government the coalition was committed to raising the status of a technical and trade career to make sure that the current generation of school leavers see the trades as a valuable career and to encourage mature Aust-ralians to take up a technical or trade career. With these objectives in mind, the opposition supports this measure. The final schedule of this bill, schedule 6, extends deductible gift recipient status to a number of organisations. The schedule amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 by including nine new deductible gift recipients and extending the time period of four existing deductible gift recipients. I note that the decision affecting each one of these recipients was taken, again, by my colleague the member for Dickson when he was Assistant Treasurer. Under these arrangements gifts of $2 or more that are made to the recipients within the eligible period will be an allowable deduction. Each of the deductible gift recipients named in the schedule is worthy of public support: the Spirit of Australia Foundation, Ian Thorpe’s Fountain for Youth Ltd, the AE2 Commemorative Foundation, the Memorials Development Committee, Playgroup Australia, Australia for UNHCR, Wheelchairs for Kids Inc., World Youth Day 2008 Trust, the Amy Gillett Foundation, the Council for Jewish Community Security, the Dunn and Lewis Youth Development Foundation, the Finding Sydney Foundation and the Xanana Vocational Education Trust. I will just make a brief comment about two of these organisations because their work is very well known to me. Wheelchairs for Kids supplies wheelchairs to disadvantaged people, particularly disadvantaged youth and especially in Indonesia, when they cannot afford such a necessary piece of equip-ment. I really do applaud what they do. I am very familiar with their work. I have attended functions that they have held. They do a wonderful job on behalf of the Australian community and they are very worthy recipients of this DGR status. I am also very familiar with the work of the Council for Jewish Community Security. I have a large Jewish community in my electorate of Stirling and I am fully aware that they have particular security needs. The com-munities themselves go a long way to providing those needs and I applaud them for all of those efforts. They are a very worthy recipient, as are all the recipients that have been listed today for their DGR status. I acknowledge very much what they do around Australia but particularly within my electorate of Stirling. The opposition supports all the measures that are contained within this bill. We do so because they are our measures that were announced before the change of government and I therefore commend this bill to the House. 2599 17:55:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —I am going to restrict my remarks to items affecting schedule 6 of this Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. But I also want to echo the previous speaker’s remarks about the people who have deductible gift recipient status: the AE2 Commemorative Foundation; Ian Thorpe’s Fountain for Youth Ltd; Wheelchairs for Kids Inc.; the Spirit of Australia Foundation; particularly the World Youth Day 2008 Trust, which, with the visit of His Holiness, is going to be a very worthwhile organisation; the Memorials Development Committee Ltd; the Council for Jewish Community Security; and Playgroup Australia Inc. Schedule 6 of this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to update the list of deductible gift recipients, some of which I have just read out, and particularly deductions for the Council for Jewish Community Security. The Council for Jewish Community Security was established to assist in the provision of security and protection for members and institutions of the Australian Jewish community. This is a process that began with the Sunday program which I participated in way back in 1999 soon after becoming a member. In that television program the producer, John Lyons, and I made a great effort to explain to the Australian public the necessity of establishing what kind of threat Jewish community schools particularly were under—though it also affects wider institutions—that this community security trust will look after. A great number of people contribute above and beyond what is necessary via Australian taxation to the wellbeing of these institutions, and I must point out that this is because they face national security threats, as the Channel 9 Sunday program pointed out, that are equivalent to the threat faced by the US embassy or the Israeli embassy in Canberra. This is an impost on religious and community organisations which puts a great deal of mental and physical strain on them. This measure in this bill will, as with the other charities, enable the organisations to be supported by volunteers who are paying money over to them in a way that will see that their security needs are strongly supported, as they should be. Mr Speaker, I am quite aware that we are coming up to the six o’clock deadline for this House. I seek leave to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 5.59 pm to 7.31 pm 2600 Bills R2973 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 2600 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Swan. Bill read a first time. 2600 2600 19:31:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Introduction This Budget is designed to meet the big challenges of the future. It is a Budget that strengthens Australia’s economic foundations, and delivers for working families under pressure. It is the responsible Budget our nation needs at this time of international turbulence, and high inflation at home. A Budget carefully designed to fight inflation, and ensure we meet the uncertainties of the future from a position of strength. A Budget with a $55 billion Working Families Support Package at its very core. A Budget that begins a new era of strategic investment in Australia’s future challenges and opportunities. And a Budget that helps plan, finance and secure Australia’s long-term national security and defence needs. These are the commitments the Government gave to the Australian people at the election. Mr Speaker, this Budget honours those commitments. The Government has made sure every single cent of new spending for the coming year has been more than met by savings elsewhere in the Budget. Our commitments have been honoured by redirecting spending. Difficult spending cuts have helped fund our Working Families Support Package and our new priorities for the nation. 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. This honours and exceeds the 1.5 per cent target we set in January, without relying on revenue windfalls. It is a surplus built on substantial savings of $33 billion over four years, including $7 billion in 2008-09 alone. And it is a surplus built on disciplined spending, with the lowest real increase in Government spending in nearly a decade; spending growth which is one quarter of the average of the previous four years. Mr Speaker, we need a strong surplus to anchor a strong economy; to do our bit to ease inflationary pressures in the economy; to build a buffer against international turbulence; and so we can fund ongoing long term investment in the ports, roads, railways, hospitals, universities and vocational education we need, to deliver growth with low inflation into the future. Economic outlook Mr Speaker, these are challenging times. Countervailing forces are creating high inflation at home and economic turbulence abroad. Weaker global growth and the effects of monetary policy are slowing our economy. Inflation has increased in recent years, pushing up interest rates, and putting more pressure on families. Eight interest rate rises in three years, and the global slowdown, are expected to see growth in our economy moderate to 2¾ per cent in 2008-09. Potent forces in the global economy are pushing Australia in opposite directions. Slower growth in the United States and turbulence in world financial markets are affecting many countries, including our own. At the same time, the prices of our exports are rising strongly, when domestic inflationary pressures are already high. Robust growth in emerging economies, particularly China and India, is expected to drive further large rises in Australia’s terms of trade, boosting income and price pressures. The terms of trade are anticipated to rise by over 20 per cent by the end of this year. This will be the largest increase in a generation, lifting nominal economic growth to 9¼ per cent, the highest rise in 19 years. The Australian economy is enjoying its 17th year of growth, now spanning three governments. But productivity growth over the last five years has averaged 1.4 per cent a year, the lowest in 17 years. And capacity constraints have put upward pressure on inflation. When the Government came to office less than six months ago, Australia was facing the highest levels of domestic inflation in over 16 years, and inflation reached 4.2 per cent in the March quarter. The price of bread has risen over 18 per cent in the last two years alone. Inflation is a drag on growth. It saps confidence, and hurts families and businesses throughout Australia. We are working to put downward pressure on inflation so that we can ease the cost of living and interest rate pressures on working families. Our nation also faces longer term challenges and opportunities, in the form of an ageing population, the economic effects of the rise of China and India, and the consequences of climate change. With careful, responsible economic management, we are confident we can meet these challenges. Delivering for working families Mr Speaker, in framing this Budget, foremost in our considerations are the Australians who work hard, pay their taxes, and demand little more than a fair go. This Government understands the stress on working families in these difficult times. More and more family income is being eaten away in mortgage repayments, rent, groceries and petrol—leaving so many families feeling the pinch. That’s why a key priority of this Budget is to deliver the Working Families Support Package. The $55 billion package comprises targeted initiatives in tax, child care, education, housing, and other essential components of family budgets. Personal income tax cuts For too long, working families have watched the proceeds of the boom directed elsewhere, in the form of tax cuts skewed to those already doing very well. Tonight we tip the scales in favour of working families. The Government will fully implement our promise to reduce personal income tax by $47 billion over four years. This tax cut is directed to low and middle income families—the backbone of the economy. These tax cuts will allow low-income earners, including part-time workers, to keep more of their income and ease the financial pressure on families. And they will provide further incentives to participate in the workforce. From 1 July 2008, a worker on $48,000—average weekly earnings—will receive a weekly tax cut of $20. And low income workers earning $14,000 or less will pay no tax at all. We will make the Medicare Levy Surcharge fairer. This Government will increase the income thresholds from $50,000 to $100,000 a year for singles and from $100,000 to $150,000 a year for couples. Child care costs Mr Speaker, the Government will ease the burden of child care costs, and make it easier for parents who wish to return to work, by increasing the Child Care Tax Rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. This will ensure that, in addition to any Child Care Benefit payable, half of a family’s out of pocket child care costs will be met every year. The cap on the amount that can be paid will be lifted from $4,354 to $7,500 per child, and the Government will pay the 50 per cent Child Care Tax Rebate quarterly, to ensure support is available when it is most needed. The total cost of these reforms is $1.6 billion over four years. Education costs The Government will support parents who are providing opportunities for their children by investing in their education, with a new Education Tax Refund, costing $4.4 billion over four years. We have funded this in large part by redirecting tax cuts for people earning more than $180,000 a year. From 1 July 2008, eligible parents will be able to claim a 50 per cent refund on eligible education expenses for children undertaking primary or secondary school studies—up to $375 for a primary schooler and up to $750 for a secondary school child each year. Improving housing affordability Mr Speaker, the Government’s $2.2 billion housing affordability package will help working families who are struggling with the housing affordability crisis. We will introduce enhanced First Home Saver Accounts. The first $5,000 of individual contributions will now attract a Government contribution of 17 per cent, earnings will be taxed at a low rate of 15 per cent, and withdrawals will be tax-free if used to buy or build a first home. The Government will provide assistance of $1.2 billion over four years through these Accounts. To improve housing supply, and lower prices for homebuyers, the Housing Affordability Fund, worth more than $500 million over five years, will help reduce the cost of providing new housing infrastructure and cut red-tape in development approvals. And to reduce rental costs, the National Rental Affordability Scheme will encourage the construction of up to 50,000 new affordable rental properties by 2011-12, at a cost of $623 million over four years. Supporting older Australians and carers Mr Speaker, the Government recognises the contribution of older Australians and carers to our community. To assist them with rising costs, the Government will provide, by 30 June 2008, one-off lump-sum payments of $500 to eligible senior Australians, $1,000 to Carer Payment recipients, and $600 to Carer Allowance recipients for each eligible person in their care, at a total cost of $1.8 billion. Pensioners have begun to receive a higher Utilities Allowance of $500, up from $107.20. Self funded retirees with a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card now receive a higher Seniors Concession Allowance of $500 per year, up from $218. To offer further protection for older Australians against rising living costs, the Government will enhance indexation of the age pension. The Government is making assessment rules for Carer Payment (Child) fairer by expanding eligibility to cases where a child’s disability creates additional caring needs for parents or requires long periods of hospitalisation. Under the new rules, an additional 19,000 carers of children with severe disability will be entitled to access this payment in 2009-10, at a cost of $274 million over five years. This measure brings the total additional assistance provided to carers to $1.1 billion over five years. Aged care providers will benefit from an increase in the Conditional Adjustment Payment, resulting in an additional $408 million for the industry over the next four years. Easing cost of living pressures Mr Speaker, the Government is responding to legitimate community concerns about the cost of essential goods such as groceries and petrol. We have provided the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with tough new powers, and we will introduce the first ever National Fuelwatch Scheme, in December this year, helping motorists find the best possible deal at the bowser. The Government is doubling funding to expand financial counselling services to help families better manage their finances and their mortgages. New era of responsible economic management Mr Speaker, this Budget begins a new era of responsible economic management. The Government believes there is an economic case for cutting government spending. It is this discipline that will place downward pressure on inflation, give us a buffer in a time of difficult economic conditions, and begin overdue investment in our future. We have honoured our commitment to deliver a budget surplus of at least 1.5 per cent of GDP, and gone further to budget for a surplus of 1.8 per cent. The previous Government forecast a surplus of only 1.2 per cent for 2008-09. The Government is reducing spending on programs that do not meet our objectives in the most cost-effective manner. We are applying an additional two per cent efficiency dividend to most Australian Government agencies, producing savings of $1.8 billion over five years. Every single dollar of new spending is more than offset by savings. We have delivered our commitments by redirecting spending to more pressing priorities. Fairness and integrity in the tax and transfer systems We have decided to redirect welfare payments to where they are needed most. The Government does not believe hard earned tax dollars are best spent on cash payments to the wealthiest Australians. It is simply not defensible. So from 1 July 2008, an income test will be introduced so that Family Tax Benefit Part B will only be available to families in which the principal earner does not have an annual income exceeding $150,000. From 1 July 2008 we will increase the Baby Bonus to $5,000. From 1 January 2009, an income test will be introduced so that it will only be available where family income is not more than $150,000 a year. From 1 July 2008 the tax rate for luxury vehicles will be increased from 25 per cent to 33 per cent. Tax rules for employee share schemes will be amended to prevent unfair tax minimisation. We are removing the crude oil excise exemption for condensate, increasing the financial return to the community from the extraction of this non-renewable resource. To those Australians we have asked tonight to play a role in the fight against inflation, I say this Government did not take these decisions to cut spending lightly. Mr Speaker, some Australians have been asked to bear a greater burden than others, that is true. But in the end, if we are to beat inflation and build prosperity, we have no choice. We simply cannot go on as before, spending irresponsibly, and allowing inflation to build. Meeting our commitments Mr Speaker, this Budget honours the Government’s commitments, and allows us to look Australians in the eye and say we delivered the policies they voted for last November. We are doing what we said we would do. We are providing new leadership in education, health, infrastructure, climate change and modernising the federation, to end the blame game. And we will begin tackling the big challenges on Australia’s horizon, by providing long-term plans, not short-term bandaid fixes. Education revolution Mr Speaker, tonight we begin to honour the Government’s commitment to an Education Revolution, with an additional $5.9 billion in funding over the next five years. Just one year ago, from the other side of this House, we promised $2.5 billion for Trade Training Centres in our schools. Tonight it gives us immense pleasure to announce we are funding that promise. We will provide $1.2 billion over five years to provide up to $1 million per school to deliver computers and communications technologies to all students in Years 9 to 12, as part of the Government’s Digital Education Revolution. We will honour our commitment to providing all four year olds with access to 15 hours a week, 40 weeks a year, of early childhood education by 2013. Our Skilling Australia program will increase and deepen the skills capacity of the Australian workforce. A key initiative is the provision of $1.9 billion over five years to deliver up to 630,000 additional training places to fill skills shortages. And to boost the research capacity that underpins innovation, we will invest $326 million on Future Fellowships for top mid-career researchers, and $209 million to double the number of Australian Postgraduate Awards for PhD or Masters students. Better hospitals and health services Mr Speaker, we have put up our hand and accepted responsibility for improving the health system. No more buck passing. No more blame shifting. The Government’s National Health and Hospitals Reform Plan will revitalise the public health system. In this Budget we are committing to an extra $3.2 billion over five years to public health. The Government is determined to bring a greater focus on preventative health. Our National Binge Drinking Strategy brings the tax treatment of ‘ready-to-drink’ alcoholic beverages in line with full-strength spirits to help address binge drinking among young Australians, particularly young women. We will work with the States and draw from the revenue raised to fund preventative health measures. Tackling climate change Mr Speaker, the Government is addressing the fundamental environmental and economic challenge of climate change. We have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and begun work on an emissions trading scheme and a national renewable energy target. This Budget includes measures totalling $2.3 billion over five years to help reduce Australia’s greenhouse emissions, adapt to climate change, and ensure we show global leadership in the transition to a low emissions economy. Funding includes $500 million over eight years for clean coal, $500 million over six years for renewable energy, and $150 million over four years for energy innovation. The Government will assist working families to reduce household emissions with a range of initiatives, including the Green Loans program costing $300 million over five years. Supporting business Mr Speaker, the Government supports the aspirations of Australian business, including small business, for a simpler tax system and less regulation. Our nation has the potential to be a financial services hub in the Asia Pacific Region—the fastest growing region in the world. To support this ambition, the Budget begins the process of significantly reducing the withholding tax, by reducing the current interim rate of 30 per cent to a final rate of 7.5 per cent for most non-resident investors. This Budget confirms our commitment to a comprehensive agenda of regulation reform—cutting red tape and making it easier for business, particularly small business, to deal with government. To improve innovation and productivity, the Government will invest $251 million over five years to establish Enterprise Connect Innovation Centres. Regional and Rural Australia Mr Speaker, at the election we promised to be a government for all Australians. For rural and regional Australia, and for Indigenous Australia. Rural Australia has been going through the worst drought in a hundred years. The Government’s $12.9 billion 10-year national water policy framework Water for the Future brings a comprehensive and coordinated approach to water supplies. We will invest $2.2 billion over five years for the Caring for our Country program, to bring an integrated approach to our natural resource management. To assist regional communities in achieving their economic potential, we will invest $176 million as part of our Better Regions initiatives. And we will provide $271 million over four years to fund the Australian Broadband Guarantee, ensuring all Australians, particularly those in regional and rural areas, have equitable access to ‘metro-comparable’ broadband services. Indigenous Australia Mr Speaker, the Government is working closely with the States to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage. This is a long-term challenge for our nation. As an initial step, the Government will invest an additional $90 million over five years for child and maternal health services; $99 million over five years for additional teachers in the Northern Territory; and $56 million over four years for an expansion of literacy and numeracy programs. National security Mr Speaker, a major priority in this Budget is strengthening Australia’s national security. It delivers on the Government’s commitment to provide three per cent real growth per year on average in Defence’s underlying funding base to 2015-16, and extends this commitment to 2017-18. As the Defence White Paper is implemented, real growth in total Defence spending is expected to average four per cent per year over the next four years. On current projections, Defence spending is expected to be around $6 billion more in 2011-12 than in 2007-08. We will continue to support our military in Afghanistan, Solomon Islands, East Timor and Iraq, until our combat forces in that country are withdrawn. And we will increase overseas development assistance to around $3.7 billion in 2008-09, from about $3.2 billion. This is critical for alleviating poverty, and building security in our region. It is the first step in delivering our long-standing commitment to increase Official Development Assistance to 0.5 per cent of Gross National Income by 2015-16. Investing in the future Mr Speaker, for too long our national budgets have been short-sighted. For too long, our national budgets have focused on the next election, not the big challenges facing our country in the next decade and beyond. For too long, our national budgets have squandered the proceeds of the mining boom and failed to invest properly in our country’s future. Tonight, we begin a new era of investing in Australia’s long-term future needs. Tonight I announce three new funds that will provide more than $40 billion for capital investment in infrastructure, education and health to strengthen the economy. In infrastructure—in roads, rail, ports and broadband. In education. In skills, TAFE colleges and universities. In health and hospitals. And to build national productivity. Mr Speaker, tonight I announce that the Government will invest $20 billion in a new Building Australia Fund to finance roads, rail, ports and broadband all across the nation. Tonight I announce that the Government will invest $11 billion in a new Education Investment Fund to finance skills, TAFE colleges and universities. And tonight I announce the Government will invest $10 billion in a new Health and Hospitals Fund to finance improvements to hospitals and the health care system. Mr Speaker, this is a Government of nation builders. We have no intention of hoarding the strong surplus for its own sake. This money is not ours, it belongs to the Australian people. We will make initial contributions to these funds from the 2007-08 and 2008-09 Budget surpluses, and we will add to them from future surpluses as appropriate. Both the capital and earnings of these funds will be available for investment once projects have been identified and rigorously evaluated, from next year onwards. This will ensure significant investment in Australia’s future for many years. The funds will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians. There will be rigorous assessment of projects by independent bodies before they are approved for funding. For the Building Australia Fund, this will be Infrastructure Australia. Building Australia Fund The Building Australia Fund will finance critical national transport and communications infrastructure, including roads, rail, ports and broadband, that is not being provided by the private sector or by the States. The Building Australia Fund will receive an initial allocation of around $20 billion. So that investment can begin immediately, tonight I announce that the Government will allocate $75 million in 2007-08 for immediate feasibility studies on high-priority transport projects right across Australia. This will begin the necessary planning work for key projects in advance of further deliberations by Infrastructure Australia. Health and Hospitals Fund Mr Speaker, the Health and Hospitals Fund will finance health infrastructure. Key priorities include spending on hospitals, medical technology equipment, and medical research facilities and projects. The Fund will receive an initial allocation of $10 billion. We need to reverse the cutback in public hospital funding by the Commonwealth now. That is why the Government will provide an extra $500 million to the States through the Australian Health Care Agreement by 30 June 2008. Education Investment Fund Mr Speaker, the Education Investment Fund will finance capital investment in higher education and vocational education and training. It will receive an initial allocation of around $11 billion, including $6 billion from the Higher Education Endowment Fund. Our education infrastructure is in urgent need of attention, right now. So tonight I announce that the Government will provide additional capital funding of $500 million before the end of this financial year, to help universities upgrade and maintain teaching and research facilities. COAG Reform Fund Where funds are used to finance capital projects with the States, they will be distributed to the States from the three new funds I have just announced through a new Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Reform Fund. The COAG Reform Fund will also distribute funding provided in future budgets to the States for recurrent expenditure in areas of COAG national reforms, through new National Partnership payments. In 2008-09, the States will receive $78.6 billion in total payments, an increase of 4.8 per cent. And new financial arrangements will allow all levels of government to work together to improve outcomes and reduce costs. Future Fund The Government will meet its commitments to the Future Fund to pay the superannuation liabilities of Commonwealth Public Servants. The Government will invest $3.9 billion into the Future Fund to help it reach its target by 2020. Australia’s future tax system Mr Speaker, a modern economy demands a more modern tax system, which helps build the nation. We need a tax system that is fairer, that is simpler, that better rewards people for their hard work, that responds to our environmental and demographic challenges, that makes us internationally competitive, and that creates the incentives to invest in our productive capacity. One that supports national prosperity beyond the mining boom. Tonight, I confirm the most comprehensive review of Australia’s tax system since World War 2. The Australia’s Future Tax System (AFTS) review will be reporting progressively from this July through to the end of 2009. Conclusion Mr Speaker, the longer our nation’s economic challenges are neglected, the harder it will be to deal with them. In implementing our new vision for the nation’s economic future, we don’t have a moment to waste. I am confident Australians will see this as the Budget our nation now needs, to beat inflation, and lay the foundation for future growth. It is the beginning of a long-term plan to build a stronger economy that delivers for working families. A coherent package of reforms based on four principles: honouring our commitments; delivering for working families; investing in the future; and beginning the new era of economic responsibility we need, to sustain growth in challenging times. Mr Speaker, the Rudd Government’s first Budget lays the foundation for a modern and competitive economy that can meet the challenges of the 21st century with optimism, and with confidence. It is a Labor Budget for the nation. For Australia’s future. For all Australians. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Nelson) adjourned. 2608 Budget Mr SWAN (Lilley —Treasurer) 20:05:00 —I present the following 2008-09 documents in connection with the budget: Budget strategy and outlook; Budget measures; Australia’s Federal relations; Agency resourcing. Ordered that the documents be made parliamentary papers. 2609 Ministerial Statements Mr SWAN (Lilley —Treasurer) 20:05:00 —I present the following ministerial statements: Education revolution 2008-2009, 13 May 2008. Strengthening rural and regional Australia, 13 May 2008. Climate change, the economy, the environment, 13 May 2008. Australia’s International Development Assistance Program 2008-2009, 13 May 2008. Closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, 13 May 2008. 2609 Bills R2974 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 2609 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tanner. Bill read a first time. 2609 2609 20:06:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 0 Mr TANNER —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. It is with pleasure that I introduce Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009, which, together with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009, is one of the principal pieces of legislation underpinning the government’s first budget. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009 proposes appropriation for agencies to meet: expenses in relation to grants to the states under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and local government authorities; requirements for departmental equity injections, loans and previous years’ outputs; and requirements to create or acquire administered assets and to discharge administered liabilities. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund totalling almost $12.7 billion. We have taken the opportunity in this budget to prepare an explanatory memorandum for each of the budget appropriation bills. For past appropriation bills, the budget papers and portfolio budget statements have explained the appropriations broadly. However, the clauses in each bill and the changes to the provisions have not been explained in detail. The memoranda explain the clauses in the bills in detail and, in particular, the changes made for 2008-09 compared to previous appropriation bills. This is the first occasion on which a government has prepared explanatory memoranda to explain the appropriation bills. It also supports the government’s policy to increase the disclosure of information on government financial management. The drafting of the legislation text contained in the budget appropriation bills has been simplified to streamline certain provisions and remove redundant references. The changes are canvassed in the explanatory memoranda. Budget Paper No. 4 provides information on appropriations that are expected to be required in the budget year. As part of the government’s Operation Sunlight program to increase the transparency of the budget, Budget Paper No. 4 also contains two new tables. The first outlines estimates of expenses for each special appropriation act by agency and the second is a register of all active special accounts operated by each agency. Details of the proposed appropriations are set out in schedule 2 to the bill, the main features of which were outlined in the budget speech delivered by my colleague the Treasurer earlier this evening. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hockey) adjourned. 2610 Bills R2975 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 2610 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tanner. Bill read a first time. 2610 2610 20:10:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 0 Mr TANNER —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 is to provide funding for the operations of the three parliamentary departments. The total appropriation sought through this bill is almost $171 million. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill. As I outlined in my introduction to Appropriation Bill (No. 2) we have prepared an explanatory memorandum for this bill to explain the clauses in the bill and, in particular, changes made compared to previous appropriation bills. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hockey) adjourned. 2610 Bills R2976 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 2610 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tanner. Bill read a first time. 2610 2610 20:11:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 0 Mr TANNER —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. There are two supplementary additional estimates bills: Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2007-2008, and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2007-2008. I shall introduce the latter bill shortly. These bills seek authority for supplementary appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the current financial year, to pay for important initiatives agreed by the government since the additional estimates 2007-08. The total appropriation being sought through the supplementary additional estimates bills is approximately $1.1 billion, with $626.5 million being sought in bill No. 5. I now outline the major items provided for in the bill. The government will provide an additional $500 million in 2007-08 to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to distribute amongst Australian universities for capital investment in five priority areas. These areas include IT communications in research and teaching, laboratories, libraries and places to study, teaching spaces and investing in critical student amenities. The measure will begin to address past capital underinvestment in these priority areas. An additional $112.3 million will be provided to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts to fund a variety of water initiatives reflecting the government’s recognition that urgent action is needed to tackle the water crisis. The initiatives, all of which deliver on the government’s election commitments, include: an additional $81.0 million in 2007-08 as part of a bring-forward of $400 million of funding from 2011-12 under the Water for the Future package, to accelerate investment in water-saving infrastructure and to purchase water entitlements from willing sellers; an additional $35 million brought forward from 2011-12 under the Water for the Future package, to make an initial contribution to the Harvey water piping project in Western Australia. The project involves upgrading irrigation supply infrastructure to reduce seepage and evaporation, with the water saved to be piped to Perth; and $10 million, as part of the five-year funding package of $254.8 million to work with government and local water authorities to minimise water loss, invest in more efficient water infrastructure, refurbish older pipes and water systems, and fund practical projects to save water. This initiative will help address some of Australia’s worst water leaks and losses and reduce the impact of the drought and climate change on Australia’s towns and cities. These funding increases are partially offset by savings in other programs. The balance of the amount in Appropriation Bill (No. 5) relates to estimates variations and other minor measures. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mrs Mirabella) adjourned. 2611 Bills R2977 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 2611 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tanner. Bill read a first time. 2611 2611 20:15:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 0 Mr TANNER —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2007-2008 requests additional funding for agencies to meet: expenses in relation to grants to the states under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and local government authorities; and capital requirements in the form of departmental equity injections. Total additional appropriation of around $501.9 million is proposed in Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2007-2008. The principal factors contributing to the additional requirement since the 2007-08 additional estimates include $501.7 million in additional payments to the states, territories and local government authorities, to fund a range of important measures. One hundred million dollars will be provided to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, as part of a $1.2 billion funding package over five years, to implement the digital education revolution in partnership with state and territory governments. This initiative delivers on an election commitment and includes: the establishment of a National Secondary School Computer Fund to provide grants of up to $1 million to eligible secondary schools to assist them in providing new or upgraded information and communications technology to students in years 9 to 12; contributions towards the provision of high-speed fibre-to-the-premises broadband connections to schools and to provide support to ensure the effective deployment and installation of computers and ICT equipment purchased under the fund; and funding for collaborative work between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and non-government school system and industry to develop a unified technical framework and to fund administration costs of block grant authorities which will manage funding for non-government schools. The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will receive an additional $100 million to provide to state and territory governments under the Commonwealth state/territory disability agreement. This funding will increase the availability of supported accommodation for people with a disability where their carers are ageing. The funding will allow the states and territories to establish, build or purchase new facilities with the capacity to care for more people with disabilities. These facilities will provide older carers with respite and the ability to plan for the transition of their children with a disability from the family home to other accommodation arrangements. This funding increase is partially offset by savings in other programs. The government will provide an additional $182.4 million in 2007-08 to the Department of Health and Ageing to fund a range of initiatives including: $100 million, as part of a $389.5 million funding program over five years to provide grants and recurrent funding to support and upgrade a range of healthcare facilities to improve patient treatment and outcomes; and $75 million as part of a $600 million program over four years to reduce waiting lists for elective surgery in public hospitals in each state and territory. This funding includes amounts to conduct an immediate national blitz to help clear the backlog of people who have been waiting longer than the clinically recommended time for elective surgery. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will receive an additional $75 million in 2007-08 for the development of feasibility and planning studies for projects to address urban congestion. The studies will involve the planning, design and the development of business cases, including cost-benefit analysis and identifying possible state specific improvements to public transport. The studies will be undertaken by the respective state governments, commencing in 2007-08. An additional $80 million is proposed for the Department of the Treasury to make an initial payment to the Western Australian government as compensation for the loss of its share of offshore petroleum royalty revenue as a result of the imposition of crude oil excise on condensate. The appropriation amount is less than $80 million because of savings in other programs. The balance of the amount in Appropriation Bill (No. 6) relates to another minor measure. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mrs Mirabella) adjourned. 2613 Tariff Proposals 2613 2613 20:19:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Ms ROXON —I move: Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2008 Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2008. The excise and customs tariff proposals that I have just tabled contain alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and Customs Tariff Act 1995. The proposals formally place before the parliament changes to both acts to increase the rate of excise and customs duty applying to ‘other excisable beverages not exceeding 10 per cent by volume of alcohol’ from $39.36 to $66.67 per litre of alcohol content, on and from 27 April 2008. Beverages subject to the tax increase are often referred to as ‘alcopops’ or ‘ready-to-drink’ beverages. The government has increased the excise and excise equivalent customs duty on these beverages in order to put them on the same tax footing as spirits purchased unmixed. This is part of the government’s strategy to tackle the harm caused by excessive alcohol consumption—particularly by young people attracted to these products. This government is determined to take a strong, comprehensive approach to tackling binge drinking in our community. It is a community-wide problem that demands a comprehensive, community-wide response. We know that young people are particularly at risk—and we know that alcopops are used to hook young people on drinking when they are young. And we are not prepared to just stand by and let this happen. That is why the government has taken this decision to increase the rate of excise on alcopops. Research shows that young people are quite price sensitive and we hope that this tax measure will have a positive health impact by deterring or reducing alcohol consumption by young people. We hope that reversing the Howard government’s decision on ready-to-drink products will have some impact on harmful binge drinking. As well as being an important public health measure in and of itself, the government is committed to investing a proportion of the revenue from closing the existing loophole to preventative health initiatives. The measure will result in an estimated gain to revenue of approximately $3.1 billion over the forward estimates period. In concert with our $53 million national binge drinking strategy, this is an important step towards tackling binge drinking. Through this and the other measures announced in the budget tonight, the Rudd government is committed to bringing a much stronger and strategic focus onto preventative health measures within our health system. A summary of the alterations contained in these proposals has been prepared and is being circulated. I commend these proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mrs Mirabella) adjourned. 2613 20:23:00 House adjourned at 8.23 pm 2614 Notices The following notices were given: PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to social security and veterans’ entitlements, and for other purposes. (Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (One-off Payments and Other Budget Measures) Bill 2008). R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese to move: That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 15 May 2008 and at that sitting, after the Leader of the Opposition completes his reply to the Budget speech, the House automatically stand adjourned until 12 noon on Monday 26 May 2008 unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne to move: That the House: recognises the importance of providing state-of-the-art mental health care for the mentally ill; acknowledges that the way to help the mentally ill rehabilitate from their illness is to improve mental health services, not cut them; and notes that mental health services in South Australia are under threat from the State Government with the proposed sale and redevelopment of the Glenside Campus. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr Morrison to move: That the House: recognises that: the Kurnell Peninsula of southern Sydney is the traditional land of the Gweagal people of the Dharawal nation; the landing site of Lieutenant James Cook on April 29, 1770 at Kurnell is the modern birthplace of our nation and is recognised on the National Heritage List; the village of Kurnell is a strong local community comprising approximately 700 homes; Botany Bay is a valuable marine environment providing sanctuary for migratory birdlife and habitat for territorial marine creatures; and construction of the desalination pipeline has commenced across Botany Bay from the Kurnell Peninsula, under approval as critical infrastructure by the New South Wales State Government; expresses concern that: Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in New South Wales exempts critical infrastructure projects from all planning instruments and codes that might otherwise apply, precludes third party rights of appeal and limits powers and penalties in relation to enforcement of breaches of conditions; due to the use of Part 3A of the Act, the impacts of the construction of this pipeline on the marine environment and cultural heritage of Botany Bay and the Kurnell Peninsula are unknown; and since construction has commenced, there have been a series of breaches in relation to the failure of silt nets to contain land fill on Silver Beach at Kurnell; sheet pilling testing has exceeded nominated noise vibration benchmarks, posing a threat to resident property; and there is concern in the community about the ongoing impacts and failures of this project; and calls on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts to protect the physical environment and cultural heritage of Botany Bay and the Kurnell Peninsula by requesting the New South Wales State Government to: prepare a comprehensive environmental remediation plan to address the impact of developing the desalination plant, including the pipeline across Botany Bay; conduct such environmental studies as are required to determine the impact of the development of the desalination plant and associated pipeline on the environment, and to make such studies available to the public; ensure that the development of environmental remediation plans is a requirement for any future referred approvals for critical infrastructure projects to the Commonwealth by the New South Wales Government that are subject to Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; prepare a heritage and community remediation plan that addresses the impact and disruption caused to residents and the area by the construction of the desalination plant and associated pipeline; and ensure the New South Wales State Government and its agents monitor and report on the ongoing impacts of the project and commit to informing residents in advance of any issues that may impact on residents or their local environment. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss to move: That the House: notes that: the Queensland Government will soon deliver an environmental impact assessment of its proposed Traveston Crossing Dam to the Federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Hon Peter Garrett MP, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; the Traveston Crossing Dam is an expensive, inefficient, unreliable and environmentally destructive option for delivering water to Brisbane; the Traveston Crossing Dam will displace hundreds of Mary Valley families, inundate some of the finest farm land in south east Queensland, and destroy at least $1 billion of infrastructure; the Traveston Crossing Dam will decimate the habitat and threaten the survival of the rare or endangered Mary River turtle, the Australian lung fish, the Mary River cod and a range of other species; and the Traveston Crossing Dam will significantly reduce water flows into the Great Sandy Straits Ramsar listed wetlands, threatening fish breeding, Dugong feeding areas and the waters of Hervey Bay and World Heritage listed Fraser Island; and calls on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Hon Peter Garrett MP to exercise his powers under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to reject the Traveston Crossing Dam absolutely. MT4 Broadbent, Russell, MP Mr Broadbent to move: That the House: urges the Australian Government to act to restrict any further planting of genetically modified crops in Australia, the use of genetically modified products in the manufacture of food in Australia and the sale in Australia of food products containing genetically modified material until a full, independent, scientific investigation is carried out to determine: the level of risk to health of foodstuffs containing genetically modified organisms; and the threat of contamination posed by genetically modified crops already planted under relaxed provisions in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria to crops and the food chain as it relates to livestock production in general on neighbouring properties; and calls on the Australian Government, in considering its course of action, to take into consideration the commitments made by the current Prime Minister on this issue in the lead up to the 2007 Federal Election. E0F Wood, Jason, MP Mr Wood to move: That the House: notes that: microfinance has proven to be a particularly effective and sustainable means of eradicating poverty; microfinance borrowers, particularly women, generate income that allows them to feed, clothe, educate and care for the health of their children; in December 2006, 93 million of the poorest people had access to microfinance services, which is a 12-fold increase since 1997; in support of the poverty eradication goal of the Millennium Development Goals, the Microcredit Summit Campaign, launched in 1997, is working to expand microfinance to 175 million of the poorest people by 2015; the Microcredit Summit Campaign is holding an Asia-Pacific Microcredit Summit in Bali between the 29th and 30th July 2008; the Asia-Pacific region contains 64 per cent of the world’s population who live in absolute poverty, and as such it has a large unmet need for credit and other financial services; and the Bali Summit is a significant opportunity to examine ways to expand the use and effectiveness of microfinance in the region and to realise the Government’s policy objective of reducing poverty in the Asia-Pacific region; and urges the Australian Government to send the appropriate Minister and appropriate Shadow Minister as leaders of an Australian delegation to the Asia-Pacific Microcredit Summit in Bali in July 2008. HVV Turnour, Jim, MP Mr Turnour to move: That the House: congratulates the Government on bringing down a budget that: begins tackling Australia’s 16 year high inflation rate and puts downward pressure on interest rates so as to ease the pressure on family budgets; delivers on the Government’s election commitments restoring confidence in an electorate cynical about political promises; and sets out a plan to tackle the long term challenges facing the nation so as to secure our prosperity into the future. HVV Turnour, Jim, MP Mr Turnour to move: That the House: notes the Government’s moves to promote competition and transparency in the petrol market Australia by: giving the consumer watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, formal monitoring power for petrol; the appointment of Australia’s first Petrol Commissioner, Mr Pat Walker, to provide a renewed focus on the petrol market; and the Government’s intention to introduce a National Fuel Watch Scheme. 2617 Questions in Writing 2617 2617 2 2617 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr Pearce asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 11 March 2008: In respect of Community Cabinet meetings: (a) how many will be conducted in 2008; and (b) what is the total budgeted cost for each one, including expenses relating to (i) Ministers, (ii) ministerial staff, (iii) public servants and (iv) any other associated costs. 2617 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr Rudd —I am advised that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Two community cabinet meetings have been conducted in 2008 – Canning Vale (WA) on 20 January 2008 and Narangba (Queensland) on 2 March 2008. The next community cabinet meeting will be conducted in Penrith (NSW) on 15 April 2008. The dates and locations of future community cabinet meetings will be announced in due course. Further details about the community cabinet program can be found at: www.pmc.gov.au/community_cabinet. to (iv) Details of the budget for the community cabinet program can be found in table 1.2 in the Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio Additional Estimates Statement for 2007-08. Expenses incurred by Ministers and Ministerial staff attending community cabinet meetings are met by the Department of Finance and Deregulation or by relevant departments (other Officials) as necessary. 2617 2617 3 2617 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr Pearce asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 11 March 2008: How many departmental staff (including permanent, temporary and casual staff) work in the Minister’s Parliament House office, and that of any other Minister and Parliamentary Secretary associated with the Minister’s portfolio; and what is their length of service in the office. 2617 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr Rudd —I am advised that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The responses provided below relate to staff employed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I understand the Minister for Climate Change and Water will provide a separate response for this question. My office: 2. 17 weeks and 15 weeks. Senator Faulkner’s office: 1. 14 weeks. Mr Byrne’s office: 1. 12 weeks. 2618 2618 12 2618 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr Pearce asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 11 March 2008: How many departmental staff (including permanent, temporary and casual staff) work in the Minister’s Parliament House office, and that of any other Minister and Parliamentary Secretary associated with the Minister’s portfolio; and what is their length of service in the office. 2618 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP Minister for Defence 1 Mr Fitzgibbon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at 11 March 2008, there were eight departmental officers seconded to the offices of the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement and the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support. These comprised five departmental liaison officers, two military escort officers, and one temporary APS staff. The departmental liaison officers and military escort officers have worked in the offices since December 2007. The temporary officer has been in the office of the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement from 7 January 2008. 2618 2618 16 2618 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr Pearce asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 11 March 2008: How many departmental staff (including permanent, temporary and casual staff) work in the Minister’s Parliament House office, and that of any other Minister and Parliamentary Secretary associated with the Minister’s portfolio; and what is their length of service in the office. 2618 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government: Two Departmental Liaison Officers from 10 December 2007 – present; and One graduate on 3 month rotation from 7 February 2008. Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia: One Departmental Liaison Officer from 12 December 2007 – present. 2618 2618 18 2618 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr Pearce asked the Minister representing the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, in writing, on 11 March 2008: How many departmental staff (including permanent, temporary and casual staff) work in the Minister’s Parliament House office, and that of any other Minister and Parliamentary Secretary associated with the Minister’s portfolio; and what is their length of service in the office. 2618 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy and Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation 1 Dr Emerson —The Minister for Innovation, Science and Research has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research: There are two departmental officers located in Minister Carr’s Parliament House office. These officers have been located in the office since 4 December 2007 and 17 December 2007 respectively. Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy: There is one departmental officer located in Minister Emerson’s Parliament House office. This officer has been located in the office since 5 December 2007. 2619 2619 20 2619 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr Pearce asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 11 March 2008: How many departmental staff (including permanent, temporary and casual staff) work in the Minister’s Parliament House office, and that of any other Minister and Parliamentary Secretary associated with the Minister’s portfolio; and what is their length of service in the office. 2619 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr Garrett —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: On 11 March 2008, the following Departmental employees were working in my Parliament House office: 1 Departmental Liaison Officer who commenced on 4 December 2008 1 Departmental Liaison officer who commenced on 5 February 2008 1 Acting Media Adviser who commenced on 4 December 2008. 2619 2619 24 2619 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr Pearce asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, in writing, on 11 March 2008: How many departmental staff (including permanent, temporary and casual staff) work in the Minister’s Parliament House office, and that of any other Minister and Parliamentary Secretary associated with the Minister’s portfolio; and what is their length of service in the office. 2619 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 Mr Martin Ferguson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at 20 March 2008, there are 2 Departmental Liaison Officers employed in the Minister’s office. One since 4 December 2007 and one since 15 February 2008. Please note that this question has also been asked of the Minister in his role as the Minister for Tourism (Question 25), and should therefore be taken as a whole of portfolio response. 2619 2619 25 2619 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr Pearce asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 11 March 2008: How many departmental staff (including permanent, temporary and casual staff) work in the Minister’s Parliament House office, and that of any other Minister and Parliamentary Secretary associated with the Minister’s portfolio; and what is their length of service in the office. 2619 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 Mr Martin Ferguson — The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at 20 March 2008, there are 2 Departmental Liaison Officers employed in the Minister’s office. One since 4 December 2007, and one since 15 February 2008. Please note that this question has also been asked of the Minister in his role as the Minister for Resources and Energy, (Question 24), and should therefore be taken as a whole of portfolio response. 2619 2619 28 2619 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr Abbott asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 11 March 2008: Does the Government provide funding for Aboriginal health services offering dental care; if so, (a) do any such services operate in the Northern Territory; and (b) for the 2007 calendar year, how many Indigenous people received dental treatment from them. 2620 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms Roxon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The amount of Commonwealth Government funding currently being spent by Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services offering dental care in the Northern Territory cannot be quantified. It is likely that only a small proportion of funding is devoted to dental services. There have been no new dental programs funded since 1995. Data is not available to answer this question. 2620 2620 30 2620 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr Abbott asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 11 March 2008: Is he aware of the proposal to redevelop the Australian Institute of Police Management at Spring Cove on North Head; if so, (a) will the proposal require his approval; (b) when will he consider the proposal; and (c) under what criteria will his decision be made. Is he aware that the site of the proposed redevelopment referred to in Part (1) abuts the only remaining penguin colony on mainland New South Wales; if so, is he confident that the development will not impact upon the penguin colony. 2620 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr Garrett —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes Yes When the NSW Government provides me with an accredited assessment report on the proposal. The proposal triggered the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 as a ‘Commonwealth Action’, so all significant impacts on the environment must be considered. I will be considering the potential impacts of the proposal on the penguin colony. 2620 2620 34 2620 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 Mr Georganas asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 11 March 2008: Does the Government intend to implement the recommendations in the report: Same Sex: Same Entitlements (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, May 2007, page 382) that would involve amending the discriminatory laws (identified by the inquiry) to ensure that same-sex and opposite-sex couples and families enjoy the same financial and work related entitlements; if so, by when; if not, why not. 2620 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McClelland —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: My Department has been undertaking an audit of Commonwealth laws to identify provisions that discriminate against people in same-sex relationships (taking account of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report Same-Sex: Same Entitlements). The focus of the Commission’s report was on financial and work-related legislation that discriminates against same-sex couples and their children. The Department’s audit covered other areas of life in Australia. The audit confirmed the findings of the Commission’s report and has identified federal legislation in these areas that discriminate against same-sex couples and their children. Areas of discrimination include taxation, social security, superannuation, workplace laws and education assistance. I am consulting with my Department and relevant Ministers about the implementation of these reforms, including timeframes. 2621 2621 35 2621 Georgiou, Petro, MP HM5 Kooyong LP 0 Mr Georgiou asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 11 March 2008: In respect of the media release issued by the Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services on 8 February 2008 titled “A new lease of life for multicultural Australia”: (a) who is “examining how best to foster and promote the benefits of cultural diversity in the Australian community” for the Government; (b) what are the terms of reference for this examination; (c) how can members of the public contribute to the examination; (d) by what date does the Government anticipate receiving the report of the examination; and (e) will the report be published. 2621 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McClelland —The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: and (b) The Department of Immigration and Citizenship is undertaking an administrative review of the branding of the Living in Harmony program. The review will look at renewed strategies for the program’s communication including its day of celebration, Harmony Day. An independent research company will be commissioned to conduct focus group testing of community attitudes and reaction to possible new program branding. In addition, feedback from members of the public on the program is welcomed at all times. This can be directed to the email box: harmonyday@immi.gov.au. and (e) It is expected the new branding and a possible new celebratory day, will be announced in late 2008.