2008-05-26 42 1 2 REPS 0 0 2008-05-26 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 12 pm and read prayers. 3051 Bills R2965 3051 Debate resumed from 15 May, on motion by Mr Swan: That this bill be now read a second time. 3051 12:01:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —Today I commend a bill to the House that strives to strike the balance between independence and accountability in the Reserve Bank of Australia. The purpose of the Reserve Bank Amendment (Enhanced Independence) Bill 2008 is to amend the Reserve Bank Act 1959 to allow the Governor-General on the advice of the federal Executive Council instead of the Treasurer to appoint, suspend and terminate the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank. This will ensure that the potential for political interference with the independence of the Reserve Bank can be put to an end. We have seen in recent years attacks on the concept of Reserve Bank independence by the previous government. As the Treasurer recently noted in the Australian Financial Review on 10 April 2008, either you believe in the independence of the Reserve Bank or you do not. Judging by their recent behaviour, coalition members find it hard to say that they are classed as 100 per cent believers in this very act they are opposing. Like in all the great issues of our time, the coalition does not seem to have a consistent and coherent viewpoint on the role of the Reserve Bank—just like Work Choices, which is either dead or alive and kicking depending on which member of the coalition you are talking to and upon which day of the week it happens to be; just like climate change and the signing of the Kyoto protocol, which is either a left-wing conspiracy or a serious challenge depending again on what day of the week it is and on which particular member of the opposition you happen to be talking to; and just like foreign policy where the Prime Minister is told that he is going too soft on China over human rights in Tibet and then a couple of days later is shamelessly told that he has gone too far. Unfortunately, the coalition’s brazen inconsistencies and carping opposition is not contained to industrial relations, climate change, foreign policy, Indigenous issues, inflation, whaling, means testing, binge drinking, the 2020 Summit, the budget and the rate of government spending; it also relates to the Reserve Bank. We all remember the 2004 election when the Liberal Party ran ads suggesting that it was not an independent Reserve Bank that formulated and implemented monetary policy but in fact the Liberal Party. Section 10(2) of the Reserve Bank Act 1959, which is often referred to as the bank’s charter, says: It is the duty of the Reserve Bank Board, within the limits of its powers, to ensure that the monetary and banking policy of the Bank is directed to the greatest advantage of the people of Australia and that the powers of the Bank ... are exercised in such a manner as, in the opinion of the Reserve Bank Board, will best contribute to: the stability of the currency of Australia; the maintenance of full employment in Australia; and the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia. It does not mention anything about the Liberal Party having a function in keeping interest rates at record lows, though that is what they tried to have us believe at the 2004 election. I remember last year when John Howard was being criticised after the sixth interest rate rise since the ‘at record lows’ ads of 2004. He sounded incredibly mean and tricky when he was challenging his detractors to check the transcripts and show where he had said that he was keeping interest rates as record lows. I know that at that time there were many people in my electorate that felt betrayed by Mr Howard. Many of those people had been voting for John Howard since 1996. You would have thought that the Liberal Party would have learnt the lesson from the dive in public confidence that pushed the former government out of office, but apparently not. Brendan Nelson, in the latest issue of the New South Wales Liberal women’s council magazine, is again bragging about low interest rates. After 12 consecutive rate rises the Leader of the Opposition has nothing to brag about. At a time when we desperately needed to build infrastructure, educate and skill our population and cut wasteful spending to take the pressure off inflation, the then Liberal government was twiddling its thumbs or ignoring the elephant in the room. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has a tough time working out what he believes, and it appears that the shadow Treasurer is in much the same boat. He should definitely cut the belief that the former government was a responsible economic manager at the end of its term. The then government gave us a 16-year high inflation rate that is largely to blame for the latest interest rate rises, and it received 20 warnings from the Reserve Bank, yet no action was taken by the former government. As soon as the Rudd government was elected we got on with the job of responsible economic management. On 6 December 2007 the government released a statement on the conduct of monetary policy. The statement set out the common understanding of the governor, as chairman of the Reserve Bank, and the government on key aspects of Australia’s monetary policy framework. In both the statement and the accompanying joint media release of the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, the government announced that it would make a number of changes to enhance the independence of the Reserve Bank of Australia and the transparency of certain of its operations. The release outlined that the following elements would be implemented: the positions of governor and deputy governor would be raised to the same level of statutory independence as the Commissioner of Taxation and the Australian Statistician; the appointments of both positions would be made by the Governor-General in Council and their terminations would require parliamentary approval; the Secretary to the Treasury and the Governor of the RBA would maintain a register of eminent candidates of the highest integrity from which the Treasurer would make appointments to the board; and the new statement on the conduct of monetary policy would include measures such as the publication of board minutes and the statement of reasons for the decisions of the boards. At that time there was no outcry from the opposition saying that these were not good measures. There was no-one coming forward saying that these were not things that should take place to make sure that we have more transparency in relation to the Reserve Bank. Yet we find ourselves today with the sorry position of the opposition opposing this bill, which goes to those points that specifically look at enacting what the Prime Minister and the Treasurer outlined back in December of last year. When the Reserve Bank was first established in 1959, the Governor-General had the function of appointing and terminating the positions of the Governor and the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia. In the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 2003, the state of affairs was changed to give the functions to the Treasurer. Under those amendments the Treasurer was given the function of: appointing the members of the RBA board under section 14 of the act; terminating board members under section 18 of the act; appointing and terminating the governor and the deputy governor; and appointing and terminating members of the Payments System Board. Items 1 and 2 amend sections 24 and 24B of the act to delete reference to the Treasurer and substitute it with the Governor-General. Section 24 currently provides that the governor and the deputy governor are to be appointed by the Treasurer for a period of seven years, but are eligible for reappointment. Paragraph 24(1)(c) provides that the governor and the deputy governor hold office subject to good behaviour. Members of the Reserve Bank board also hold office subject to good behaviour. Section 24B is the resignation provision. Item 3 repeals section 25 and substitutes new section 25 to provide for the termination of the appointments of the governor and the deputy governor. Existing section 25 provides: If the Governor or the Deputy Governor: becomes permanently incapable of performing his or her duties; or engages in any paid employment outside the duties of his or her office; or becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his or her creditors or makes an assignment of his or her salary for their benefit; the Treasurer shall terminate his appointment. These grounds for termination are replicated in new subsection 25(8) and therefore are the only grounds for the termination of these positions. Under the existing arrangements, paragraph 24(1)(c) may give the Treasurer the discretion to terminate the governor on lack of good behaviour grounds, whereas section 25 requires the Treasurer to terminate if one or more of the stated grounds are met. There is currently no limitation in section 25 as there is in this bill, and the TAA, that there shall be no termination except as provided by this section. New subsection 25(1) provides that the Governor-General can terminate the appointments if each house of parliament presents to the Governor-General an address praying for the termination of the appointments on a ground specified in new subsection 25(8). Suspension prior to such termination is not necessary under this subsection. The Governor-General can suspend the governor or deputy governor from office on a ground specified in subsection 25(8) and the minister, the Treasurer or the Minister representing the Treasurer has to table a statement concerning the suspension in both houses of parliament within seven sitting days. Within 15 sitting days of the statement, the houses can then declare by resolution that the appointment should be terminated—this is the new subsection 25(4). Under subsection 25(6), if both houses do not pass such a resolution, the suspension ceases and the position holder will continue in office. Under new subsection 25(5), in the event the resolution is passed by each house, the Governor-General must terminate the appointment. New subsection 25(9) provides that the governor or the deputy governor can only be terminated on a specific ground by the means specified by new section 25. This limits termination to the grounds specified and in the manner specified by this section. As noted earlier, the governor and deputy governor hold office subject to good behaviour, which is an ongoing requirement and a prerequisite for holding office. The Reserve Bank Act is the only Commonwealth act which has this particular expression. Under the changes proposed by the bill, in the event that the position holder is not of good behaviour there is no mechanism for termination as this requirement is not specified as a ground under the new subsection 25(8). If a governor or deputy governor did not offer a resignation to the Governor-General under the amended section 24B there is no power to remove the governor or the deputy governor. This can be contrasted to the present position in that, although the grounds of removal from office are the same, there is no strict limitation on the Treasurer’s current power to terminate an appointment, as will be the case under the proposed amendments. It is not only monetary policy that requires openness and transparency in the fight against the Liberal Party’s parting gift of high inflation. Fiscal policy is also very important in this fight. At this stage I would like to put on the record my congratulations to the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, for putting together a terrific budget. In time I believe this budget will be seen as a turning point in which government shifted from short-term spending to long-term investment. After 12 years of the Howard government, who did not adequately invest in health, education, infrastructure and skills, and instead siphoned money into electoral bribes, it was very heartening to watch an Australian Treasurer put forward a fiscally responsible, nation-building budget. The Treasurer gave the budget that we need in Australia right now. He gave the budget what my electorate of Dobell needs right now. With the lowest median household income in New South Wales, Dobell does not need cheaper luxury European cars or a baby bonus for millionaires. We need the infrastructure and the services that will give opportunity to all those who live there. It is amazing that the opposition thinks that a tax on alcopops is the major issue facing working families across this country. I invite the opposition to come to Dobell on a Friday or Saturday night and see the effects of cheap alcopops on many of the young people in my electorate. I believe that this budget has delivered to the working families of the Central Coast a strong and effective way forward. It is a step in the right direction to enhance our prospects of becoming an economically self-sufficient region in our own right. As the Treasurer said: 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. 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. Enhancing the independence of the Reserve Bank is a part of the broader ideology of Kevin Rudd, Wayne Swan and the Labor government to deliver strong, decisive and unashamedly fiscally conservative policy to ensure a modern and competitive economy. This proposed bill shows the commitment of the government to a more independent Reserve Bank in line with modern practice and it is worthy of our support. It shows a new and forward-thinking government that is willing to make difficult decisions in fiscal and monetary policy in order to ensure that Australia is the best country it can be in economic terms. The new government has had a lifespan short of only 200 days so far, yet even in this short period of time the foundations are being laid for an Australia that working families deserve. The building blocks are there for a fairer, more inclusive and more prosperous nation that we can all be proud of. This bill is part of that. It will increase the transparency of the Reserve Bank and ensure that all Australians have confidence in the Reserve Bank in its role in setting monetary and fiscal policies and ensuring that inflation is kept in control. I commend this bill to the house. 3055 12:17:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —I rise to support the legislation before the House, another initiative in the Rudd Labor government’s plan to modernise the Australian economy. The Reserve Bank Amendment (Enhanced Independence) Bill 2008 delivers on our commitment to strengthen the independence of the Reserve Bank and put downward pressure on inflation. For too long, the previous Howard-Costello government neglected their responsibility to fight inflation. Inflation pushes up interest rates, eats away at family budgets and threatens future prosperity. That is why we on this side of the House are so determined to beat it. It starts by being up-front about the state of the economy. I would be the first person to admit that we on this side of the House inherited some positive trends. Yes, the economy is experiencing a period of good solid growth. We are in our 17th year of economic growth, a boom born out of the tough reforms and hard economic decisions made by the Hawke and Keating governments. Having previously worked in the mining sector before coming into this House, I can certainly testify to the great work that the mining sector have done and the growth that they are spreading to the rest of the community. The economy is experiencing a period of high jobs growth. But that is where it ends. The member for Wentworth told the House a fortnight ago that the coalition left the economy in the best state it had ever been in. If the Howard-Costello government left the Australian economy in such a robust state, as claimed by the member for Wentworth and also by the member for Higgins, why are Australian families struggling to pay their mortgages? Why do young people feel they have missed the boat in the housing market? Why are rents spiralling beyond control? Why are grocery prices, petrol prices and cost of living pressures crippling household budgets? Why? Because the previous coalition government squandered the prosperity of the mining boom, ignored the advice of the Reserve Bank and ignored the calls from Australian working families to do something about inflation. Let us look at the facts. Firstly, the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, was handed an economy experiencing 16-year high inflation levels. Secondly, interest rates had risen 10 times in a row and were the second highest in the developed world. Thirdly, productivity growth was running at its lowest level in 15 years. There has been an attempt recently by the member for Higgins to pass on the crown that has ‘luckiest treasurer in the world’ written on it. It was a pitiful attempt. I remind the House that in March 1996 when Treasurer Ralph Willis handed his crown over to the member for Higgins—I am not sure if it was a crown or a coronet—productivity was at four per cent. What did the current part-time member for Higgins hand over to Treasurer Wayne Swan? A productivity level of zero. Shameful. Fourthly, Commonwealth spending in real terms had grown by about four per cent a year since 2004-05 and even spiked over 4.5 per cent recently at the end of that period. Lastly, John Howard and Peter Costello had overseen 5½ years of monthly trade deficits. When we hear claims about our wonderful economy, it is interesting to look at those hard facts about inflation, interest rates, productivity, Commonwealth spending and trade deficits. My electorate has one of the biggest used car strips in Queensland, the Moorooka Magic Mile. I live just behind the Moorooka Magic Mile. I want to use an analogy. The member for Higgins is like a used car salesman—and I say that with no disrespect to the good people on the Moorooka Magic Mile. It is as though the member for Higgins was talking about my brother’s 1970 purple two-door V8 Monaro. The member for Higgins is saying: ‘Look, this is a great car. Look at how fast it can go; look at the paint work; look at this.’ But the reality is that cars have changed significantly since my brother’s 1970 purple two-door V8 Monaro was an appropriate car. Yet we have the member for Higgins saying, ‘Look at the spoiler; look at this.’ But the reality is that if you have a productivity of zero then the economy is in poor shape, and it does not matter how flash the mags are, how flash the engine is or what the spoiler looks like. When we add to this economic environment a national skills crisis, a spike in world oil prices, the possibility of peak oil and the subprime mortgage crisis, the government rightly has cause for concern. Obviously it is not a time to panic but time for a measured, planned response to rebuild strength in our economy. That is exactly what Treasurer Swan delivered in his first budget here a fortnight ago. The Treasurer delivered a budget that will gradually ease underlying inflation. Measures include a surplus of 1.8 per cent of GDP and policies that will lift productivity, including investments in infrastructure, education and training. If the coalition had taken inflation seriously when in government, perhaps they could have saved Australians some pain in the hip pocket today. The reality is that the Reserve Bank warned the previous coalition government 20 times about capacity constraints in the economy. Those warnings were stubbornly ignored. We will not make the same mistake. We know how to listen to the Reserve Bank. We will heed the advice of the central bank and put measures in place to deal with inflation. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we do not believe inflation is a complete charade, as he stated on PM on Tuesday, 6 May. This budget builds on the Rudd government’s five-point plan to tackle inflation. Elements of the five-point plan include: a budget surplus of at least 1.5 per cent of GDP—which, as I said, we have exceeded; incentives to encourage household savings through first home saver accounts; a new agency called Skills Australia to drive an additional 820,000 training places over 10 years, with 20,000 places to be created around the country from April this year; and national leadership to tackle infrastructure bottlenecks. This is particularly important in my home state of Queensland and is certainly something we fully support. But it is interesting that during question time there are often comments from the members for Moncrieff, Sturt, Dunkley and Dickson—Mr Speaker, I think you call them the ‘barbershop quartet’—whenever we talk about infrastructure bottlenecks. They yell out things like: ‘What about state borrowings?’ With no disrespect to the barbershop quartet, I think it is a good investment if states and the Commonwealth invest in these infrastructure bottlenecks. Anyone who has anything to do with the mining sector, particularly coalmining, knows that some of these restraints are opportunities lost. So the barbershop quartet—I am not sure who would be the bass, the baritone, the tenor and the countertenor; they can fight that out for themselves, maybe in the next question time—really need to have a look at what industry is calling for, and that is leadership on some of these infrastructure bottlenecks. That is something that the Rudd government is delivering. The elements of the five-point plan that I have already touched on are the budget surplus, household savings, Skills Australia and infrastructure bottlenecks. Lastly, the Rudd government will provide ways to help people re-enter the workforce, through tax reforms and better childcare assistance, to make some of these skills issues less problematic. Over time, these measures, along with the greater independence of the Reserve Bank, will help address inflation and set us on a course for lower interest rates. As I said before, on this side of the House we cherish the role of an independent Reserve Bank. The bill before the House will achieve greater independence for the RBA by removing the Treasurer’s power to appoint, suspend and terminate the positions of governor and deputy governor of the RBA. This authority is placed in the hands of the Governor-General. The positions of the Governor or the Deputy Governor of the RBA may be terminated or suspended by the Governor-General with the approval of the parliament. This would require the approval of each house of the parliament in the same session of parliament. The grounds for termination or suspension are set out in section 25(8) of the bill and include an incapacity to perform duties, taking outside employment or becoming bankrupt. Although one would have thought that, if the governor of the Reserve Bank was bankrupt, the people might have spoken up before the parliament needed to do something, the provision is obviously a logical inclusion. The bill also amends the Reserve Bank Act 1959 to require the Governor or Deputy Governor of the RBA to provide a written letter of resignation to the Governor-General should they choose to resign. These amendments will achieve greater independence by limiting political interference in Reserve Bank appointments. Also, the Secretary to the Treasury and the governor will maintain a register of eminent candidates of the highest integrity from which the Treasurer will make new appointments to the Reserve Bank board. This procedure removes the potential for political considerations in the appointment process and ensures that only the best qualified candidates are appointed to the Reserve Bank board. Of course, everyone in the House would remember the scandal involving businessman and Liberal Party donor Robert Gerard and his appointment to the Reserve Bank board following intervention from the then Treasurer, Peter Costello. Robert Gerard was the man who donated more to the Liberal Party than he did to the Taxation Office. It would have been great to have been a fly on the wall to hear the discussions between the member for Higgins and his advisers. I imagine it would have been like something out of Yes, Minister—a case of saying, ‘Yes, Treasurer, that would be a very courageous decision to put him on the board.’ However, he obviously ignored that advice and went ahead with that appointment. And it is interesting that Mr Gerard resigned from the board following the airing of his dispute with the tax office, not because the member for Higgins found some backbone and retreated from that appointment. The amending legislation before the House will ensure that such obvious political appointments will not happen again and will also remove any perception of political interference. It also brings arrangements for Australia’s central bank governance in line with international best practice. This is another bill that honours another election commitment by the Rudd government. We do not have a difference between core and non-core. If I recall correctly from my teaching days, the Latin root for core is cor, cordis, meaning the heart. The Rudd government’s commitments come from the heart—we say, with our hand on our heart, that we will carry out every commitment we made and not make them core and non-core. I am proud to be a part of a federal government that cares about working families and is prepared to do the hard yards to fight inflation. I commend this bill to the House. 3058 12:29:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —in reply—I would like to thank all members who have taken part in the debate on the Reserve Bank Amendment (Enhanced Independence) Bill 2008. The measures contained in this bill implement the government’s election commitment to enhance the independence and transparency of the conduct of monetary policy by the Reserve Bank. Under this legislation the positions of governor and deputy governor will have their level of statutory independence raised to that of the Commissioner of Taxation and the Australian Statistician. As such, their appointments will be made by the Governor-General acting in council. At the moment they are simply appointed by the Treasurer. In addition—and more importantly—the termination of the governor and the deputy governor may now only occur if each house of the parliament in the same session of the parliament requests the Governor-General to do so. Presently the Treasurer is able to carry out the termination of either of these positions without reference to the parliament. The present situation could leave the governor and deputy governor in a potentially vulnerable position. Put simply, this bill vests with the Governor-General the existing powers to appoint and terminate the governor and deputy governor that currently rests with the Treasurer. It has been suggested during the debate that under this bill the governor and deputy governor would no longer hold office subject to good behaviour, through the operation of paragraph 24(1)(c). This is not the view of the Office of the Australian Government Solicitor. Paragraph 24(1)(c) has always pertained to the removal of the governor and deputy governor from office by a court should they no longer be of good behaviour. This bill in no way changes the clause or its intended effect. There has also been an amendment put forward to require the governor to appear before the House of Representatives Economics Committee four times a year. The governor and his predecessor have regularly appeared before the committee, and at only his last appearance Governor Stevens indicated, ‘It is really in the hands of the committee how often you want me to come.’ This amendment is unnecessary and, I think, an unfortunate effort to score a political point right when the very intent of this bill is to put the positions of governor and deputy governor above partisan politics. The increased independence of the RBA delivered by this bill is an important component of the government’s strategy to tackle the inflation challenge and to help reduce the financial pressures on working families. From day one the government has taken responsibility for tackling the inflation challenge. This bill supports the efforts I outlined in the budget to meet the inflation challenge head on. In doing so, the government will continue to honour its commitment to help reduce financial pressure on working families, who have made the Australian economy strong. I commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 3059 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 3059 12:33:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —I move: Schedule 1, items 1 to 4, page 3 (line 5) to page 5 (line 3), omit the items, substitute After section 24B Insert: 24C Governor and House of Representatives The Governor shall make himself or herself available to give evidence before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, or any successor committee designated for the purpose of this section by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, at times and places to be agreed with the Committee but in any case not less than four times per year if requested by the Committee. In the Treasurer’s observations about the Reserve Bank Amendment (Enhanced Independence) Bill 2008, he seeks to address a core problem with this very ill considered bill, which is that we have advice from the Parliamentary Library that: Under the changes proposed by the Bill, in the event the position holder— that is to say, the governor or deputy governor— is not of good behaviour there is no mechanism for termination as this requirement is not specified as a ground under new subsection 25(8). The Treasurer has said that the Office of the Australian Government Solicitor takes a different view. That may well be the case, but on a matter as important as this it is completely unacceptable that there be any doubt or contention whatsoever. What we have in this bill is not an effort to make the Reserve Bank governor or the deputy governor more independent. If that had been sought, if it had been desired to take the question of the removal from office of those persons away from the control of the executive government and vest it in parliament, then the legislation would, as the Treasurer foreshadowed when he made the announcement of his intentions, mirror the legislation relating to the removal of the taxation commissioner or indeed the Australian Statistician where the parliament—in a not dissimilar fashion to the way judges can be removed—votes on whether there has been misbehaviour in office sufficient to enable removal. This bill does nothing for independence, and takes three circumstances which have been historically, and should be in effect automatic, vacancies in the office. Instead of there being a statutory requirement that the office is automatically vacated in the event of incapacity, bankruptcy or holding an outside job, it provides a mandatory requirement that the Treasurer shall terminate the appointment so that there is a time and date certain as to when that officeholder’s office comes to an end. We would now be in the absurd situation where the parliament could resolve that a Reserve Bank governor who is incapable, bankrupt or has an outside job—perhaps working for a bank somewhere else—would be able to remain in office. It is a ludicrous outcome and has nothing to do with independence. By contrast, the opposition is presenting a very practical and concrete proposal which will improve accountability on the part of the Reserve Bank. We have an outstanding central bank; it is one of the world’s best—many would say the world’s best. Its accountability is enhanced by its biannual appearance before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, and that is an opportunity for the whole of Australia, through its elected representatives in the House of Representatives, to draw out from the Reserve Bank governor and his senior officials their views on monetary policy and the economy generally, and that greatly adds to the sum total of economic knowledge that we have as a country and our ability to question the decisions of the bank. Every quarter, the bank produces a comprehensive paper on monetary policy: the Statement on Monetary Policy. It is much anticipated; it is a key document in the flow of information from the Reserve Bank and it would be very appropriate for the House economics committee, following the publication of the statement on monetary policy, to then speak to the Reserve Bank governor and his team, thereby doubling the accountability and the transparency that the House economics committee is able to provide. That underpins the independence of the bank. It is that accountability that gives the bank its independence. What this bill does, by contrast, is absurd, it is ill thought out and it presents, at the very best, a situation which raises considerable doubt as to whether the ability to remove a governor who is misbehaving can continue. (Time expired) 3060 12:38:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —This is just empty grandstanding; it is hair-splitting, slick barrister talk that does not go to the core of the proposals that are being put in this parliament. You are so confident of your position, Shadow Minister, that you did not bother to move an amendment in terms of the comments you made at the beginning of your reply. The government opposes these amendments because they are empty. They are sheer grandstanding. It is the shadow Treasurer trying to say: ‘Look at me. Look at me. I’m better than Brendan.’ Question put: That the amendment (Mr Turnbull’s) be agreed to. 12:43:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. BC Scott) 51 Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Downer, A.J.G. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Keenan, M. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Morrison, S.J. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. * Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 73 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Zappia, A. * denotes teller Question negatived. Bill agreed to. 3061 Mr SWAN (Lilley —Treasurer) 12:53:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question put. 12:55:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. BC Scott) 72 Adams, D.G.H. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Zappia, A. 51 Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Downer, A.J.G. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Keenan, M. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Morrison, S.J. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. * Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 3062 Bills R2973 Cognate bills: 3062 Bills R2974 3062 Bills R2975 3062 Bills R2976 3062 Bills R2977 3062 Debate resumed from 15 May, on motion by Mr Swan: That this bill be now read a second time. 3062 13:01:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 1 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —This is the first federal Labor budget to be debated in this parliament for just over a decade. It is a very significant achievement, setting a new direction for this nation. I congratulate the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the Prime Minister and everyone else who has worked on it. It is apparent to all that it is the product of a great deal of hard work. It has accomplished and will accomplish a great deal. I think its two most outstanding characteristics were these. First, it has honoured our election commitments and kept faith with the Australian people. This is no minor matter. We cannot afford to have a situation where there is a lack of trust between governments and citizens. Citizens need to be able to rely on governments and their elected representatives keeping their word and honouring their promises. Over the years there has been something of an erosion of trust between electors and their elected representatives. John Howard’s tricky division of election promises into core promises, which he kept, and non-core promises, which he did not, helped fuel voter cynicism and alienation from the democratic process. So it is important that this budget is keeping Labor’s election promises. In doing so, it is helping to build trust and confidence in Australia’s political process and institutions. The other prominent feature of this budget is that it puts downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. Twelve interest rate rises in a row have hammered homebuyers and small business and it has to stop. The budget has produced a record surplus, so the government is playing its part. This is an economically responsible, fiscally conservative budget. I was astonished to hear the budget reply from the Leader of the Opposition on the Thursday night after the budget had been delivered. He announced billions of dollars in spending promises and tax cuts but did not announce any savings measures to pay for them. All night I waited. The next day I waited. All last week I waited. I am still waiting for the opposition leader and the shadow Treasurer to announce the proposals to fund these measures. I have waited in vain. We heard nothing. It is incredible. Those on the other side of the House, who have lectured us for years about our alleged fiscal irresponsibility, who, over and over again, talk about their reputation for sound economic management, have proposed a budget alternative with billions of dollars in unfunded spending promises. Their reputation for sound economic management took a bit of a beating in the last parliament as a consequence of all the interest rates rises. Nevertheless, it was a remarkable thing to see them abandon the terrain completely. They seem to have lost all interest in arguing with Labor as to who is the more economically responsible. It is quite astonishing. In the time I have to speak on the budget I want to discuss two very important issues which have been very prominent in the post-budget debate. The first concerns pensions and retirement incomes. For a number of years, I have been of the view that pensioners need more support than they are getting. I have no doubt that they were dudded over the GST. The essential feature of the GST was a rise in consumption taxes made up for by a reduction in income taxes. This is okay for people who are in the workforce but very tough on people who have retired and for whom it is too late to go back into the workforce to earn new money. The compensation for the GST which pensioners and retirees received tended to be one-off compensation, whereas the GST goes on forever. The second problem for pensioners and retirees is that there has been a real spike in the cost of living during the past year. The cost of food has skyrocketed. Visits to the supermarket are now a matter of fear and trepidation. Each time you go, the price has gone up on something. The cost of petrol has skyrocketed—I will have more to say about this issue later. Electricity is up. Water is up. Pharmaceuticals are up. The fact is that the pension simply is not keeping pace with these things. Last week I met with Mr Gino Iannazzo and Mr Vic Guarino, representatives of the Moreland Seniors Action Group. They said to me that pensioners have lost spending power since the introduction of the GST, especially in the last three years. The present pension is $273 per week for singles and $228 per week for each member of a pensioner couple. They say this is simply not enough to make ends meet. They point out that according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics in February this year full-time adult ordinary time earnings averaged $1,123 a week. For each member of a pensioner couple to get 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, which is what the public thinks pensioners get, their pension would need to rise from $228 to $281 per week—that is, a $53 per week increase. They remarked to me that the government had set the means test limit for the baby bonus at $150,000 per annum, which is, I believe, $2,885 per week. In other words, you can earn 10 times the amount a pensioner receives before you are considered too wealthy to warrant government support by way of the baby bonus and other family payments. I have had similar concerns expressed to me by other seniors groups, such as the Greek Elderly Citizens of Moreland, Italian pensioners clubs, and individual pensioners and retirees. I welcome the fact that both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have acknowledged that pensioners are struggling. I further welcome the fact that the government is carrying out a review of the adequacy of pension payments. In March the Prime Minister indicated that government would be examining ways to deliver increased financial security to seniors. I look forward to that review and, more importantly, to action to address the present financial plight of pensioners. On the weekend, the Prime Minister told the Victorian Labor state conference that Treasury secretary Ken Henry is preparing a report on how we can confront the long-term interrelated challenges of our tax, welfare and retirement income systems, which will include a review of aged pensions. It is due in February 2009. I may be at odds with some pensioners and their representatives who want the focus to be on lifting the single rate of pension. I do not know how well known this is but, up until September 1963, there was only one rate of pension paid to singles and couples alike. At that time, an extra 10 shillings a week was introduced to compensate single pensioners for the extra expenses they incur. I do not doubt for a minute that single pensioners have more expenses, but I think it is unfortunate that the present arrangement effectively penalises married pensioner couples and introduces a financial disincentive for single pensioners to do anything other than live alone. I do not think this arrangement is good for single pensioners, I do not think it is good for married pensioners and I do not think it is good for the community. The community would have fewer problems of isolation and loneliness and more efficient use of housing and other resources if we had fewer single pensioner households and more pensioners living together or with other family or friends who could provide them with financial and emotional support—and, let me add, vice versa. It cannot be said too often that many grandparents and great-grandparents are important sources of mentoring, child minding and other support which adds value to family and community. I want to conclude this part of the discussion by pointing out that the budget did contain measures which will benefit seniors. The budget is committing $5.2 billion in additional funding for seniors. That is 3½ times the amount pledged by the previous government in the 2007-08 budget. The implementation of our election commitments in this budget provides an average additional annual benefit of $400 for age pensioners and seniors. An age pensioners and seniors bonus of $500, benefiting some 2.7 million seniors, will be paid before the end of the current financial year—by 30 June 2008. These bonuses come on top of an increase in the utility allowance from $107.20 a year to $500 a year. The first quarterly instalment was paid out to age pensioners and seniors in March. These important financial measures come on top of an extension to the telephone allowance, new dental funding for concession card holders and petrol vouchers for volunteers who use their own transport. The Australian government is providing $50 million over four years to implement a national plan to help seniors with their travel costs. It is working with state and territory governments to provide funding to ensure seniors card holders can access travel concessions on public transport anywhere in Australia. Reciprocal transport concessions will help older Australians who like to travel to visit their families and see the country. Currently, when many state government seniors card holders travel interstate they cannot access local public transport concessions because their home state card is not recognised. The government recognises the frustrations experienced by older Australians and does not believe that transport concession entitlements should stop at state borders. These national reciprocal transport arrangements are expected to be in place by 1 January next year, subject to agreement by the state and territory governments. Another important measure is that Australian government concession cards will now remain valid during short-term overseas travel from 1 July this year. Under this change, concession cards will no longer be cancelled when cardholders leave Australia for holidays or other short-term absences. This will apply to holders of the pensioner concession card, health care card and Commonwealth seniors health card. Presently people cannot retain a concession card issued by the Australian government while overseas. Cards are cancelled from the date the cardholder leaves Australia and have to be renewed upon return. I believe that introducing portability of concession cards will reduce the administrative burden for customers and the cost attached to cancelling and reissuing cards. I now want to turn to the issue of petrol prices. They have been heading skywards since 2004, which is deeply ironic since some of the cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq, including some members opposite, were telling us that invading Iraq would bring petrol prices down. We heard that going into Iraq would give us a petrol price of $20 a barrel. It is now $130 a barrel. I notice that the renowned Nobel laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz has said that it would be reasonable to attribute something like US$35 a barrel of the US$80 a barrel increase which has happened since the start of the war to the invasion of Iraq. I support the measures taken by the government to have the ACCC scrutinise the pricing policies of the oil companies more closely. The previous government failed to do so. It was too close to the oil companies. But the Prime Minister has also said these measures will impact on petrol prices at the margin, and he is right about that. Their impact will be beneficial, but it will not be dramatic. I also support the announcement that Labor’s tax review will include an examination of the impact of the GST on petrol taxes. This is an issue which I have raised publicly a number of times over the years. The more the price of petrol rises, the more tax the government gets courtesy of the GST. I welcome this matter coming under scrutiny. The previous government ignored it. They were content to rake in the revenue. But I believe that the real issue with petrol is not about a few cents a litre in tax here or a few cents a litre in better competition there, but how we in Australia transition out of petrol altogether. It is high time we did. There is no future in petrol. It has three strikes against it. Firstly, the price is destined to keep going up as it gets scarcer. This means more hardship for motorists year in, year out. Secondly, Australia is importing more of it every year. This is bad for our balance of payments and bad for our national independence. My parliamentary colleague the member for Eden-Monaro, who has a wealth of military experience, has described this as a national security issue. He is right. Thirdly, petrol is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Australia has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by the year 2050. How are we going to do this if we do not make serious inroads concerning the carbon emissions from cars, trucks et cetera? Public transport is part of the answer, but clearly we need to transition out of petrol and into alternative fuels, and I regret that we have not done much more of this in the past 10 or 20 years. This problem has been coming—it has been looming—for quite some time. It is not as if it is all too hard—that the alternatives do not exist. I am going to talk about the Ford Australian manufactured dedicated LPG vehicle in a bit of detail. I do not do this because I am some kind of spruiker for Ford; I would cheerfully do it for anyone who manufactured a dedicated LPG vehicle in Australia. Indeed, I am critical of Ford for not having done more to promote this car rather than its petrol engine ones. But I will talk about this car in order to ram home the point that viable alternatives to petrol vehicles are here right now and all of us—public policymakers, car companies, fuel companies and consumers—should be engaged in a mass exodus to embrace them. Ford started manufacturing dedicated LPG vehicles at its Campbellfield plant back in 2000. Since then it has sold 70,000 of them. Back in November 2000, I wrote to the then Special Minister of State urging an investigation into their suitability as fleet vehicles. These vehicles emit 20 per cent less greenhouse gases than petrol vehicles and 80 per cent less toxic air emissions. There have been some improvements in petrol engines since then, but the Sydney Morning Herald of 31 March this year reported that LPG cars’ greenhouse emissions are still about 15 per cent less than those of petrol cars. Back in 2000, the margin between the petrol and the LPG Ford Falcon was $798. Motorists could recoup their initial investment within a year of average motoring or 15,000 to 20,000 kilometres. Since then, the price differential has moved to around $1,400 but, given that private buyers get $1,000 government subsidy, the actual cost is around $400. Given that petrol is about $1.50 a litre and LPG is around 60c a litre, a lot of motorists would frankly recover that $400 in a matter of weeks. So I am mystified as to why Ford does not promote the LPG vehicles more, and I am mystified as to why more motorists do not buy them, whether as new or second-hand cars. I do declare an interest here: I drive one of these cars. But, as I have told the parliament before, I can attest to its performance, to its reliability, to its safety and to the fact that service stations all over Australia sell LPG; so you do not run out of gas unless you pay absolutely no attention whatsoever to the fuel gauge. Of course, LPG is not the only alternative, and over time it is not the best one. We need to move to cars with much lower carbon emissions altogether. We have buses running on natural gas, and Australia has an abundance of natural gas reserves. We should be doing more with these wonderful resources to meet Australia’s own energy and vehicle fuel needs. We should be putting into place the natural gas distribution infrastructure and the vehicle design to make this happen. We have also got dual fuel electric cars on the market—like the Toyota Prius. These vehicles show the way forward. I welcome the commitment in the budget to the development of low-emissions vehicles through the $500 million Green Car Innovation Fund. This fund will ensure Australia plays a leading role in the global development of green car technology. We need to transition out of petrol and into alternative fuels, and this will achieve three things: it will cut the cost of motoring for hard pressed motorists, it will give Australia energy independence so we no longer have to pay whatever the OPEC countries think we should, and it will reduce our carbon emissions and help save the planet. It really is a no-brainer. Going on the way that we have been is just crazy. Transitioning out of petrol will be good for motorists, good for the current account and good for the environment. In promoting the use of LPG, we have got something which has a strong refuelling network and is well established in the taxi industry. We have abundant supplies of LPG, with these supplies forecast to increase over the course of the next 20 years. I also think that we need to look at using our huge gas reserves to produce liquid based transport fuels. We have something like 140 trillion cubic feet of offshore gas reserves that, using current technology, could be transformed into what amounts to a limitless supply of transport fuel which is well and truly commercially viable and would remain viable even if there were a fall in the oil price—which I regard as highly unlikely. We should be taking advantage of these riches to insure Australia against physical supply shocks and give this nation genuine energy independence. Natural gas in vehicles gives us good results in terms of the environment. Per unit of energy it contains less carbon than any other fossil fuel and produces lower carbon dioxide emissions. It also gives us good health outcomes in terms of respiratory illness, asthma and the like. It has less particulate pollution than that which is attributed to standard vehicle emissions. Furthermore, natural gas does not have problems for surrounding ecosystems should an accident occur. If a natural gas leak occurs as a result of an accident, it dissipates into the atmosphere and does not disturb surrounding ecosystems or people. So for all those reasons I believe this is the right way to go, and this is where the focus of our efforts and energies as a nation ought to be. Again, I strongly support the budget—it is the way forward for Australia. I congratulate those involved in its preparation on the effort and energy they have put into bringing it down. (Time expired) 3067 13:21:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —The American writer Frank Pace described the federal budget as the ‘embodiment of the total program of the federal government’. Indeed, the budget of the Commonwealth government of Australia encapsulates everything that this government is about. It tells us about its character, what it sees for the future of Australia and how it views the economy and the lives and living standards of the 21 million Australians with whom we share this great nation. What we have seen is not a budget of vision, not a budget of courage, not a budget of compassion but a budget of indecision, of missed opportunities and of challenges not faced. We have seen a budget that is all spin and no substance, and it began with the Treasurer, who for all of this year—indeed, from the moment the election was over—was saying that inflation was out of control and the ‘inflation genie was out of the bottle’. He said that there would need to be a strong move in the budget, a big cut in spending, to put downward pressure on inflation. He was promising a major contractionary fiscal shock—a big cut in spending that would have an impact on aggregate demand, so that by the Commonwealth government pulling dollars out of the system there would be less demand chasing goods and services and less pressure on prices. So we were all expecting a horror budget with savage cuts in expenditure. The nation was waiting on that Tuesday night, waiting for the worst to come, and instead we got a budget that was as mild as its author’s rhetoric was fierce. There were no net cuts in spending; in fact, over the forward estimates there was $15 billion of spending cuts announced to coalition programs but $30 billion of additional spending from the government. So there was a net increase in spending of $15 billion. When we looked at the revenue side of the budget we saw a number of significant new taxes, all of which will have an impact on prices and, therefore, an inflationary impact. The budget has the direct consequence that it will put up the price of alcohol through the tax on RTDs. That is an inflationary measure—it puts up the price of alcohol, which is part of the CPI. We have an increase in tax on cars valued at more than $57,000. Again, motor cars are an important part of the CPI, so that will have an inflationary impact. We saw a range of other new taxes, including the big item, $2½ billion over the forward estimates for a tax on condensate, which will inevitably add to pressure on prices for gas, at least, and possibly for other hydrocarbon products. All of those measures add to prices. There is nothing deflationary about them at all. Then we have the extraordinary decision to effectively put up the price of private health insurance. This is something that governments over a long period of time have tried to encourage Australians to take out, and yet what we saw was a measure that will net the Commonwealth government an extra $300 million in net terms over the forward estimates but will reduce the pool of people in the private health insurance system by somewhere between half a million, if you take Treasury’s estimates, and one million, if you take the industry’s estimates. That will unquestionably add to the waiting lists, the queues and the pressure on the public hospital system because there will be fewer people privately insured. And because it will reduce the pool of those who are taking out private health insurance and paying premiums, and because those who drop out are more likely to be younger and healthier and therefore less likely to claim, the pressure on private health insurance premiums will be inexorably upward. So we have seen a budget that was promised as the great inflation-fighting budget. Did it cut spending? No, it did not; it increased spending. Did it bring prices down? No, it did not; it has put prices up in very clearly defined, sensitive areas—alcohol, motor vehicles, private health insurance and others. We have to ask ourselves then: what does this tell us about the character of this government? This is a government that has brought out a budget that is completely at odds with that which it promised. It has been prepared to talk the talk endlessly, but it has not been prepared to walk the walk. We see the hypocrisy in areas that presumably—or so we were told—are very close to the heart of this government. This is a government, we have been told again and again, that sees climate change as the greatest long-term economic challenge to our country. And many would agree with that—there is no question. I certainly agree that climate change is the greatest economic challenge the world faces in the years ahead. It is a vital challenge, and that is why when we were in government we outlined the way forward for an emissions-trading scheme and undertook a range of other measures designed to pave the way to Australia being a low-carbon economy by decarbonising our energy sector so that we could over time bring down our levels of emission of CO2. A key part of this is being able to generate energy without emitting CO2. We emit most of our CO2 from burning fossil fuels—liquid fuels for vehicles and transport, but mostly coal. Those stationary energy industries, the coal industry and our power stations, are the ones that are producing the bulk of the growth in our CO2 emissions. However, we do have alternatives. We have renewables and we have the opportunity in the future to undertake clean coal, where we will capture the CO2 and store it under the ground. But a key part of this clean energy solution is solar energy. We are blessed in Australia with many natural resources, and one which we do not always appreciate but which is certainly in superabundance is sunshine. Solar energy is a key part of the clean energy agenda. The problem is that it is not economic with today’s technology and with today’s prices on fossil fuel fired energy. So we have sought in Australia, as many other countries have done, to subsidise the solar energy sector in order to drive greater production, drive greater research and drive greater learning through doing so that solar energy moves down that cost curve and becomes more competitive and more substitutable for fossil fuels. There will come a point when improvements in solar technology will bring the cost down that curve, and then the added cost to fossil fuel fired energy from the carbon price inherent in an emissions-trading scheme will make the two competitive. That has been our policy and has been the policy in Japan, America, Germany and so many other countries. The key element that we had in our solar strategy was a subsidy which had originally been $4,000 for a one-kilowatt installation—$4 a watt—which we doubled last year to $8. That meant that any householder who wanted to install photovoltaic panels on their roof would be able to receive an $8,000 subsidy. The cost of a solar photovoltaic installation is still uneconomic at that price. The payback is unreasonably long. It is unquestionably, even with the subsidy, essentially an environmental decision. People are taking a view that they want to do something about their carbon footprint. They want to help, if you like, the collective effort to reduce our CO2 emissions. This subsidy has driven the solar energy industry. Around Australia there are thousands of jobs in making solar panels, in researching new solar technology and, above all, in distributing and installing solar panels. We have to ask: what on earth was the government thinking when, in this budget, it introduced a means test for the availability of this rebate—a $100,000 per annum income per household means test? This has had the consequence—as we have heard from the solar energy industry—that demand has almost dried up. In one blow the Rudd government has killed the industry that our policies were designed to drive. We were pump-priming that industry. It was industry policy. It was not social welfare. It was not designed to subsidise households on the basis of their income. It was designed to get those panels built, get them out there and make them part of our overall clean energy solution. That has now been abandoned. The hypocrisy! Throughout the campaign I cannot recall a day when we did not see the Prime Minister—the opposition leader, as he then was—positioned in front of a solar panel. The member for Kingsford Smith, now the environment minister, was often there. Presumably he was following the now Prime Minister around with a couple of solar panels strapped to his back to set them up like he was a roadie. He changed roles from rock star to roadie. Kevin Rudd was the rock star and Peter Garrett was the roadie setting up his exhibition. That solar industry, which the Prime Minister relied upon so much, has now been killed. The biggest element in the fight against climate change has to be the emissions-trading scheme, because that is how we will put a price on carbon; it is how we will enable the market to react and find the cheapest, most efficient means of reducing our CO2 emissions over time. That was certainly our policy. The government is doing further work on it, which is headed by Professor Garnaut. We will see what Professor Garnaut proposes and what part of his proposals the government adopts. That scheme is going to have an enormous impact on our economy. It will add to the price of everything. Even if the carbon price were $25 a tonne—which many would say would be at the low end—that would generate at least $10 billion in additional revenue. It is going to constitute an enormous new federal tax. It will affect, as I said, the price of everything. It will begin, the government tells us, in 2010, but there is not a line in the budget papers which mentions or discusses the social, economic or environmental impacts of the emissions-trading scheme. All of this notwithstanding, the ETS is due to start in 2010—right in the middle of the forward estimates. This budget, which is supposed to be the embodiment of the total program of the federal government, leaves out the single most important part of the environmental program. All we see is a few million dollars allocated for hiring consultants. The budget also is a budget of extraordinary hypocrisy. It is one thing to claim you are saving the planet with clean energy and then another to kill off the solar power industry or indeed to ignore the biggest element in the fight against climate change in terms of policy in emissions trading. What about the hypocrisy and the cynicism of a government that claims its single biggest revenue measure—the tax on RTDs—is designed as a health measure? This is just another tax on booze. There are many taxes on booze. It is a large element in government revenues and has been in the revenues of governments from time immemorial. But this was not presented as just an easy way of getting an extra $3 billion over the next four years. This was presented and sold to the public as a means of stopping young people from drinking ready-mixed drinks—from drinking these so-called alcopops. Yet when we got the budget papers and looked at the revenues forecast in each of those four years, what did we see? We saw $600-odd million in the first year and nearly $900 million in the fourth. Far from driving down the consumption of these drinks, the budget papers themselves assume that consumption will go up. This is not an anti-binge-drinking measure; this is banking on a binge. This is banking on the binge continuing and accelerating. Of course, there is no consideration given to substitution. From the minute the tax was imposed we heard from liquor stores, hotels and supermarkets all around Australia that their sales of RTDs had declined somewhat, but sales of spirits and soft drinks had increased. So there we have it: not just cynical, not just hypocritical, but complacent—the government underestimating the ingenuity of the Australian drinker. We also see is this budget another element of extraordinary hypocrisy. The Treasurer described the budget as a nation-building budget. This is a budget that does nothing to fight inflation—by his own test—so that is not part of it. It does nothing to assist clean energy; in fact it undermines the solar energy industry—it devastates it. It does nothing to promote an efficient or effective health system and it undermines the private health system and puts additional pressure on public hospitals, all at a time when they are groaning at full or excess capacity. So the claim for nation building is left to reside on a proposal to put $40 billion into a fund to invest in infrastructure. This infrastructure fund is potentially the most dangerous element in the budget. The decision relating to the Medicare levy surcharge, which will have the effect of undermining the private health system, is certainly the most misguided. But the infrastructure fund decision is the most dangerous. It means that the Treasurer is going to take $40 billion of Australian savings and put them in a fund which can be invested at his discretion in infrastructure without any definition of what that infrastructure might be, without any parameters as to what type of economic or financial return those investments might be required to obtain and without any guidelines or rules. It is a product disclosure statement consisting of nothing more than a blank page. In the real world of the marketplace, where people raise funds for infrastructure, you could not raise a cent on this basis. In fact the blank page has just two words on it: ‘trust me’. ‘Trust the Treasurer’—that is all it has got on it. Compare that to the discipline and the genuine economic conservatism of the previous government when Peter Costello, as Treasurer, set up the Future Fund, which was designed to create a pool of money that would take the pressure off future generations for the unfunded liabilities for Commonwealth public servants’ pensions. Those future funds are constrained by statute. The money cannot be taken out of them for any purpose other than that for which they are dedicated. The term is fixed—a long-term return of CPI plus 4.5 to 5.5 per cent per annum. That is set there and it is a long-term return. Also, in charge of that fund there is an expert board headed by David Murray, a former head of the Commonwealth Bank and one of our most distinguished bankers, if not the most distinguished one. That is the Future Fund. You know exactly what the money is there for; you know exactly who is going to manage it; and you know what the objective is going to be. The rules are all set and it is indeed a locked box. In the Treasurer’s infrastructure fund we have just a pool of money to, no doubt, buy elections, to subsidise inefficient state utilities and to bail out state governments that have lost the plot in terms of their own economic management and are coming into an election. There is no discipline. This country is littered with poor infrastructure decisions made by Labor state governments, and they are continuing today. On the board is a gentleman who was instrumental in deciding to build a pipeline from the Goulburn Murray system, which is practically empty, to Melbourne. It would drain water from an empty rural irrigation system and send it down to a big city. There are a host of other poor decisions. That is the character of this government. It is not nation building and it is not fighting inflation; it is simply putting together a series of measures designed to fuel this election chest. (Time expired) 3071 13:41:00 Butler, Mark, MP HWK Port Adelaide ALP 1 0 Mr BUTLER —I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2007-2008 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2007-2008. The fist budget of the Rudd Labor government reflects a seismic shift in the approach at a Commonwealth level to distributing and investing the benefits of the resources boom. Commonwealth government expenditure now approaches $300 billion—quite an awesome figure. While Australia remains at the lower end of the OECD table when measuring government expenditure as a percentage of GDP, skyrocketing corporate profits and historically high employment levels have seen tax revenue climb strongly. The previous government would have us believe that this was all the result of some party trick performed by the member for Higgins, rather than largely a case of being in the right place at the right time—namely, the time when China and, perhaps to a lesser degree, India accelerated their industrialisation. While basking in reflected glory, the previous government set about constructing a spending program based on short-termism and cynical electoral bribes. Rather than having the vision and the intestinal fortitude to make serious structural changes to the Commonwealth’s budget, the member for Higgins preferred one-off payments that provided excellent press conference opportunities but very little capacity for Australians to plan their finances more than a year ahead. The Labor Party is the party that makes serious structural reforms to our economy and public finances. The records of the Hawke and Keating governments reflect that tendency and frankly put the record of the previous government to shame. As I hope to outline, this budget and these bills see the re-emergence of serious economic management and vision. Where the government has been unable to undo 12 years of neglect in just one budget, the Treasurer has commissioned a comprehensive review of our taxation and transfer system. This is something that the previous government could only ever approach on a piecemeal basis. As I have already indicated, this budget is framed against the background of a very favourable revenue picture. Our terms of trade are at their highest levels in decades and the renegotiation of key resources contracts is likely to push them even higher. As the Reserve Bank has been warning us for some time though, the resources boom has caused a range of capacity pressures to build in our economy. A combination of labour shortages, declining productivity and infrastructure bottlenecks have been driving up inflation since well before the last election. As much as the member for Higgins tried to avoid the issue last year and as much as the previous speaker, the member for Wentworth, continues to insist that there is nothing to see here and nothing to get too excited about, the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the rest of us on this side of the chamber recognise that the inflation genie is out of the bottle and that we only have a limited period of time to stick it back in the bottle before we get into a serious wage price spiral. There is a very clear reason why we on this side of the chamber are more highly sensitised to inflation: because it hurts the most vulnerable in our community. Australians on fixed incomes and with tight household budgets suffer serious hardship as the CPI climbs. Those Australians suffered for years while the previous government continued to view consumer prices with a benign indifference. For years now, the essential items of expenditure have been climbing by well over three per cent per year: food, transport, health, child care and education. All those things that low- to middle-income Australians spend almost all of their household budgets on have been increasing by more like four per cent to six per cent per year. The reductions at the same time in discretionary consumer prices for things like new cars, consumer electronics and so on have masked that hardship in the aggregate CPI figures. It now falls to the new government to use the fiscal policy tools that it has at its disposal—tools not utilised responsibly by the previous government—to start to reduce inflationary pressures. The most obvious way in which the new government is doing this is by ensuring that all new spending in this budget is offset by savings. This budget applies an efficiency dividend of two per cent this coming year, with exemptions only for defence operations. This dividend will cause some hardship and dislocation within the Public Service and to some programs. That is something to be deeply regretted, but it is also somewhat inevitable given the lax fiscal policy settings left to us by the member for Higgins. More broadly, this budget does its part to ensure that government does not further stoke the fires of demand in the economy. In the four years to date, the member for Higgins presided over growth in government operating expenditure to the tune of an average of 5.7 per cent per year, thereby contributing further heat to an economy that was already reaching full capacity. By contrast, this budget forecasts that growth to come down to an average of 0.7 per cent over four years. There are three further things in this budget that I would like to address. The first is the fairer distribution of taxation obligations and transfer payments, the second is a package of measures designed to invest in the future capacity of our economy and the third is the long-term vision of what sort of country we are able to become. The previous government was committed to distributing the lion’s share of the benefits of our economy growth to those Australians who were already doing comparatively well. Labor sees that an important role of government is that it do what it can to provide financial relief and economic opportunity to those in our community who are struggling, a task made only more important in a highly deregulated and globalised economy. A telling illustration of this tendency is provided by an analysis of the three budgets delivered by the member for Higgins from 2004 to 2006. My calculations of the tax cuts provided in total by those three budgets saw a low-income earner on about $20,000 per year receive somewhere between $7 and $13 per week as a total tax cut. An earner on $150,000 per year over the same three years enjoyed a total tax cut of $226 per week—not counting the significant superannuation tax benefits delivered to that cohort in the same period. At a time when dynamics in the private economy were exacerbating Australian income and wealth inequality, this was an inexcusable betrayal of low- to middle-income Australians. The budget papers for this year’s appropriation bills demonstrate just how different is the approach of Labor. With almost $50 billion of tax cuts over the next four years, benefits are heavily weighted towards those Australians of the low- to middle-income spectrum who were ignored for 12 long years by the member for Higgins. The previous government also took the notion of middle-class welfare to previously unscaled heights. The provision of family tax benefit B to millionaire households was at worst a shameless act of social engineering and at best a negligent expenditure of public funds. The Rudd government recognises the importance of the family payment system, which serves the needs of families in a variety of settings. We unashamedly take the view, however, that an income test of $150,000 per year is fair and responsible for the family tax benefit B and dependency tax offsets. We also unashamedly say that that those who can afford luxury cars should pay a higher tax than is the norm. The opposition portrays the luxury car tax increase as an attack on working families—yet another illustration of how out of touch the coalition has got from everyday life. The Leader of the Opposition calls this a Tarago tax, failing to point out the only Tarago of five or six models that retails for more than $57,000 is their top-of-the-range Ultimate model, marketed by them as the business-class version of the people mover. A price of $57,000 is well above the price range confronting working families shopping for a new car. Australia’s fastest selling car, the Toyota Corolla, still retails for twenty-something thousand dollars, and the ubiquitous Commodore is still well under $40,000. The Rudd government respects the right of Australians to aspire to own the best that the car industry can offer, but it is more than reasonable to expect luxury cars to attract a higher tax than the standard. The most telling indictment that history will make against the previous government is its failure to invest the proceeds of the resources boom into expanding the productive capacity of our economy. In addition to the inflationary pressures that flowed from that lackadaisical approach, we have also seen productivity growth fall to its lowest levels in almost 17 years. This budget establishes the framework for Labor’s productivity and participation agenda. Most notably, this is reflected in the education and infrastructure programs outlined in the budget. The record of the previous government around infrastructure was abysmal. In spite of our amazing terms of trade and consequent revenue flows, we still ranked 20th of 25 OECD nations in infrastructure investment at last year’s change of government. The Business Council points out that the last five years alone saw upwards revisions in Commonwealth budgets totalling $87 billion. During a comparable period following the Korean War, Australia invested the revenue from skyrocketing terms of trade into nation building. What we got instead from the last government were bottlenecks, costing the economy around $8 billion to $10 billion each year. It is not easy to compare government infrastructure expenditure historically, due in large part to the privatisation of government assets and the proliferation of public-private partnerships over the past 20 years. But, to the extent that you can compare apples with apples, the infrastructure spend at the end of the previous government’s term was at best equivalent in percentage terms to the spend in the late 1980s. Given our terms of trade today, that is a disgrace. From time to time members of the opposition point the finger at the states for the condition of our national infrastructure—and we just heard the member for Wentworth do that. Our view is that it is the job of the national government to lead, and that is what this budget does. Following on from the establishment of Infrastructure Australia, the budget establishes the Building Australia Fund to finance critical national infrastructure in transport and communications which is not able to be delivered by the states or the private sector. Over the course of this financial year, Infrastructure Australia will report to COAG on its audit of infrastructure priorities. Already, the Rudd government is working with states on feasibility studies to fast-track high-priority projects. When infrastructure gaps and bottlenecks emerged, the previous government carped and pointed the finger. That will not be the approach of the new government. Labor are the party of nation building. We recognise that our current economic circumstances present us with an obligation to invest the benefits of this boom wisely and to set the country up for many years to come. If there is one recurring theme in the discussions that every member of this House has with members of the business community it must be about labour shortages. The previous government was not serious about lifting and spreading the vocational skills of Australians. It focused instead on ideological squabbling with state governments over the forum in which training might be provided and on a temporary visa scheme—the so-called 457 visas—that was shown to be deeply flawed. The Rudd government will fix the 457 system. We also recognise that our labour shortages are not short term. They are structural and therefore need a long-term response. The government have announced a 30 per cent increase in permanent skilled migration numbers for 2008-09, bringing in 31,000 more skilled workers who want to make Australia their home, raise a family and contribute their vocational skills to our economy. Now that is a structural response! The budget also sets in place a massive expansion in vocational training. Unlike our predecessors, we do not have an ideological obsession with the location in which that training is delivered; we just want to get it done. The budget lays down $1.9 billion of new spending on vocational training—enough to deliver up to 630,000 additional training places over the next five years. I was privileged recently to host the Prime Minister in my electorate to announce the release over the internet of the first tranche of 20,000 of those places. That announcement took place at one of the leading group training schemes in South Australia, run by the Motor Traders Association. As a long-time board member of a large group training scheme myself, I have a very clear idea of just how worthwhile this program will be for Australia. It will give Australian businesses access to the workforce they need and give Australian workers the skills to find meaningful and secure employment. One of the key reasons for the labour shortage we currently confront is the failure of the previous government to seriously lift the labour participation rate. While unemployment figures might be very low, the overall participation rate is stuck in the mid-60s as a percentage of the country’s available workforce. In key age groups, our participation rate is in the bottom half of the OECD table. With a booming economy and employers crying out for staff, this is unforgivable. The lack of sophistication in the previous government’s participation agenda was breathtaking: lots of stick through the Welfare to Work program and Work Choices, but not much finesse. One of the enduring hurdles in the welfare-to-work interface has been the effective marginal tax rates applying at the crossover. This will be a key focus of the tax review being chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury. Even more concerning, though, is that female participation in the labour market stalled under the previous government. It is trite that much of the growth in the labour market over the past 30 years has come from growth in the female participation rate. The previous government saw that rate stall in the high 50s, at a rate about 10 per cent lower than in Canada and in Britain and about 15 per cent lower than in Scandinavia. In order to deal with family responsibilities, government must intervene in the labour market to lift that rate beyond its natural glass ceiling. The previous government just did not get that. We do. The first focus needs to be on postnatal work arrangements. It is no coincidence, when considering our poor participation rate for women, that Australia is one of only two developed nations without a paid maternity leave scheme. The Productivity Commission inquiry has already sparked a vigorous debate about how we fix this challenge. What the architects of the baby bonus did not get is that, as welcome as the bonus might be for new parents, it is simply not something that bears on the mother’s sense of security in, or attachment to, her prenatal work—and that is the focus of the Rudd government. Research from overseas tells us, as does common sense, that the ready availability of high-quality, affordable child care is also a critical ingredient in workforce participation for mothers of young children. For years now, Australian parents have been struggling with the availability and the affordability of child care. This budget presents a solution to both. The response by the previous government to childcare affordability was pathetic. Child care in Australia remains heavily subsidised by low wages paid to childcare professionals. Even so, childcare fees in recent years have reached the limits of affordability for young families. This budget solves that affordability crisis through a new childcare tax rebate scheme. There are so many other elements of this budget that I would like to address if I had the time. The schools package is indeed revolutionary. The housing affordability program presents real hope to all those Australians who have been watching our national dream slip further from our grasp. Naturally, I hope we have many more budgets to deliver because there is still much to be done. In particular, I hope that the Henry review presents some meaningful options for delivering a better deal to Australian pensioners. By and large, the benefits of this resources boom have eluded them. Without doubt, though, history will judge this as a great budget that set the foundations for a new path forward for Australia. As a member of the Rudd government I am proud to be associated with it and I commend the various appropriation bills to the House. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being approximately 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour. 3075 Ministerial Arrangements 3075 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I inform the House that the Minister for Sport and Minister for Youth will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Health and Ageing will answer questions regarding sport and the Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions regarding youth on her behalf. 3076 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 3076 14:00:00 3076 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his Adelaide declaration, ‘We have done as much as we physically can to provide additional help to Australian families.’ Why has the Prime Minister given up on the job for Australian families after six months? 3076 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. When it comes to the budget measures, to which the member for Port Adelaide was just referring, we on this side of the House are proud of a budget which delivers for working Australians, for working families and for those doing it tough. It contains within it a $55 billion support package for working families. It contains additional payments for seniors and carers—payments additional to those provided in the Liberal Party’s last budget in this place. Of course, the measures that we put forward in the budget we are proud of. When it comes to the future we will continue to examine measures which will be able to support working families under financial pressure. We have always said that. That is in part why we have commissioned the Henry commission of inquiry to comprehensively review the tax and income system—comprehensively and for the long term, and to support working families. 3076 3076 14:01:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 Ms NEAL —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House why Australia needs responsible economic management? Are there any obstacles to achieving this outcome? 3076 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for the question. When the government assumed office, and in framing this budget, we were faced with three big economic challenges: one, inflation in Australia running at a 16-year high, delivered to us as a courtesy, a parting gift, of the preceding government; two, a world financial crisis which the International Monetary Fund says is one of the most serious crises we have seen since the Great Depression; and, three, historic shifts in commodity prices, including a doubling of oil prices in the last 12 months. That is why it has been critical for the government to deliver a responsible budget. We are a government of responsible economic management. We believe in ensuring that we are budgeting for Australia’s long-term economic needs rather than for short-term political opportunism, which seems to have been the hallmark of those opposite. What have we therefore delivered? One, a $22 billion budget surplus. That surplus is critical to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. That is the hallmark of what we have done. Beyond that, government expenditure as a proportion of GDP is now at its lowest level since 1989-90. Tax as a proportion of GDP has also gone down. This is a fundamentally responsible and conservative economic document designed to meet the economic challenges of our time. Beyond that, the budget has sought to invest in Australia’s future. Investing in the future is a core requirement to ensure that the proceeds which have come into Australia per medium of the resources boom are not frittered away on consumption, as has been done by those opposite, but invested in long-term productive capacity. We have done that through, firstly, the Building Australia Fund to invest in infrastructure. Secondly, we have done that through establishing an Education Investment Fund of $11 billion to invest in the critical needs of our TAFE and university sectors, which have been crumbling in recent times. Thirdly, there is a $10 billion Health and Hospitals Fund for the future to make sure that through reforms in that sector we deliver the best possible health system that Australia can support. On top of that we have made sure that apart from investing in the future, apart from producing a responsible budget and putting downward pressure on inflation and interest rates, we have also delivered on our commitments to working Australians, working families and those doing it tough. I referred in my earlier answer to a $55 billion support package for working families, including for the first time a $4.4 billion education tax refund to help mums and dads out there struggling with their school expenses. There is $750 a year for primary school kids and $1,500 a year for secondary school kids, and for identified education items there is an opportunity to come back and claim 50 per cent of those amounts. Of course, there are our additional payments for the childcare tax rebate, raising it from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. Then there is our assistance in the housing affordability challenge facing so many Australians. Not only do we have for the first time a housing minister—there was not one under those opposite; we have housing policy because there was not one before, either. There is $2.2 billion of investment in housing affordability initiatives for working Australians. Beyond that is the Making Ends Meet package. The budget delivered senior Australians an additional $900 compared with last year’s budget. Carers allowance and carers payment recipients will get up to $2,100 in addition to what they were provided in the last budget. Disability pensioners will receive an additional $500 towards the cost of living, in addition to the last budget. The question asked whether there are threats to this. There are. That threat is summed up in three words: ‘the Liberal Party’. The challenge to Australia’s future economic policy lies in the Liberal Party—or, as it could now be described, ‘the many liberal parties’. As I look across the front bench I see many liberal parties represented there. It is difficult to choose which one we are responding to on any given day. Of course, their promise so far is to block the budget, to block budget revenues to the tune of some $22 billion. At a time when we are fighting inflation and fighting to put downward pressure on interest rates the response from the party of so-called responsible economic management is to say, ‘We’ll raid the surplus to the tune of $22 billion.’ This was a remarkable first step. But there are three things that stand out about this overall budget position on the part of our opponents. These are of direct relevance to the country because the opposition controls the fate of the budget in the Senate. When we look at the raid on the surplus, nothing can be said of it other than what Saul Eslake said. He described it as a piece of economics which is ‘dopey, dopey, dopey’. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, a point of order regarding the delivery of written speeches during question time— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I thank the member for O’Connor, including for his enlightened observations on Aboriginal policy at the door today. The second point about the opposition’s position on this budget and why it represents a threat to Australia’s long-term economic security is what it does in terms of the inflation challenge. The Leader of the Opposition does not think that there is any inflation crisis. We have had from those opposite a statement that in fact inflation is a fairy tale, a charade, and that there is no inflation crisis whatsoever. This flies in the face of the most fundamental precepts of economic responsibility. The third thing you can say about the opposition’s posture on this budget is the fact that they do not agree with one another. They have at least two, if not three or four, different positions on petrol tax. They are divided on the question of means testing. They are divided on the question of whether you should means test the baby bonus. They are divided on the question of who should be the leader of the Liberal Party. The member for Wentworth wants to replace the member who is currently the leader of the Liberal Party. Then we have the member for Higgins, who thinks he might want to replace the member for Wentworth as the prospective leader of the Liberal Party. Then there is the member for Mayo, who may want to replace the member for Wentworth as shadow Treasurer before becoming the leader of the Liberal Party. We have a Liberal Party which is terminally divided. I say this to those opposite: there is a challenge of responsible economic management here. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I call the member for Canning. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Minister for Resources and Energy is not helping. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Mr Speaker, it would be very obvious that the point of order is on relevance. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I call the Prime Minister. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Of course, in that list of prospective candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Party we left out Hockey, Joe, who has added his name to the list over the course of the weekend. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I am sorry—the Manager of Opposition Business. I anticipate the interjections from those opposite. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it is a requirement of members of this House to address members by their electorate name and when you try to— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Minister for Trade will not encourage him. The Prime Minister knows that he is required to refer to members by their titles and he will return to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Now we have these five candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Party it will make an interesting season ahead. I can only imagine why those opposite are somewhat sensitive on this question today. My clear message to whoever leads the Liberal Party in three months time, six months time or nine months time—and I need to address these remarks in five different directions to make sure they hit the mark—is that this budget is a budget of responsible economic management and if those opposite are about to embark upon a course of action involving a raid on the surplus to the tune of $22 billion, an assault on the fundamental financial integrity of the budget of the Commonwealth of Australia, then be it on their heads what the consequences will be for them. Be it on your heads what the consequences will be for you. 3078 Distinguished Visitors 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Praful Patel, the Indian Minister for Civil Aviation. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 3079 Questions Without Notice 3079 3079 14:11:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, since he came to office, petrol has increased in price by more than 13c a litre? How can the Prime Minister assert in his Adelaide declaration that he has done as much as he physically can to provide additional help to the family budget? Don’t Australians deserve better than a Prime Minister who is a quitter? 3079 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. Had the Leader of the Opposition been listening attentively to my answer to his first question, what he would have heard me say was this: the budget announced by the government contains a range of measures to assist working families. I will repeat them: $55 billion as a working family support package and, on top of that, a package of $5 billion plus to assist seniors and carers. We have also said quite clearly that we will continue to be attentive to other measures which can assist working families into the future. That is what I said in response to the first question, had the honourable member been listening. That is why the Henry commission has been established to undertake a comprehensive, long-term review of Australia’s tax, income and retirement income support systems. RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson —Another review. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The Leader of the Opposition interjects, ‘Another review.’ I notice that in the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply he is depending on precisely that review to construct his position on the future of retirement incomes policy and the position on seniors. If it is such a bad review, why is it that those opposite are depending on the selfsame review to deliver their own policy outcome? It would help if those opposite could develop a coherent position. On the question of global oil prices, which the honourable member refers to, and their impact on Australia and at the bowser for working families, petrol prices are going through the roof and that is affecting working families right across the country. It is affecting all those working Australians and it is affecting those who are doing it tough in Australia as well. Therefore, it is important to place into context what is happening on oil prices. If you look right across the spectrum and across the world, what we have seen since the Iraq war is global oil prices having gone up by 400 per cent. We have had oil prices double in the last year. We have had the biggest increases in global oil prices since the 1970s when we had the double oil shock of that decade. So what we have today is oil prices at their highest point in history, taking into account all inflationary factors. That is the global economic reality, and the impact on Australians at the bowser is acute. Based on the analyses that we have been provided, we have now had Australians paying $30 more per month over the last seven months. This is a big slug on the family budget. Right across the world we see prices going up as well. In the UK they are now paying $2.35 a litre and $2.95 a litre in France. In terms of a proper analysis of what is happening with the global oil challenges, what are we therefore confronted with? Across the world today, we have a huge number of supply and demand factors at work. On the demand side, with the rise of China and India, the same factors which are fuelling the demand for Australia’s energy based resources are fuelling global demand for oil—hence, the oil price is going through the roof. You see that with India bringing on stream something like 1.3 million new automobiles every year. There is a similar development in China. RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The honourable member interjects about what this has to do with the price of petrol in Australia. It is called the global oil price, and the global oil price directly affects the Australian oil price. I would suggest that they refer to their own statements on this matter over time. When you look at these challenges, on both the supply side and the demand side, it is important that we have an integrated response. On the supply side there are continued problems in Nigeria, and it is only recently that, after five years, supply from Iraq has begun to catch up with its pre-war levels of oil production. On the question of a proper response to this, it must be one which deals with long-term global factors and immediate national and short-term cost pressures for families as well. We need to look carefully at what is happening with overall global supply and maximise our leverage on organisations such as OPEC, as the President of the United States is seeking to do at present, backed by other heads of government as well, including this government. We must look also at the overall pattern of global demand. If we continue to have a lack of efficiency in global oil consumption, that will also have a cumulative impact on pushing the oil price up. In Australia we must also deal with practical challenges. The number of Australians who are currently sitting in queues in traffic around the country because of urban congestion— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Coming in on cue, the Manager of Opposition Business says ‘blame the states.’ We have a Building Australia Fund, which is designed to confront the challenges of urban congestion. Why don’t those opposite come up with a positive response to the challenges of urban congestion, for example, in dealing with what we do with the future of urban metro? Beyond that is an alternative fuel strategy, such as never emanated from those opposite, which is currently being developed by my colleague Minister Ferguson. On top of that, what are we going to do in terms of automobile design? We have the green car innovation fund, with half a billion dollars to assist in the production of an Australian hybrid car. Then you have domestic competition policy arrangements. What we have done on our side of the House is the appointment of a petrol price commissioner, the application of formal price monitoring in relation to the petroleum retail industry and the proposed introduction of FuelWatch by year’s end, endorsed by the state Liberal government of Western Australia, who introduced it, and the state Liberal leadership of New South Wales—and it seems that the federal leadership once again have parted company with their state colleagues. On the question of taxation treatment, as I said before, these matters are before the Henry commission and we wait for their report. 3080 3080 14:17:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 Mr SYMON —My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. What is the government doing to promote competition and transparency in the petrol industry? Does the government foresee any obstacles in achieving this transparency? 3080 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr BOWEN —I thank the honourable member for his question. As the Prime Minister has said, rising oil prices around the world are causing concern for Australian motorists. I can report to the House that, with a rise of $8 in the last week, the current price for Malaysian Tapis oil is $139 a barrel. Increasing transparency and competition in the fuel market has been a priority for this government. That is why we have substantially increased the powers of the ACCC, and that is why we have appointed Australia’s first Petrol Commissioner. An important result of the ACCC’s petrol inquiry was to suggest the consideration of a national FuelWatch scheme. FuelWatch was introduced by the Court Liberal government in Western Australia in 2001 and has received bipartisan support in that state since then. FuelWatch is a scheme which will put motorists back in charge and will give them more certainty when buying petrol. It is a scheme which will enable motorists to map their route between work and home to determine where the cheapest petrol will be today and tomorrow and to make their decision on that basis. We know that there is a big gap between the most expensive and the cheapest petrol in any capital city on any given day. Today in Brisbane the gap between the cheapest petrol and the most expensive petrol is 24c a litre. On 15 May, the day the Leader of the Opposition responded to the budget, the gap in Melbourne between the cheapest and the most expensive petrol was 30c a litre. FuelWatch will enable motorists to find that cheap petrol from their home or from their work on their computer. This will put motorists back in charge. I am asked if there are any obstacles to the introduction of FuelWatch. I regret to inform the House that there are obstacles to the introduction of FuelWatch, and they sit opposite, because FuelWatch will require the passage of legislation through both houses of the parliament. Obviously, it will be a lot easier with the support of honourable members opposite. Now, we are not sure where they stand. The Leader of the Opposition and others have criticised FuelWatch. Yesterday the leader of the opposition in the other house said they have yet to make a decision about where they stand on FuelWatch, so we are not sure where they stand. But on this side of the House we stand for the Petrol Commissioner. On this side of the House we stand for giving the ACCC real teeth and we stand for FuelWatch while the opposition prevaricates. Some of them say that the better policy is to reduce the excise. The Leader of the Opposition says that. We are not sure if that will be the policy at the next election. They are not sure whether FuelWatch will be their policy, and they are not sure if reducing the excise will be their policy at the next election. The shadow Treasurer was asked whether it would be policy at the next election to cut the excise and he said, ‘Well, it might if Brendan—look, if that is our policy then I will argue for it as eloquently or not as I can.’ That is as certain as they could get. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Assistant Treasurer was not asked for an alternative view. In the first question the Prime Minister was asked for an alternative view. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The minister was asked about obstacles. I call the Assistant Treasurer. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —We know the shadow Treasurer could not bring himself to say this was good policy. The best he could do was say it was good politics. We know the member for Flinders has misgivings, we know the member for Mayo has misgivings and we know the member for Higgins opposes the policy, so why don’t they just get behind FuelWatch? We had an indication as to their thinking yesterday. We know that, on excise, they have more positions than you would find on a cricket field. But, on FuelWatch, we have an indication as to their thinking when the leader of the opposition in the other house, Senator Minchin, whom we understand is a man of very great influence on that side of the other house under current arrangements, said, ‘We don’t support FuelWatch because it is very expensive.’ DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Assistant Treasurer was asked about obstacles; he was not asked for alternative views. Therefore, I would ask you to bring him back to the original question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Assistant Treasurer will return to the question. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —Mr Speaker, I was asked about obstacles. And it is an important obstacle that we may not be able to get FuelWatch through the upper house. Yesterday the leader of the opposition in the upper house said that they have misgivings about FuelWatch because it is so expensive. Honourable members opposite would have read the budget papers. They know that FuelWatch will cost $20 million over four years. Apparently that is too expensive. But $8 billion over four years is not too expensive. I know the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education has a great concern about the quality of maths teaching and teaching standards in this country. I have referred this to her as a case study for studying value for money—that is, that $20 million over four years is actually cheaper than $8 billion over four years. But I am pleased to report to the House that there is one leader of the Liberal Party in Australia who has shown leadership on this issue. Unfortunately, it is not the honourable gentleman who sits opposite, but it is one well known to members from the great state of New South Wales. Mr O’Farrell has said of FuelWatch: This will ease the burden on families and pensioners by helping drive down petrol prices. He went on to say: This is about putting the interests of motorists’ wallets ahead of oil company profits. We will soon know where honourable members opposite stand on that particular equation when they announce whether or not they will support FuelWatch in the upper house. 3082 Distinguished Visitors 3082 14:25:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon His Excellency Dr Nam Viyaketh, Minister for Industry and Commerce from the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 3082 Questions Without Notice 3082 3082 14:25:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s announcement of a national FuelWatch scheme on 15 April and his statement that the scheme would bring ‘maximum competition policy pressure onto petrol retailers across Australia’. When he made that statement, was the Prime Minister aware of evidence that FuelWatch will in fact be anticompetitive and lead to higher, not lower, prices? 3082 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. On the question of FuelWatch, we have looked carefully at the experience of the Western Australia state Liberal government, who introduced this scheme in 2000 and who continue to support it on a bipartisan basis. We have also taken advice from a range of people about its potential impact at the bowser. We have never overstated it. At the time of its launch we said about 2c on average over time at the bowser. But, as the Assistant Treasurer just said, the critical challenge lies in the ability to provide consumers with information 24 hours before as to where the cheapest petrol can be had in a given area. That is an important piece of information because, as honourable members would know, as you go from the CBD out into the suburbs across metropolitan Australia you can see such a huge variety of fuel prices across the suburban area and within the one day. Therefore, for us it simply makes basic common sense that this helps. I am surprised, of all members in this place to stick up his head and ask a question about fuel policy, that the member for Wentworth has just done so. If you are trying to find a coherent position on the part of the Liberal Party when it comes to fuel policy and fuel pricing, where do you go? In the ‘yes’ camp on the excise arrangement which they announced on budget reply night we have the Leader of the Opposition, and now in the ‘no’ camp we have—they get very sensitive about this— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not a question of sensitivity; it is a question of relevance. The Prime Minister was not asked alternate views. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. I call the Prime Minister. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —It is very difficult to map any consistency on the part of those opposite on any coherent approach to what you do on the question of fuel. In the ‘yes’ camp—that is, on the 5c excise—you have the Leader of the Opposition. You are not sensitive, but we are taking another point of order. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a question of relevance. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The Prime Minister will return to responding to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —On the question of fuel policy, the Leader of the Opposition puts forward an approach which deals with excise. We have a range of policies which deal with fuel policy. When it comes to their position, we have the Leader of the Opposition supporting the excise measure. The member for Wentworth now opposes the excise measure, the member for Higgins opposes the excise measure, the member for Mayo opposes the excise measure and, on queue, the member for Flinders comes in on the excise measure, opposed to it as well. It is quite interesting. I think their policy is in complete disarray. 3083 3083 14:29:00 Collins, Julie, MP HWM Franklin ALP 1 Ms COLLINS —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the risks of inflation from irresponsible budgeting? 3083 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the honourable member for her question, because the fight against inflation does require responsible budgeting. What it requires is a very strong surplus. What it requires is costed, funded and deliverable commitments, and of course what the last budget shows is that the only party in Australia that is in the cart for responsible economic management is the Labor Party, because those opposite have become utterly irresponsible. Their $22 billion smash-and-grab on the surplus can do nothing other than put up inflation and put up interest rates; it is completely irresponsible. And of course in the opposition leader’s reply the other night there was not one dollar of savings in that proposal to fund alternative proposals that he put forward. There was not one dollar of savings to fund his proposal on excise, for example. There was not one dollar of savings in a so-called budget-in-reply speech. And of course, when the Treasury spokesman got to the National Press Club the other day, he did not give the Treasurer’s budget-in-reply speech; he gave a Brendan-in-reply speech. There were no costed proposals that came from the shadow Treasurer—no costed proposals at all. So what this smash-and-grab on the surplus shows is that those opposite are the fiscal vandals of Australian politics. There is not a dollar being put forward to fund their commitments. They are opposed to increasing the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds in favour of higher tax on modest income earners. They are opposed to fixing fringe benefits tax loopholes. They are opposed to our measures on condensate, opposed to removing tax concessions for alcopops and, of course, opposed to the luxury car tax. We on this side of the House will defend the integrity of our budget, because the future living standards of Australian families depend upon that. The Australian people are happy with our long-term plans for the nation against the short-term, irresponsible proposals of those opposite. What they want is sustainable growth, lower inflation and lower interest rates. We will defend the integrity of our budget. Those opposite have lost their way on the economy. What have we had from the shadow Treasurer? He says a means test of $150,000 is about right. Then he says he is in favour of welfare payments to millionaires. He says fuel tax excise cuts are bad policy and then he says he is in favour of them. He says one per cent growth is inflationary and then he refuses to admit that four per cent spending growth is inflationary. The Treasury spokesman is going so badly over there that even Alexander Downer thinks he can do a better job. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will refer to members by their titles. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —It has taken the member for Wentworth six months to turn the Liberal Party’s economic credibility into a smoking ruin. 3084 3084 14:33:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to his failure to answer the previous question and I put this question: is the Prime Minister aware of evidence that independent fuel retailers had been disadvantaged by the FuelWatch scheme in Western Australia, which had led to a decrease in their numbers and consequently a decline in competition? 3084 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I am sure that, on matters as contentious as fuel policy in general and on the introduction of FuelWatch in particular, you are going to have a range of opinions and advice rolling around the country at any given time, within government and outside of government. That is the nature of public policy. The key thing is that when this matter was subjected to analysis by the ACCC, the conclusion was clear that this particular proposal of the government was worthy of implementation. It provides consumers with choice, as described recently by the Assistant Treasurer. We believe therefore it is an appropriate course of action consistent with what the Liberal government of Western Australia and the Liberal leadership of New South Wales have had to say. As I said, policy is contestable and people have different points of view—I understand that—but we think that this is the right way to go. It is certainly worth providing consumers with this opportunity for choice. 3084 3084 14:35:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Is the government prepared to examine further options for reducing spending? Will the minister outline the government’s view on wasteful government spending? 3084 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —I thank the member for Dobell for his question. The Rudd government inherited a budget full of waste and inefficient spending—$457 million was spent by the former government on government advertising within the last 16 months of its term in office; $350 million was spent in one single year on the failed Work Choices regime, the infamous Regional Partnerships grants and of course a rapidly growing federal Public Service, including a 44 per cent increase in the fat cat brigade, the SES level of the public service. In the budget a couple of weeks ago the government put in place $7.3 billion of savings in the forthcoming financial year, $1.6 billion of which were outlined prior to the election and $3.8 billion worth of spending cuts that were indicated post that election. If you look at the detail of these savings, what you will see at the heart of these savings is substantial cuts in government advertising across a very wide range of programs, very substantial reductions in the cost of the industrial relations regime being run by the Commonwealth, the abolition of the Regional Partnerships program and, of course, a small but significant reduction in the overall level of the federal Public Service. There is more to be done. There is a substantial task still in front of us with respect to cutting back on wasteful government spending, but we have delivered a surplus of 1.8 per cent of GDP and got government spending down from running at a five per cent real increase to just over a one per cent real increase. The opposition’s response to this has been completely confused. In fact, during the past two weeks in Australian politics, it has been almost impossible to identify an issue on which the opposition has had the same position over the time it has been debated in the public arena. Before the budget it said there was no need for spending cuts, there was no wasteful spending, but after the budget it described a reduced spending projection as a high-spending budget. Inflation has variously been described by the opposition as a ‘charade’ a ‘fairytale’ and then, subsequently, as a ‘problem but not a crisis’. It is in favour of means testing the baby bonus one day, opposed to means testing the baby bonus the next. The member for McPherson is running a petition to increase the base rate of the pension, but the shadow Treasurer, the member for Wentworth, has indicated that that is not the opposition’s policy. It was in favour of restoring the tax level to alcopops a couple of weeks before the budget, but, in response to the budget, it has now changed its position. It cannot even agree on whether the member for Mayo is coming or going! It simply cannot take a single position on any issue in contemporary Australian politics. This mob is giving the word rabble a bad name, and nowhere more so than on the issue of government spending. It is the easiest thing in the world for a political leader to promise free money. The opposition are promising all kinds of things: tax reductions, knocking over things that they do not like, increased spending on things, ‘We’ll keep Regional Partnerships’—all of these things the opposition are putting forward as their alternative to the budget without a single indication of how they would be paid for. But they are not even coherent on that, because in the midst of all of this they are proposing to restore a tax slug that the government has removed on middle-income Australians—namely, the Medicare levy surcharge that applied to people on very ordinary middle incomes. The government has lifted the thresholds to put them back somewhere remotely where they were intended to be—on higher incomes. The opposition—so much for their alleged low-taxing rhetoric—want to restore that tax slug on middle-income Australians. The money the opposition want to spend—on reducing the petrol excise, on restoring that surcharge, on Regional Partnerships, on reducing the alcopops tax—all has to come from somewhere. The member for Sturt let the cat out of the bag on Friday night when he indicated where it is coming from. It is coming from the surplus. That is where it is coming from. That is why there were no savings initiatives in the budget reply by the Leader of the Opposition two weeks ago—because they have no savings initiatives, they have no source of alternative funding to implement these policies, and the only available source is to reduce the size of the surplus. And that means one thing—that is, higher interest rates. Higher inflation as the result of greater public demand and increased government spending, just like we inherited, would inevitably produce higher interest rates. The Rudd government have delivered a tough, responsible budget, but we are not going to rest on our laurels. We now have a second stage of the razor gang that is starting work looking for future savings from the systemic approaches of government—the processes, the programs of government—to continually find more money to strengthen the federal government’s budget, because pressures for new spending are ever present. And, unlike the opposition, we understand that there is no free money lying around and that, wherever that money is going to be spent, it has to come from somewhere. We would welcome any suggestions or savings proposals from anybody in the general community. We would particularly welcome them from the opposition, if they can manage to stir themselves into a bit of activity and a bit of coherence for a change. We would welcome any savings suggestions that the opposition have to put. We have not actually seen any savings proposals yet, and we will work hard to ensure that we have a strong, continuing budget surplus that is putting downward pressure on inflation, downward pressure on interest rates and delivering to the Australian people in the long term the kind of economic prosperity that we are committed to delivering. That is what the Rudd government’s budget and fiscal policy position is about, and it stands in stark contrast to the totally confused, chaotic, changing-every-five-minutes critique that we see from the opposition. 3086 3086 14:42:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 0 Mrs MARKUS —My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree that even if the arguments in favour of FuelWatch had some validity, working families such as those in Western Sydney would receive the least benefit? 3086 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —On the question of fuel, we need to embrace a range of policies. The Assistant Treasurer before outlined the undertakings we gave prior to the last election on enhancing competition in the fuel industry and our implementation of those. And to those we have added our new policy in relation to FuelWatch. On the FuelWatch question, the honourable member refers to Sydney in particular. E07 Markus, Louise, MP Mrs Markus —Western Sydney! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The leader of the New South Wales Liberal Party, Barry O’Farrell, said: [FuelWatch] will also ease some of the wild fluctuations in weekly pricing which frustrate motorists so much … This will ease the burden on families and pensioners by helping drive down petrol prices— this is Mr O’Farrell— FuelWatch will put motorists—not the oil companies—back in charge … It will put an end the common frustration for motorists of driving past a petrol station only to find when they return hours later the price has jumped by ten cents a litre. Also, if you look at the New South Wales Liberal fair trading spokesman, Catherine Cusack— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order of relevance. The Prime Minister was asked a specific question about families in Western Sydney. He cannot spend his whole life copying from the Liberal Party for his policies— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. That is not the way to put a point of order. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I find that remarkable from the Manager for Opposition Business, who said, I think, that this policy was copying Liberal policy. Is that what he was saying? And we have just had them say they are going to block this policy in the Senate! I can make neither head nor tail of where the Liberal Party stand on this matter, or any other matter on fuel policy. Divided on excise, now divided on FuelWatch. It will be remarkable to see what unfolds in the Senate. I say in response to the honourable member’s question, New South Wales Liberal opposition fair trading spokesman, Catherine Cusack, said: [Labor] has shown leadership… we think it’s good news for motorists and we’re quite happy— RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question in plain language to the Prime Minister is: how can the families in the outer suburbs of Australia get cheap petrol from watching it? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is addressing the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Again I return to the question asked by the honourable member, quoting the Liberal opposition fair trading spokesman in New South Wales, the state from which she comes. The spokesman said: [Labor] has shown leadership ... we think it’s good news for motorists and we’re quite happy to come out and congratulate the federal Labor government for doing it. If the Liberal Party cannot sort itself out within Canberra on where it stands on excise, it certainly cannot sort itself out nationally about where it stands on FuelWatch. I find it remarkable that those opposite could hold open the possibility of this measure being blocked in the Senate. The bottom line is that there is no silver bullet when it comes to petrol. We all believe that we need to help working families under financial pressure to the greatest extent we can in dealing with the pressures on the family budget, but we certainly do not have the view that those opposite had barely five or six months ago that working families have never been better off. We did not make an undertaking to the Australian people that interest rates would be kept at record lows. What we have said quite consistently is that we need to enhance what we can by way of competition policy. One statement after another the member for Higgins criticised us for putting forward those policies in opposition, saying that they were not sufficiently prescriptive on the future. Check the member for Higgins’s statements on this in his transcripts. So I say to the honourable member that this will help at the margins. We do not wish to understate it and we do not wish to overstate it: it will help at the margins. But we think in terms of the experience of Western Australia it is the right way forward. Of course there will be conflicting advice on these questions, there will be conflicting evidence, there will be conflicting points of view. We, however, believe this is the right way forward. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition contests this policy, which is what she is doing, I presume she is saying the same directly and publicly to the state Liberal leadership in her own state of Western Australia. I find it remarkable that the Liberal Party cannot develop a single coherent position on fuel policy. 3087 Distinguished Visitors 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I indicate to the House that there are a number of former members in the gallery, amongst them Graham Edwards, the former member for Cowan, and John Langmore, the former member for Fraser. If there are any others, they are welcome too, along with those two gentlemen. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 3088 Questions Without Notice 3088 3088 14:47:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 Mr RAGUSE —My question is to the Minister for Education, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Social Inclusion. What is the government’s response to the Business Council of Australia report Teaching talent: the best teachers for Australia’s classrooms, released today, and the issue of teacher quality? What has been community response to this report and this issue? 3088 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 Forde for that question. Today we have seen an important contribution to the education debate, a report by the Business Council of Australia on the vital question of teaching quality. Interestingly, the report proceeds from concern about where Australia has slipped to in international rankings. As a result of more than a decade of neglect by the former government, we have slipped in the international rankings which benchmark us against our competitors. The report focuses on the vital area of teacher quality. This is the question of how we get the best and brightest to go into teaching, how we then have quality teacher education in our universities, how we retain the best and brightest in front of Australian classrooms. This is an agenda that the government is already hard at work addressing. Earlier this year the government entered a historic partnership with state and territory governments right around the nation to work towards improved teacher quality. In the recent budget the government allocated $400,000 to a research project to provide a shared evidence base which will feed into that work between state and territory governments and the federal government. It is the end of the blame game when it comes to teacher quality. It is the end of the blame game and it is the start of action. Governments around the country are committed to ensuring that we enter a new national partnership on improving teacher quality by December this year, meaning that the first part of the new policies and plans developed to improve teacher quality could be in operation as soon as in the next school year. There is nothing more important to a child’s education than the quality of the teachers in front of the classroom. As part of our education revolution, the Rudd Labor government is acting. Our policies will be costed, they will be well thought through, and they will be delivered in partnership with state and territory governments. Whilst the Liberal Party today has also welcomed the Business Council of Australia report, and I thank them for that, I am somewhat intrigued that, despite their welcoming of that report, they really do not have anything to say about more than a decade of neglect of the vital area of teacher quality. The current Liberal spokesperson for education said on 31 January this year, when talking about the issue of teacher quality, that it is ‘not just a problem that has sprung up this week’. Never a truer word spoken. It was not a problem that had just sprung up in January; it is a problem that has been many years in the making. What has been the action or lack of action of the Liberal Party during those years in between? Interestingly, the Leader of the Opposition is a man who does not seem to be one who likes reviews. But when we actually look across the track record of the Liberal government on the vital area of teacher quality, what do we find? We find that the first review was announced in October 1996. What was done? Nothing effective was done. Then in 2002 the current Leader of the Opposition announced another review. Interestingly, when he decided he would announce publicly the outcome of that review, what was his policy for change? The policy for change was this, and I am going to quote it because it is so extraordinary: Perhaps it is also time to reinvigorate school mottos. Some schools do not even have one. The challenge of getting the best and brightest into teaching, the challenge of improving teacher education, the challenge of ongoing professional development, the challenge of rewarding excellence in teaching—and the Leader of the Opposition’s solution? It would all be better if we had a school motto! Interestingly, in 2004, when he was responding to this review of 2002, plus the motto, he basically announced exactly the same things that he announced in his budget reply. Announced in 2004, nothing done, then re-announced in 2008. Doesn’t this just sum up the attitude of the Liberal Party, whether in government or in opposition. It is a sorry tale of looking at a real problem, not being prepared to do the hard policy work to address it and coming up with a diversion or slogan like a school motto—the politics of the moment rather than the politics of the long term. But perhaps I am being too harsh on the question of the ability of school mottos to change behaviour. If the Leader of the Opposition is really committed to the question of mottos, then maybe he can start using some for the opposition itself. Maybe he can have embroidered on the pocket on the member for Mayo: ‘Quidquid excusatio prandium pro,’ which, of course, means, ‘Any excuse for lunch.’ Maybe that would be a useful motto! Or maybe on the pocket of the member for Wentworth, ‘Disce pati’—‘Learn to endure’. In the meantime, the government will be getting on with the real work of changing teacher quality in this country. 3089 3089 14:53:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall the following interview on 16 January 2007 with 3AW’s Neil Mitchell: MITCHELL: Would you at least remove the GST component on petrol? RUDD: No, I don’t think you can go that far. MITCHELL: Why not? RUDD: I think you’ve got a system when it comes to the application of GST across the general economy you start gouging out more exceptions, I think the taxation system becomes ungovernable. Why has the Prime Minister now backflipped? Isn’t it the case that this latest review into the GST paid on petrol is just more spin coming from a government more concerned about itself than families buckling under the pressure of crippling petrol prices? 3089 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —Families across the country, working Australians—those doing it tough—are suffering from high petrol prices. Therefore it is important that we provide those families and those individuals with whatever help we can through government. We have sought to do that through the budget and we have said, in the period subsequent to the budget, that we will also be examining other ways by which we may be able to assist families. The second thing I would say is in reference to the Henry commission—again, the one just ridiculed by the Leader of the Opposition, but the one now to be deployed by the Leader of the Opposition to inform his response to the question of long-term payments for those on retirement incomes and pensions. Leave that to one side. If the Leader of the Opposition is having difficulty recalling it, it is what the Leader of the Opposition said in his budget reply. On the question of the Henry commission, the terms of reference for this inquiry were launched by the Treasurer on budget day, from memory. They were laid out in clear and simple terms about the way in which we need to go. At the 2020 Summit, for example, the overwhelming call from business was: it is time the country had a comprehensive look at taxation. The overall taxation arrangements for the Commonwealth, when it goes to company tax, personal tax and the range of other taxation imposts on businesses in the community, need to be looked at, but looked at in a comprehensive manner which also factors in income support and retirement income. All of these things are part of a whole. Therefore, it was important for us to do this in a long-term, systematic, comprehensive manner as opposed to an approach which says: ‘I’ve got a budget reply. I wonder what will be popular. I will pull something off the top shelf.’ And then, within 24 hours, when asked—by the same Neil Mitchell, I seem to recall—‘Was this policy costed?’ the answer was, ‘No, we haven’t costed it yet.’ So I find it remarkable that those opposite could say that this approach of ours is somehow lacking in responsibility and theirs represents the reverse. The Henry commission will look at these matters over time. The Assistant Treasurer was quite explicit, well before the budget reply, about examining the impact and the interrelationship between GST and excise and will be looking at the recommendations of this commission on these matters and other taxation matters in the period ahead. 3090 3090 14:57:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 Mr GEORGANAS —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the Minister for Health and Ageing inform the House of any new research on the alcopops industry? 3090 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Hindmarsh for the question. It is something that he and many members on this side of the House are acutely interested in. Members, probably members from Sydney, would have had the opportunity to see an article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald—others in the House may not have seen it—which published some findings from the latest Nielsen ScanTrack Liquor survey. The results of this industry survey show that since 2005 the growth in the white spirit—or light-coloured or clear spirit—ready-to-drinks, usually the vodka-based drinks targeted at girls and young women, have increased by 23 per cent. This is against a 15 per cent increase—still a large increase, I might add, but not quite as large as in those white spirit products—of the darker ready-to-drink products. Within this category, one of the worrying statistics provided in this research is that the highest growth has been in those products with the highest alcohol content—seven per cent and above. These worrying results back up the action taken by the Rudd government to tackle alcohol abuse and alcohol abuse by young women. So while the Leader of the Opposition and the member for North Sydney have been running around the country trying to talk this initiative down, research shows that they just do not know what they are talking about. In fact, only yesterday, the member for North Sydney tried to tell Barrie Cassidy on Insiders that the fact that rum based drinks were popular with older men meant that tackling alcopops growth was a bad idea. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —I did not! 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —I hope that, having read this article today and seeing this research, he is feeling just a little bit embarrassed about the comments that he made yesterday. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: that is a complete untruth and some would call it a lie. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will withdraw that remark. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —I said that was a complete untruth and some would call it a lie. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will withdraw. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —I withdraw. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member knows that there are other forms of the House if he feels aggrieved about comments that have been made in the answer. It is not a point of order. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Prime Minister is not assisting. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —I understand why members opposite are a little bit touchy and a little bit embarrassed about this, because they have been absolutely all over the place. The member for North Sydney has been on radio saying: … I don’t think you should overplay it. Let’s not go over the top. The Leader of the Opposition supported the measure; now he opposes it. In fact, there has recently been a single Liberal in the country who has actually spoken some sense on this issue. Perhaps I should take the House to the comments of Dr John Herron, the Chair of the Australian National Council on Drugs and a former senior Liberal minister, who wrote to the Prime Minister recently congratulating the government on the budget initiatives that were taken. In the letter, Dr Herron said: Utilising the taxation system is one of the most effective measures we have for reducing alcohol-related harm and problems for both individuals— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: under the standing orders, the minister was not asked about alternative policy; she was asked about a recent survey. She is now straying from the question that she was asked. If she wishes to stray, she should also refer to the national household survey on drugs and alcohol. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The minister will return to the question, which was based on new, recent research. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —I was asked to inform the House about this new research. The point I am trying to make is that it is going to take some work to inform those opposite about this research. Let me tell you one reason why. I have obviously underestimated the amount of time and effort it would take for us to inform not the public but those opposite of how important this was. The latest evidence for the flippant approach is from the member for Mayo. Two weeks ago the member for Mayo read a description of the effects of excessive drinking in the Sydney Morning Herald. The writer had sketched out this portrait: … early on a Saturday morning, picking my way through vomit and broken glass … I … came upon … 15 drunks fighting over a taxi. This was at 7 am … So inflamed by this description was the member for Mayo that he was moved to write to the Sydney Morning Herald, and on 16 May I came across his published letter, which read as follows, amongst other things: Mr Montgomery— the writer of the previous commentary— may have found drunks in Adelaide. If he wants a city without drunks, perhaps he should move to Riyadh. This is the sort of measure we have from the opposition—not a sensible tax measure to protect young women but sending everyone who worries about this issue off to Saudi Arabia. It is outrageous behaviour. We believe that this measure is an important measure to tackle binge drinking, which is affecting many young people, including young women. We think this tax measure will do more than try to send everybody off to Saudi Arabia. 3092 3092 15:03:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 Mr WINDSOR —My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The minister is aware of allegations of child rape by truck drivers of Aboriginal girls as young as eight years in the Moree and Bogabilla areas, aired on the ABC’s Lateline program dated 13 March 2008. Is the minister aware that the local state MP, Kevin Humphries, has said that he has known about the issue for over a year, as have assistant commissioner for police Stephen Bradshaw and others in the community? Assistant Commissioner Bradshaw said on the Lateline program: We have significant information in relation to it. But the problem has always been … the under-reporting and the reluctance of victims and witnesses to give us information that can result in evidence. Given that Aboriginal people are reluctant to come forward to the police and that the New South Wales government appears reluctant to follow up on these reports, will the Commonwealth undertake an inquiry into these allegations of child abuse to give the opportunity for community members to come forward and report their knowledge of these events? 3092 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms MACKLIN —I thank the member for New England for his question and for his very real concern about what are extremely serious matters that have been brought to the public’s attention in the programs that he highlights in his question. He also highlights what I think is the critical issue—which the police have also raised—which is the need for people to come forward with their evidence about these terrible allegations. The police cannot act unless they have evidence upon which to act, and so I would say to any member of the public who has evidence about these very serious matters that they should bring that evidence to the attention of the police so that people can be properly prosecuted. 3092 3092 15:06:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 Ms SAFFIN —My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister please provide an update to the House on Australian and international efforts to assist Burma in the wake of Cyclone Nargis? 3092 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I thank the member for her question. Firstly, on behalf of the Australian government can I again express condolences to the people of Burma for the terrible loss of life and the devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis. The situation, of course, remains grim. Official estimates are of over 78,000 dead, with other estimates of anywhere between 100,000 and 200,000 dead and UN estimates of anywhere between 1.5 million and 2.5 million Burmese people adversely affected. But we may be seeing some progress. Yesterday the ASEAN-UN international pledging conference was held in Rangoon to discuss Burma’s and the international community’s response to Cyclone Nargis. Australia was represented by the Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance, the member for Fraser, Mr McMullan. The government congratulates ASEAN and the UN for co-hosting this conference. We regard it as a positive step forward and a good example of constructive multilateral diplomacy. The conference was jointly chaired by the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, and the Singapore foreign minister, George Yeo—Singapore, of course, chairs ASEAN at this point in time—together with the Burmese Prime Minister, General Thein Sein. I think all members of the House will appreciate that effectively from day one the single biggest problem has been the Burmese regime’s resistance to international assistance, in particular denying access for international expertise and international aid workers to the most adversely affected areas. The Australian government has used a range of diplomatic channels to persuade, both directly and indirectly, the Burmese regime to allow the international community to assist the people of Burma—for example, the Prime Minister has raised this matter in discussions with his counterparts from Indonesia, Singapore and Japan, together with the UN Secretary-General himself. And I have raised it similarly with foreign ministers from China, Japan, Indonesia and Great Britain. Our post in Rangoon—and posts elsewhere—have made similar representations both direct to the regime and to neighbouring countries. We welcome the unanimous agreement from the ASEAN-UN conference yesterday ‘on the need to scale up urgently and very significantly the current relief efforts’. The Australian government very much believes that this is a correct analysis. We also strongly support the agreement from the conference yesterday of the indispensable requirement for a rapid joint UN-ASEAN assessment of recovery and assistance needs. We also welcome the agreement between the UN Secretary-General and the Burmese regime on increased access for international humanitarian workers, including the establishment of so-called logistical hubs in the most adversely affected areas. We regard this, as well, as a positive development and we look forward to these changes being implemented effectively. The government also welcomes the commitment of ASEAN—together with UN involvement—to coordinate and monitor the delivery of the international relief efforts. Australia, as the Australian public would expect and require, has been amongst the most generous of international donors. The government will provide $25 million in humanitarian assistance. At the conference yesterday Australia announced the offer of a specialist medical team to work in partnership on the ground with ASEAN medical teams. As well, members would recall that the Minister for Defence has announced that the Royal Australian Air Force will assist the World Food Program by transporting helicopters from South Africa for use in Burma. This follows upon the earlier delivery by the RAAF of a C17 aircraft containing over 30 tonnes of humanitarian supplies to Rangoon in the middle of May. We hope very much that the weekend shows a turning point in the Burmese regime’s resistance to much needed international assistance. The government continues to examine what further options it can make available to the people of Burma but of course this will be predicated on the basis of the Burmese regime genuinely and truly opening up for international assistance in this humanitarian disaster. 3093 3093 15:10:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister really committed to cutting the GST on fuel excise or is he expecting Australian motorists to wait another 18 months while yet another committee looks into it? 3093 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. People in rural and regional Australia are doing it doubly tough when it comes to the cost of petrol. As a consequence, their concerns, as well as those of people in urban Australia who are struggling with the increasing cost of fuel, are important in our overall consideration of the support we should give those families and individuals into the future. What we have done in the budget package is to bring forward a $55 billion support package for families under financial pressure. That includes, of course, some $45 billion in taxation relief. If you add to that what we are doing by increasing the childcare tax rebate—which applies to rural Australia, regional Australia and metropolitan Australia—from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, you will see that also helps with the family budget. Add to that the education tax refund—a $4.4 billion program. It also assists in delivering some extra money to the hard pressed family budget bottom line. But I am first to say to the honourable member that there is no silver bullet on this matter. Therefore, these measures that we have introduced, we believe, provide some assistance. But as we have also indicated, we believe there are other measures which can be embraced into the future. That is why the government commissioned, on budget day itself, a wide-ranging, comprehensive, long-term review of how we best handle the tax, income support and retirement income policy into the future. We think that is an appropriate and responsible course of action. We think it is also a unified course of action on the part of the government, as opposed to the views of those opposite, who have five different positions now on the question of fuels policy—so much so that they now correspond with each other privately and publicly on this question, as the member for Wentworth helpfully did on budget day itself. 3094 3094 15:13:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 Mr NEUMANN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Will the minister update the House on the progress of award modernisation, which is important to the creation of a new, fair and flexible workplace relations system for all Australians? Will the minister detail how this process differs from previous approaches to award rationalisation? 3094 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 Blair for that question. I know of his deep concern for fairness in the workplaces of the working families in his electorate. Today the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is holding its first formal public consultations into our award modernisation process. This is the important first step in creating simple, workable and modern awards for Australian employers and employees for the future. On this side of the parliament we have always believed that at work Australian workers should have a safety net on which they can rely and that awards are a vital part of that safety net. But, of course, awards need to be in a form for the modern economy. They need to be simple; they need to be fair; they need to be workable; they need to be flexible. We have asked the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to begin a process to modernise awards so that on 1 January 2010, when Labor’s new workplace relations system is fully operational, there will be simple, modern awards on which Australian employers and employees can rely. This approach is a stark contrast to what has gone before. There was a period under the Howard government when there were attempts to simplify and rationalise awards. The first attempt to simplify awards came to nothing. It was a task that took too long and was ultimately a complete failure. The second attempt to rationalise awards actually did not get past the discussion paper stage, so nothing effective was done. But is it any surprise really that nothing effective was done to modernise awards when those opposite—who were in government and are now in opposition—do not believe in a safety net at work? Whilst of course there has been much discussion of the divisions between those opposite, they do not know who should stay and who should go—whether the member for Mayo and the member for Higgins should be in this parliament or be outside it. They do not know who should lead the Liberal Party, whether it should be the current leader, the member for Wentworth or the member for North Sydney. No doubt there will be other starters—maybe even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. You never know. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Apart from it being extremely tedious to listen to— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Go to your point of order. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —The point is relevance. There is absolutely nothing in the question that went to— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The deputy leader has stated her point of order: it goes to relevance. The question asked for an update on award modification and how it differs from previous approaches. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —On the question of how it differs from previous approaches, our belief in modern, simple awards goes hand in hand with our belief that Australian workers should have a safety net at work, which is a sharp contrast to those opposite, who effectively believe in no safety net. No matter who ends up leading the Liberal Party, the one thing they are united on, when they cannot be united on who should be in the parliament or who should lead their parliamentary party— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Is how much we hate Labor. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for North Sydney is warned! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the member for North Sydney withdraw that. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There is no need to withdraw. I have warned the honourable member for North Sydney that his behaviour was completely and utterly disorderly. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —We have a clear answer to the question we were seeking to have answered, haven’t we: the one thing that unites them. I am sure the Australian people will be very pleased to learn about that. Of course, beyond what the member for North Sydney said, the other thing that unites them is a belief in industrial relations extremism and the removal of safety nets. Australians should not be misled by any of the statements that have been made by those opposite on the question of Work Choices, because now we have it confirmed out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition that Work Choices continues to be the policy of the Liberal Party when he said so very clearly: ‘John Howard got it right on industrial relations.’ So it is a political party divided on so much, a political party where we have seen the political partnership of Abbott and Costello now replaced by Laurel and Hardy here, a political party that does not know whether it is coming or going. The one thing that it does know is it believes in industrial relations extremism and Work Choices, and if they ever have the opportunity it would be back. 3095 3095 15:19:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 Mr DUTTON —My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his media release just 13 days ago announcing the terms of reference for the review of taxation where he unequivocally excluded the GST from that review. Treasurer, now that the government has backflipped and is reviewing the GST, isn’t this all about helping the Prime Minister out rather than helping families—families who are not happy, Wayne? 3095 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —We did announce a comprehensive review of the tax system—the most comprehensive review in 50 years—and we did exclude the base and the rate of the GST, that is true, but we did not exclude the interaction of the GST with other excises. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Sit down, you fraud! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the member withdraw that statement to the Treasurer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Dickson should withdraw. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —If it helps the House, I withdraw. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Dickson. 3096 3096 15:20:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 Mr TURNOUR —My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the significance of National Sorry Day in closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians? Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I know that the House is glad to see the member here today, but the member has the call and he should be heard in silence. 3096 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms MACKLIN —I particularly thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. Today is a very significant day for all Australians. For 10 years now on 26 May we have paused and reflected on what I think many Australians recognise is a very blemished chapter in our nation’s history: the forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families and their communities. What began as a recommendation in the Bringing them home report has become a day of real national significance. It is very pleasing that across the country, whether it is in the different cities and towns or in outer and remote parts of Australia, we have many, many different Australians participating in Sorry Day events. Here in Parliament House this morning, the Prime Minister unveiled a manuscript of the motion of apology, which will now remain on permanent display—and I thank the member for Warringah for joining us in that unveiling. On Sorry Day we also acknowledge the significance of this parliament’s national apology to Indigenous Australians for what are now recognised as past injustices and mistreatment. When the Prime Minister offered the apology, he said it gave us the impetus: … to deal with this unfinished business of the nation, to remove a great stain from the nation’s soul and, in a true spirit of reconciliation, to open a new chapter in the history of this great land … The apology has also, I think, provided us with a very important part of the framework to enable us to deliver the very necessary practical, structural changes that are needed to see improvement in the lives of Indigenous Australians. We have set ourselves very, very tough and ambitious targets to close the life expectancy gap and to address child mortality, access to early education, educational attainment and employment outcomes. In the six months we have been in government we have in fact allocated $1.2 billion to this task—a task that is aimed at making communities safer, improving economic participation and including major programs of work for early childhood development, education, health, welfare reform, governance and leadership. It is really only through this major agenda for reform that we are going to see this gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples close. We do know that healing the hurt will not happen overnight. For many of the families of stolen generations, the process has only just begun. For many of them, we know, it will be a very long journey. They will need the support and understanding of all of us here, as well as from other Australians. Today, Sorry Day, is just one way that we can all help in that healing and in the healing of the nation. 3097 3097 15:25:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the $2.5 billion tax grab from gas field condensate announced in the budget. What consultation did the government undertake with business prior to this decision? Can the Prime Minister guarantee that this additional $2.5 billion tax will not drive up the price of domestic gas for households and businesses in Western Australia? 3097 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The government maintains a close working relationship with the mining sector and the resources sector in Australia. We have done so in the past; we will continue to do so in the future. Secondly, on the question of tax, those opposite have a clear set of priorities here. That is, when it comes to the taxation arrangements for condensate, taxation arrangements for luxury cars, taxation arrangements across the board, it seems that those opposite do not have their priorities right, and they need to get their priorities in order. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Has the Prime Minister concluded? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Yes. 3097 3097 15:26:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 Ms RISHWORTH —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the government’s plans to offer the use of Kirribilli House to national charities for fundraising events? 3097 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I think all members of the House, despite some of the rancour in the debate today, would agree that organisations like St Vincent de Paul, the Salvation Army, Anglicare, you name it, are out there working really hard on behalf of the most disadvantaged Australians. Therefore, we believe that it is important to support those charities where we can. If you look at the competition for the charitable dollar across Australia, it is really hard; and, if you speak with those organisations, many of them are actually doing it very tough when it comes to raising the money they need to keep their operations going. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I am surprised that those opposite are objecting as if this is some sort of cynical debate about Australia’s charities. These charities do a fantastic job. If you do not support what these charities do, put your hand up. Come on. These charities do a fantastic job. On top of that, if these charities were to suddenly withdraw from the field, the cost to the Australian taxpayer of filling the jobs that they currently do in critical sectors like aged care and caring for the homeless and disadvantaged, frankly, would be huge—leaving aside what is just the basic, decent human thing to do for those people out in the Australian community who need help. Out there in the community, the smart thing to do is to try and do what we can at a practical level to assist in their fundraising efforts. In a small but practical measure, the government has decided to make Kirribilli House in Sydney available to Australia’s national charities, those with a national focus, to raise funds each year. What we intend to do is have the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet— SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I notice the member for O’Connor finds this objectionable. I find that remarkable. The government proposes to call for expressions of interest from the church and charitable sector and, as a consequence of that, offer Kirribilli House in the first year for up to 10 such events to raise funds for those charities. They will not be charged, of course, any rent or associated costs for the actual facilities. It will simply be on a cost basis in terms of running the actual function itself. This is a small but practical measure to use Kirribilli House to support some of our leading national charities in raising a dollar. When I look at those opposite who have interjected during the outlining of this proposal, I find it remarkable that they could be so cynical about a proposal like this when I seem to recall that Kirribilli House was used for other purposes by the previous government—other purposes, I think, associated with party fundraising. I think it would be good if there were a more generous spirit on the part of those opposite. And I have got to say to the Manager of Opposition Business that I was really disappointed in what he had to say before. I do not think it is really him when he stands up and says that the only thing that unites the Liberal Party is hatred—hatred for the Labor Party. I actually think we can do better in this House when it comes to debate. I would have hoped the Liberal Party could unite behind positive policies for the future rather than that sort of, I think, unnecessarily negative observation. The government is pleased to offer Kirribilli House for this purpose. We believe that our leading national charities deserve every level of support that can be provided. This is one small but practical measure to assist, and I would urge those opposite to provide it with simple bipartisan support. On that note, Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 3098 Questions to the Speaker 3098 3098 15:30:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —My question relates to the previous question time on Thursday, 15 May. I would like to ask how you were advised that the document which the Prime Minister was quoting from—which I had sought to be tabled—was confidential. 3098 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —As I noted in my letter dated 22 May to the member for Boothby, I have been advised that the document was confidential. The member for Boothby raised—as he has the right to do under standing order 201—the matter of whether a document relating to public affairs was being quoted by the Prime Minister and whether that would be tabled. In a bout of confusion—which I acknowledge that I contributed to—that was not possible at the end of question time. I undertook to take steps to ascertain whether there was a document that needed to be tabled as is required by the standing order and Practice. In doing that, I had to ascertain whether (a) a document was being quoted from and (b) whether that document was confidential. I have ascertained that, and I wrote to the member for Boothby and, as far as I am concerned, that is the end of the matter. 3098 3098 15:32:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —I have a further question for you, Mr Speaker. Were you advised by the Prime Minister that this document was a confidential document? Were you advised by the Prime Minister in person? 3098 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I stand by the letter that I sent to the member for Boothby, and I am satisfied that what was required by the standing orders and Practice for me to do on behalf of the member for Boothby has been done. Of course, if that had been done in the chamber, it would have resolved this matter then and there. That was not the case and, as far as I am concerned, the matter is concluded. 3099 3099 15:32:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —Mr Speaker, I have a further question to you. It goes to the heart of the parliament’s role in providing oversight of the government. All of us who were in here saw what happened. My question to you is: is it appropriate for any minister, and especially the Prime Minister, to scurry from the chamber when any member is asking for a document to be tabled? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— 3099 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. As the member for Boothby knows, the circumstance is that he rose from his place, got the call, walked towards the dispatch box and, at an equally similar pace, the Prime Minister was walking away from the dispatch box. As I said on the day—when, quite rightly, two other members indicated with helpful advice other things that I could have done—I did not do that, and I undertook to ascertain information and advise the member for Boothby as soon as possible. That is what I have done on behalf of the House, and I am satisfied that the matter is concluded. 3099 3099 15:32:00 Schultz, Alby, MP 83Q Hume LP 0 Mr SCHULTZ —From the day that I was elected to this place, I was under the understanding that the members car park of the House of Representatives was specifically for members of parliament. Today, three young people were approached and asked why they were parking their cars in the members car park. The response was that the registration numbers of their vehicles were put into the application form by their member. Could you please, for the benefit of the House, make some inquiries to find out which members, if any, are allowing their staff to park in car spaces specifically marked for members of parliament and report back to the House? 3099 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I will investigate the matters raised by the member for Hume, and I will get back to the member for Hume. 3099 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers 3099 3099 15:35:00 Mr BURKE,MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 0 Mr BURKE —Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer provided to the House on the last sitting day, 15 May. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister may proceed. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —As I reported in my previous statement to parliament, there were 55 foreign fishers from nine vessels, who had been apprehended by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority during a sweep in late April, which were found to have not been fishing illegally. Adult crew members apprehended by AFMA were accommodated in the Northern Immigration Detention Centre. Six juveniles among this group had been accommodated outside the centre, as is standard practice. Upon being notified by AFMA that charges would not be laid against the crews of those nine vessels, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship worked promptly towards the removal and repatriation of the affected crews. In accordance with the standard practice that juveniles are repatriated as a priority along with their adult minders as soon as travel documents and flights can be arranged, four fishers—two juveniles and two of their adult minders—were returned to Indonesia on 10 May 2008; six fishers—three juveniles and three adult minders—were returned on 15 May 2008; and 43 fishers including one juvenile and one minder were returned on 17 May 2008. This leaves two fishers who are not fit to travel and who require medical treatment before they are fit to do so. This treatment is scheduled for 3 June this year. I take this opportunity to again note the cooperation and assistance of the Indonesian government, particularly the Indonesian consulate in Darwin, who have been of great assistance in expediting travel documents for this group. 3100 Personal Explanations 3100 15:36:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 0 Mr HOCKEY —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —In question time today the Minister for Health and Ageing claimed that effectively I was going soft on binge drinking and she referred to yesterday’s Insiders program. I am happy to table the full transcript of the program, but I in fact said: It turned out in the budget papers it is a $3.1 billion tax grab and even his own people— meaning the Prime Minister— have been saying that this is not about tax equalisation ... Now what we are starting to get evidence of is that young people are turning to hip flasks— 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —What about the rest of it, Joe? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Is the member seeking leave to table a document? DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —I will be, but I am entitled to finish the quote. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member must go to where he has been misrepresented and correct the record. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —I am doing that. The minister said that I was going soft on binge drinking. The minister specifically referred to the Insiders program, on which I was interviewed for perhaps 10 minutes about this issue, and I am specifically referring to the matter at hand. I went on to say: The fact of the matter is two thirds of the drinks affected by the alcopop tax are in fact black spirits such as Bundy and different forms of rum. Most of them drunk by men over the age of 25. So this is not about attacking teenage binge drinking, this is about tax revenue … I seek leave to table the whole transcript. Leave not granted. 3100 Auditor-General's Reports 3100 3100 15:38:00 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. 34, Administration of the Pathology Quality and Outlays Memorandum of Understanding: Department of Health and Ageing, and Audit report No. 35, Building certification of residential aged care homes: Department of Health and Ageing. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. 3100 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:39:00 —Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. 3100 Ministerial Statements 3100 3100 15:39:00 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 0 Ms PLIBERSEK —by leave—I rise to speak to the government’s green paper on homelessness entitled Which way home? A new approach to homelessness. After 17 years of continuous economic growth, it is simply unacceptable that on any given night 100,000 Australians are homeless. Half of these homeless Australians are under the age of 24 and 10,000 are children. Homelessness services, the people on the front line, say that the situation has been getting worse. As the Prime Minister has said, the beginning of human dignity is to be able to call some place home. That is why homelessness is now a major priority for the Australian government. In January we announced that we would develop a new approach to reduce homelessness over the next decade. Last week we released Which way home?, the first green paper commissioned by this government. The green paper calls on people to look beyond the quick fixes of providing a bed and a hot meal to homeless people. This paper puts forward concrete options for reform as we investigate a new national approach to homelessness and options to reform crisis services. There has been a distinct lack of national leadership to ensure that all Australians have the opportunity to share in the benefits of a strong economy. There has also been a failure to invest in new ways of helping homeless Australians, approaches that could have led to better outcomes. Service providers throughout Australia are telling us that they are overwhelmed with demands for assistance. Their traditional clients are presenting at younger ages and with more complex problems. Disturbingly, the sector is telling us that Australians who have never needed their help before are now asking for assistance. In many cases it is now working families who cannot get housing, cannot access health and mental health services and cannot pay their debts that are now in trouble and need help. The most extreme expression of disadvantage in a nation like Australia is homelessness. For a nation as rich as Australia, the statistics are shameful. The number of homeless families and children has increased by 46 per cent over the last 20 years. Almost two per cent of Australian children under five years of age slept in a homelessness service during 2005-06. The most well known national response to homelessness is the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program or SAAP. SAAP is a joint Commonwealth, state and territory government program and was introduced by the Hawke government in 1985. SAAP provides crisis accommodation and support services to people who are homeless or who are at risk of homelessness. Thirteen hundred SAAP services around Australia provide support to around 161,000 people each year. The staff in SAAP services are to be commended for the work they do, often in extremely difficult circumstances. They work tirelessly to provide support for people who are homeless. SAAP has to turn away around half of the people who seek accommodation on any given night. The Supported Accommodation Assistance Program plays an important role in keeping people safe who would otherwise be on the streets. Unfortunately, however, many people leave Supported Accommodation Assistance Program services without satisfactory outcomes. Most remain on income support, return to insecure housing and continue to be at risk of domestic violence. The ability of SAAP services to address homelessness is reliant on their capacity to work in partnership with mainstream services such as health and police. We have now had five successive Supported Accommodation Assistance Program agreements. Each has added money, sought to make the program more comprehensive and funded research and innovation. The bottom line is that our current response is unable to meet the complex needs of the clients. Sixty-eight per cent of SAAP clients are not in the labour force on exit, 22 per cent are unemployed, only 21 per cent access public or community housing on exit, and five per cent return to sleeping rough, with another 17 per cent exiting to boarding house accommodation. The Supported Accommodation Assistance Program is a highly valuable program, particularly for people in crisis, but it has never had the capacity to attack the drivers of homelessness. The evaluation of the last Supported Accommodation Assistance Program concluded that: The current program lacks the national drivers and leadership to ensure that services are equipped and linked into providing solutions that address the root causes of why people seek assistance. That is what the government now seeks to fix. The good news is that there are many programs which are achieving good results at a local level. Important programs like Reconnect and HOME Advice were introduced to prevent homelessness. Virtually all state and territory governments have introduced their own responses to homelessness. These include transitional housing, youth services and innovative models such as Common Ground in Adelaide. These initiatives are good, but they are currently too limited to have any impact on the overall numbers of homeless people in Australia. To reduce homelessness we must do more and we must do better. The government has already announced a down payment on homelessness. Under our A Place to Call Home initiative, the government is providing $150 million to build 600 houses for homeless Australians. Homeless families and individuals will no longer have to move from emergency accommodation to transitional housing to long-term housing. Under A Place to Call Home these people will receive immediate long-term housing. Personal and tenancy support will be provided while it is needed. When the tenants are ready the house will be transferred to the public housing pool and the tenancy continued under normal arrangements. The Green paper on homelessness sets the stage for a new response to homelessness in Australia. It looks to the future. It places housing as the key component in our response to homelessness. We need to get people into homes and provide them with enough support to sustain their housing and move forward in their personal lives. The additional outcomes we want to achieve include employment for young people in particular, stable health for the mentally ill, personal safety for women who have experienced domestic violence and financial stability for families who are struggling with debt. We also want to help people before they become homeless. There must be more of a focus on prevention and early intervention. To reduce homelessness over the long term we need more than housing. We need housing plus other supports for homeless people. Only this will improve long-term outcomes for homeless people and bring down their numbers. A comprehensive homelessness response needs to achieve outcomes in addition to housing that will prevent homelessness and reduce its impact. Contact with crisis response services needs to offer a swift and secure gateway to safe and appropriate accommodation but it also needs to lead to a sustained, supported pathway to achieving longer term goals of personal security, self-development, economic participation and social inclusion. Government, community, business and the homeless all have a role to play. It means improving the crisis and emergency response and working this in in a better way with mainstream health, education, justice and employment services. Only this will stop the cycle of homelessness. The green paper canvasses the way forward on homelessness. It puts forward some radical alternatives. The options canvassed in the green paper include building a new national homelessness response tailored to particular life events and circumstances for youth, people experiencing or escaping domestic violence, single people and families in housing stress, or reforming crisis services to give greater focus to long-term outcomes and improving mainstream service responses to homelessness while maintaining the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program as a crisis response program. We have put forward these options to stimulate discussion about how this goal can be achieved. We want to provide the opportunity for all who have a role to play in tackling homelessness to play a part in developing the solution. The development of the green paper was guided by a steering group comprising the Executive Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Tony Nicholson, as chair, Anna Buduls and Heather Nancarrow. I want to thank them sincerely for their leadership and contribution to this process. The formal process of consultations will now begin. Consultation sessions will be held in 12 locations across Australia. The first will be in Perth on Wednesday, 28 May and other sessions will also be held in Karratha, Townsville, Darwin, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Lismore, Hobart and Adelaide. The final session will be held in Albury-Wodonga on 20 June. There is also a process for written submissions, which will be advertised in the national press and on the website of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The information gathered through this consultation process will feed into the development of a white paper on homelessness, which the government will release in September. The white paper will set out a comprehensive action plan to reduce homelessness over the next decade. This goal cannot be achieved by the Australian government alone. We must work in partnership with states, territories, local government, the community sector and business. People vulnerable to homelessness must have a voice and be treated with care, respect and dignity. People working with homeless Australians should be free to focus on what they do best and have been doing best for many years: moving their clients out of homelessness. We should be able to guarantee better outcomes for homeless Australians. They have been left out in the cold for too long. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Farrer to speak for 11 minutes. Leave granted. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms PLIBERSEK —I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Ms Ley speaking for a period not exceeding 11 minutes. Question agreed to. 3103 15:50:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I thank the government for the opportunity to respond to the ministerial statement on homelessness. We must—and we do in the opposition—acknowledge all efforts for national leadership to solve what we recognise to be a crisis in the number of homeless people, particularly young homeless people, on our streets every night. My concern is that we have been given a process here and we are no closer to the answers. It is certainly the case that wall-to-wall Labor governments have failed to provide many of the services to the homeless that it was their duty to do. We gave them money to provide those services under the program the minister has mentioned—SAAP. It is certainly the case that the number of homeless is increasing and the number of young homeless is unacceptable. And it is definitely the case, as we have heard, that people who would never have imagined themselves to be in a category called ‘homeless’ are now finding that they have nowhere to go due to the pressures they are facing with their family budgets—paying for their petrol; their mortgages, if there are mortgages, or rental increases that they cannot deal with; and grocery prices. Many of these groups are not actually mentioned in the recent budget. I particularly would like to mention in my capacity as shadow minister for women the older, single women whom I fear will soon become the very poor in this country. But I guess the last thing that people who are sleeping on the streets tonight want to hear are politicians bickering. As one young homeless woman said to me when I spent a night in Brisbane with the Salvos ministering to young, very energetic boys and girls—I think many of them were—‘Hey, all you do up there is talk.’ So I recognise it is very important that we stop talking and we stop blaming and we come up with a plan for action. The Prime Minister has made homelessness a very important plank of his new government, and I remind him that this means expectations are now very high indeed. It is important, therefore, for the homeless who have hope and for the services that work day to day with them that these expectations are met. Already we have seen the time line the minister refers to having blown out somewhat. A statement that Kevin Rudd made in January said that we needed a new approach to tackling a very significant problem, the green paper would be a major piece of work that would take into consideration new ideas and it would be followed by a white paper and a plan for action by August 2008. Already we have heard that the plan for action certainly has not been commented on and the white paper itself will not be here until September 2008. So that is more time and not another person assisted in the important way that they need to be. The green paper has been described by the Prime Minister as a major piece of work. I have to say I have read it and it has clearly been written by bureaucrats. I do not mean that to be critical, but I think it certainly states and restates the problem we are facing with our homeless young and older people. It talks about approaches that have worked in the past. It talks in great detail about the SAAP, possible changes to the roles of state and federal governments and so on. It is very good at describing the causes and the symptoms and providing, as I said, penetrating glimpses of the obvious, but I am concerned that the green paper is not going to lead to the action that we so desperately need. To back up my concern, I want to quote the principles for change that seem to be at the heart of this green paper: A national commitment and strong leadership from all levels of government ... Preventing the causes of homelessness is a main focus. Social inclusion drives our efforts. Everyone is treated with dignity and respect. Safety and wellbeing are a prime concern for all clients. Rights and responsibilities of individuals and families are paramount. Joined-up service delivery needs joined-up policy. Transition points are a priority. Evidence-based policy helps to shape our priorities for action. Targets are set to reduce homelessness and hold ourselves accountable. No-one could argue with any of those statements. They are motherhood statements. They are principles that would certainly work in changing any system that is not working at the moment. Possible targets are mentioned, and clearly they are the targets that you would want to see—a decrease in the number of people moving from public housing and private rental to crisis accommodation services, an increase in the number of women and children remaining in their own homes, a decrease in the number of people seeking crisis accommodation and an increase in the percentage of school aged children remaining at school. Of course all of those are targets that we would expect to see and we would want to see, but there is no pathway, clear or otherwise, from where we are now to where we need to be. There are just hundreds of pages full of, as I said, a description of the problem. One thing that interests me is the housing aspect. It is quite clear from the Minister for Housing’s statement and from the green paper that a roof over your head and a secure home are the start to your ongoing security about yourself and your world, and services are telling us that more and more people are falling out of the bottom when it comes to finding a place that they can call home. I make the point to the House that I have made on other occasions that, if we are talking about a whole housing supply chain, it does start with the most basic public housing accommodation. People might naturally move from there into affordable rental accommodation and might then save for a deposit on their own home and so on. It would allow others to be looked after at the social housing end of the spectrum. But what I am seeing in my travels around the states is that our state departments are in fact quarantining public housing for social housing tenants, which means those who of course need help most, those who are on welfare, disabled or disadvantaged and often women escaping from domestic violence, are taking all the public housing. There are not enough housing places in our major cities, and that means that the stress in the rest of the rental market is flowing down. When people find they are no longer able to cope, there simply is nowhere to go. Commented on was the National Rental Affordability Scheme, and I look forward to some evidence that that will actually work. My suspicion is that the incentives will not be taken up by developers building houses, because the requirements and the caveats are so complicated that their fund mangers will simply choose to invest their money elsewhere. That means that, although the program looks good on paper, if it does not result in a new affordable home being built then it really is not providing any answers. I make the point about public housing—and the minister has criticised me on my statements about this—that it really is the case that over the last 13 years, in spite of I think $10 billion going to the states under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, not one single additional public house was built by any of our state governments; instead, we have seen the quality of houses and the stock of houses depleted because they are simply getting too old and many of them are no longer liveable. In fact in some cities they are being bulldozed. So we are seen a deterioration in the stock of our public housing, and that has severe impacts on homeless people. I might add, though, that we saw an increase in the administration costs of public housing. The unfortunate pattern continues to emerge where state government public servants have, it would appear, almost unlimited salary increases to manage a program that fails to meet its objectives. It is not fair on those who cannot find an affordable public house, and it is certainly not fair on the homeless. I hope that in the consultations that we see under this process we have an opportunity to look at some innovative ideas. As I said, they are not mentioned in the green paper. There is a good description of what is happening, but I suspect that the minister may also have had an opportunity to meet with Philip Mangano, from the United States, who runs an operation called the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. He presented some very interesting evidence, which I expect would translate similarly to the Australian example, that we spend enormous sums of money on the chronically homeless but that the kind of money it would take to solve the problem is a lot less than the kind of money it would take to ignore it. He takes an interesting business-type approach to homelessness—he looks after people, he provides all their needs and he demonstrates it is a far less of a cost on the health system. Perhaps the program of 600 new houses that the minister mentioned could demonstrate or focus on whether this could happen in practice. Six hundred houses is an admirable start, but of course it is very hard to find cheap land to build houses for the homeless because state governments control land management corporations and the object of those corporations is to raise revenue for those state governments; so it is in their interests to be very careful about how they release and supply the land. Making more money for the state government means you cannot find, you cannot produce, affordable land for young people, and it follows all the way down the supply chain to actually build a house. Until we get a different policy where land that should have houses built on it, perhaps even on the urban fringes of our cities—it is controlled by state treasuries, who simply want to maximise their return from it—we are going to be really battling with this issue. I thank also the steering group that has worked so hard and record my admiration for the Brotherhood of St Laurence, whom I encountered in a portfolio I previously held. Really thanks must go from all of us to those who work each and every day with homeless people and do an amazing job in making their lives mean and matter more each and every day. 3106 3106 16:01:00 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP Minister for Ageing 1 0 Mrs ELLIOT —by leave—On Saturday, I as the Minister for Ageing had the honour and privilege to represent the Prime Minister at a celebration for a very special Australian. It was the 110th birthday celebration for Mrs Doreen Washington. She is our fourth oldest living Australian. Mrs Washington is also our oldest living World War I widow. Mrs Washington can proudly say she is also among the 60 documented oldest people in the world. While there have been various claims, the oldest recorded Australian was 114 and, currently, the oldest Australian is 112.  She resides in Victoria. We joined together to celebrate Doreen Washington’s 110th birthday at a Collaroy RSL nursing home with her friends, staff and family—and her much loved cat, Bungan. It was a very special gathering and an absolute joy to be able to pay tribute to Mrs Washington on her very special day. The Prime Minister and his wife, Therese Rein, sent an official letter of congratulations, which was greatly appreciated. Mrs Washington was thrilled to receive letters of congratulations from the Queen, the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, the federal Leader of the Opposition, the New South Wales Premier and the New South Wales opposition leader, as well as her local federal MP, the member for Mackellar. Mrs Washington was born Alice Doreen Rathbone on 24 May 1898 in Rockhampton, Queensland. Like many older Australians, Mrs Washington lived by herself independently until she was 103. As for her secret to long life, it could just be her unconventional and very ‘old school’ Australian diet. While I do not endorse it, and fear my daughter who came with me will use this to her advantage in the dinnertime debate, Mrs Washington eats virtually no fruit or vegetables and loves meat pies and a glass of beer. It has not done her any harm—she still walks and takes no medication. Her late husband, Private Lavington ‘Bill’ Ainsley Washington, served at Gallipoli and the Western Front. He died in 1965 and she never remarried and they had no children. Mrs Washington is a pure link with our nation’s past. She has seen the growth of Australia as a nation firsthand and, indeed, she is older than the Federation. Remarkably, Mrs Washington has witnessed 23 prime ministers and has seen the development of airplane and automobile travel. She is part of a new ageing phenomenon—what is known as the ‘supercentenarians’— those who reach 110. Australian academic Dr John McCormack, a senior lecturer in Health Sciences at La Trobe University, is part of international research in this area. He examines the history of identification, recording and documentation of centenarians and supercentenarians in Australia. There are 2,860 Australians over the age of 100 and that is expected to increase to 78,000 by 2055. That is more than the population of the city of Port Macquarie. At the Montefiore Home in Sydney’s eastern suburbs there are an astounding 12 centenarians totalling more than 1,200 years of experience. Currently, there are 2.7 million Australians aged 65 and over. Within 40 years that number will almost triple to around 7.2 million. Australians now have the fourth longest life expectancy in the world—after the Japanese, Swiss and the Icelanders. Australians are living longer because of advances in medicine and our active lifestyles. This government is investing in aged and community care to service this expected and rather dramatic rise in our elderly population. Over the next four years, funding for aged and community care will reach record levels of more than $40 billion—with $28.6 billion of that on residential aged care alone. Caring for our ageing population is one of the major challenges facing our nation this century and, as a government, we take that responsibility very seriously. No government in Australian history will spend more on aged care and community care than this one. We are very proud of our plans for aged and community care. This is about planning for Australia’s future and the challenges of the 21st century. We want to ensure not only that older Australians can live independent lives and age in their homes—like Mrs Washington until she was 103—but also that they have the option to enter nursing homes if they need to. An ageing population creates so many opportunities; we can learn so much from the wisdom, knowledge and experience of older Australians. As the Minister for Ageing I continue to learn this every time I am out and about meeting our elderly Australians with none more wise and charming than Mrs Doreen Washington. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Mackellar to speak for five minutes. Leave granted. DZW Elliot, Justine, MP Mrs ELLIOT —I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Mrs Bronwyn Bishop speaking for a period not exceeding five minutes. Question agreed to. 3107 16:07:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —It was a great delight to attend Peter Cosgrove House in ‘War Vets Village’, as it is familiarly known in my electorate, on Saturday to celebrate Mrs Doreen Washington’s 110th birthday. When I first sent birthday greetings to Mrs Washington, she was turning 100 and I was the Minister for Aged Care. I am very pleased to say that she now lives in Peter Cosgrove House, which is state of the art and has the best care that could be available, which was a result of the accreditation system that we introduced. Believe me, if she had gone into the old nursing home, prior to accreditation, it would not have been such a happy birthday party. But the thing I believe is so important about celebrating her birthday is that she is, I think, the last surviving First World War widow. She comes to us with many messages as to how people can live independently for a long time. I went to Mrs Washington’s 102nd birthday party, which was held in her own apartment. The reason she was able to live independently in her own apartment for so long is she had two splendid neighbours, lovely friends. One was Chris Pike and the other one was Fred Leon. Those two gentlemen used to shop for her, look after her, enjoy her company, have a beer with her. What I am saying is: she was able to live successfully at home because she had a community that cared about her, and she had personal contact that kept her alive and vital. She was a bit of a character. She imported the first Mini Minor into Australia and used to drive around in it and was often seen around the northern beaches in it. Her husband Bill, whom she did not meet until they were working in a munitions factory in World War II, had served at Gallipoli and on the Western Front. He was very badly injured. His battalion, the 16th Battalion, sailed from Port Melbourne on 22 December 1914. On 25 April, with a strength of 22 officers and 979 other ranks, they landed at Anzac Cove. At roll call on 3 May, the battalion had been reduced to nine officers and 290 other ranks. Those who survived, of whom her husband was one, were then sent to the Western Front where Private Washington, as he was, was seriously injured when a shell landed in his trench. It wounded both him and a British officer. When the stretcher bearers arrived, they immediately went to treat the officer, but that officer insisted that they attend to Private Washington instead. The officer died, but Washington survived and was repatriated to England for medical treatment. He suffered for the rest of his life from shrapnel embedded in his head. Bill and his wife, Doreen—she did not like ‘Alice’; his name was Lavington and she did not like that either, so she called herself Doreen and she called him Bill—built a house at Clontarf, where they lived until he died in 1965. She continued to be an independent person, as I said. She travelled a lot. She was alive and active and she certainly does like her beer and also whisky. In fact, when we went to celebrate her 108th birthday party, we went to the Sands at Narrabeen, which has only recently been demolished. It was a good local pub and we had fish and chips and she had her beer and talked about a life that had been exciting for her. From her example we can learn many things: if you are engaged and active, you can live a long and productive life, but you need friends and companionship. To Chris Pike and Fred Leon, I know she is eternally grateful for their friendship. But if we as a community can always extend ourselves to reach out to people who are living in aged-care facilities and people who are bound in their own home and say they matter just because they are with us, then we will all be the richer for doing so. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—A wonderful lady and a national treasure. I am sure, as I call the Treasurer, as someone born in Queensland, he would agree with the context of meat pies and beer as a great diet. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan —And may there be more of them, Mr Deputy Speaker. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Meat pies? 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan —You should try a pie, Malcolm! 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Treasurer has the call and is introducing some tax laws. 3109 Bills R2993 3109 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Swan. Bill read a first time. 3109 3109 16:12:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. These amendments increase the luxury car tax rate from 25 per cent to 33 per cent to apply on and from 1 July 2008. The government recognises that, if everyone pays their fair share of tax, and we plug the gaps in the system, we can reduce the overall tax burden imposed on working families. This increase was announced in the 2008-09 budget as part of the government’s package of measures to enhance fairness in the tax system. The government believes that Australians who can afford luxury vehicles have the capacity to contribute to revenue at a higher rate than other car buyers. Additionally the measure is expected to contribute to the necessary task of ensuring that the budget relieves pressure on inflation.  The measure is expected to raise $555 million in additional revenue over the forward estimates. Since 1979, successive Australian governments have imposed an additional tax on luxury vehicles. The luxury car tax was introduced on 1 July 2000 when the GST was introduced and the wholesale sales tax abolished. Luxury car tax applies to cars whose price, including GST, exceeds the luxury car tax threshold, which is currently $57,123. The luxury car tax rate applies to the value of the car, excluding GST, that is greater than the luxury car tax threshold. Certain types of cars are exempt from the tax. This includes most commercial vehicles, most second-hand cars, motorhomes, campervans, and prescribed emergency vehicles. We are not changing these arrangements. There are existing exemptions in the law to ensure that GST and luxury car tax do not apply to modifications for transporting the disabled. A car specially fitted out for transporting a person with a disability who uses a wheelchair is excluded from the definition of a ‘luxury car’ provided the car is not also GST-free under the GST law. In addition, a disabled veteran or an eligible person with a disability can purchase a car GST-free up to the value of the luxury car tax threshold. These significant exemptions from GST and luxury car tax will remain. While the provisions in this bill make no changes to the treatment of people with a disability, I asked the Treasury to consult with representatives of disabled persons to ensure that the exemptions were working as intended. These discussions revealed that there is a need for a clearer explanation of the current exemptions so that people can understand their entitlements under the luxury car tax and GST laws. I have asked the Commissioner of Taxation to prepare explanatory material as soon as possible. Treasury will consult further with the sector if any additional issues arise. I have also asked the commissioner to release material explaining the implications for the industry and purchasers of luxury cars. I turn now to some facts and figures about the purchase of cars in Australia. It is estimated that around 10 per cent or around 100,000 of all new car sales made in Australia in 2007 were subject to luxury car tax. The tax is applied to both imported vehicles as well as domestically manufactured cars. Of the top 20 selling cars in 2007, which covers more than 50 per cent of the car market, less than four per cent of those sold are subject to luxury car tax. At the lower end, the increase is in the hundreds, not thousands, of dollars. The increase in the luxury car tax for the lowest cost Toyota Prado models are $39 and $98. For the Ford Territory Ghia, the increase is $496. Of the five Toyota Tarago models, only one attracts the luxury car tax. Of the three largest selling people mover brands, this is the only model that will be impacted by the tax increase. The price increase is just over one per cent. In closing, I would say again that if everyone pays their fair share, and we plug the gaps in the system, we can reduce the overall tax burden imposed on working families. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Turnbull) adjourned. 3110 Bills R2994 3110 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Swan. Bill read a first time. 3110 3110 16:18:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The bill imposes luxury car tax to the extent that it is neither a duty of customs nor a duty of excise. The bill also alters the applicable luxury car tax rate of 25 per cent to 33 per cent with application on and from 1 July 2008. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Turnbull) adjourned. 3110 Bills R2995 3110 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Swan. Bill read a first time. 3110 3110 16:20:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The bill operates to impose luxury car tax to the extent that it is a duty of customs.  As a consequence the bill increases the luxury car tax rate to 33 per cent to apply to luxury cars on and from 1 July 2008. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Turnbull) adjourned. 3110 Bills R2996 3110 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Swan. Bill read a first time. 3110 3110 16:20:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The bill imposes luxury car tax to the extent that it is a duty of excise. As a result of the increase in the luxury car tax rate this bill increases the luxury car tax rate to 33 per cent to apply to luxury cars on and from 1 July 2008.   I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Turnbull) adjourned. 3111 Miscellaneous 3111 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—In accordance with standing order 41(h), and the recommendations of the whips adopted by the House on 14 May 2008, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the members for Bendigo, La Trobe and Parramatta. These items will be considered in the Main Committee later today. 3111 Petitions 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—I present petitions in accordance with standing order 207. 10000 The Clerk The Clerk —Petitions from certain citizens have been lodged as follows: 10000 The SPEAKER 1192 3111 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of residents of Victoria draws the attention of the House to our concerns about the imminent loss of the Moorabbin Public Golf Course when Kingston Council’s lease expires in November 2008 and after 30 years as a public golf course will be replaced by inappropriate industry and office development. We request the House of Representatives to: Pursue all possible means to provide for the retention of the Moorabbin Golf Course. Initiate a Federal Inquiry into arrangements at Moorabbin Airport and (perhaps other privatised General Aviation Airports) to cover: The nature of planning and non-aeronautical development on the airport; The impact of this development on the amenity of the surrounding community, off-site infrastructure, the airport’s future and aviation safety; and Whether as a measure of corporate social responsibility, the Moorabbin Airport Corporation should retain the golf course under a reasonable rental policy; Facilitate processes to require that all future non-aviation development on the airport conforms to State and Local Planning Provisions. 1192 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 1,192 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 485 3111 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House the inequitable funding for students with a disability, particularly those in non government schools and the resulting lack of portability. Your petitioners therefore request the House take immediate action to ensure that eligible students with a disability are able to access equal funding and that funding be portable across all sectors government and non government. 485 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 485 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 8179 3111 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The following citizens of Australia draw to the attention of the House that there is a need for a coherent and complete water infrastructure plan for all South Australia. We the undersigned call on the South Australian Government to: Review their current approach to water restrictions that appear to hurt domestic users of water without doing the necessary works to secure Adelaide’s water supply through desalination or other feasible options; Consider its priorities that sees it investing scarce taxpayer dollars in the building infrastructure to secure Adelaide’s water supply; and Take seriously the need to secure Adelaide’s water supply rather than seeking to blame the Australian Government for an area of State Government responsibility. Your petitioners therefore request the House to support this important community issue and encourage the State Government of South Australia to develop a comprehensive water infrastructure plan. 8179 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 8,179 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 827 3112 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This Petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the many well-known public figures of this country who have publicly rejected the actions of the current Federal Government in its Northern Territory Intervention Strategy and Legislation and expresses its deep concern about it because: the Government’s strategy has been implemented with no consultation with Indigenous community leaders; the bulk of the $587 million allocated is to be spent on administration and bureaucrats rather than directly assisting Indigenous Communities; quarantining of welfare payments will result in many families, who are already struggling, being worse off; removal of the entry permit system exposes communities and children to further risk. We call on the incoming Federal Government to revisit the Northern Territory strategy and legislation in consultation with Indigenous leaders as a matter of urgency and to review its appropriateness for the goal of protecting Indigenous women and children in the Northern Territory or any other part of Australia. 827 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 827 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 26 3112 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion: ‘That this Synod regrets the Government’s adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life; and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.’ We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees at Glen Eira Uniting Church, Glen Iris VIC 3146, petition the House of Representatives in support of the above mentioned Motion. AND we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c. 26 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 26 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 184 3112 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of certain residents of the state of Queensland draws to the attention of the House that: The Howard Government has balanced their budget by failing to properly invest in necessary infrastructure The Ipswich Motorway is a Commonwealth Government responsibility and a vital link between communities, homes and workplaces, and is used by many thousands of Australians every hour of every day The Howard Government has known since 1997 that the Ipswich Motorway was not up to modern standards but has consistently failed to make a budgetary commitment to fund a full upgrade of this crucial link in the National Highway Network The Howard Government has finally adopted the Goodna Bypass option, which wastes nearly $2 billion of taxpayer money, and is a bad planning choice. It unnecessarily adversely impacts thousands of people, and has the potential to lock planners into a Western Bypass option without proper planning or consultation. As well as failing to deliver necessary transport infrastructure, the Howard Government has failed to provide the sustainable transport solutions necessary for the future of Australian cities The Australian Labor Party is committed to the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway instead of the Goodna Bypass Your petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the Commonwealth budget funds the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway instead of the Goodna Bypass 184 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 184 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 1391 3113 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, the long dental waiting lists and under funding of our public dental system. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to: Re-introduce the Commonwealth Dental Scheme and restore funding to public dental health, Reduce waiting times for public dental health services, and Train more public dentists 1391 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 1,391 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 12 3113 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the urgent need to address Australia’s level of greenhouse gas emissions because of its contribution to the risk of dangerous climate change. There is a need for the Australian Government to sign up to binding emission reduction targets that are agreed to through negotiation in the international community. Your petitioners in addition request the House to introduce legislation to: Commit Australia to binding greenhouse gas emission reductions of 20% by 2020, and at least 60% by 2050, based on 1990 emission levels. Set a target to stabilise and then reduce residential, industrial and government per capita electricity consumption with supporting legislation and programs. Increase the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) to 10% by 2010. Increase financial incentives (tax regimes, rebates) for renewable energy; Mandate the requirement for new building stock to have gas-boosted solar water heating systems wherever possible in Australia. Implement new programs to rapidly increase the uptake of gas-boosted solar water heating in the existing building stock. 12 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 12 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 43 3113 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the Howard Government’s failure to crack down on the importation of illegally logged timber. Your petitioners therefore request the House to call on the Howard Government to: Build capacity within regional governments to prevent illegal harvesting Develop and support certification schemes for timber and timber products sold in Australia Require disclosure at point of sale of species, country of origin and any certification Identify illegally logged timber and restrict its import into Australia Argue for incentives within the emerging global carbon markets for avoided deforestation and better management of tropical rainforests 43 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 43 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 17 3114 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House a treatment available for certain types of asbestos related cancers. Asbestos has been used in more that 3000 commercial products. Many people in the community could have unknowingly been exposed to asbestos in the past and could develop an asbestos-related disease. Mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer that forms in the lining of the lungs at any time from 10 years to 60 years after first exposure to asbestos. The average life expectancy following diagnosis with mesothelioma is about one year. The cancer treatment, Alimta, has been found to prolong life and relieve the pain of those suffering from mesothelioma. An independent report has found up to half of all Australians with mesothelioma are not receiving this standard-of-care treatment. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray the House to ensure the drug ALIMTA is immediately placed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or subsidised for those suffering from mesothelioma as soon as possible 17 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 17 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 16 3114 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. Request that the government take immediate action to address the chronic shortage of residential aged care beds and Community Aged Care Packages (CACP) in the Hunter and Central Coast. We further request that immediate action is taken to address the crisis in capital and recurrent funding, the crisis in wages and conditions of staff working in the aged care industry and that red tape and the current bureaucratic nightmare be resolved. 16 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 16 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 16 3114 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that Australian employees are worse off as a result of the Howard Government’s changes to the industrial relations system. The petitioners call upon the Howard Government to adopt a plan to produce a fair industrial relations system based on fairness and the fundamental principles of minimum standards, wages and conditions; safety nets; an independent umpire; the right to associate; and the right to collectively bargain. The petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the Howard Government delivers: Proper rights for Australian workers who are unfairly dismissed. A strong safety net of minimum awards and conditions. An independent umpire to ensure fair wages and conditions, and to settle disputes. The right for employees to bargain collectively for decent wages and conditions. The right for workers to reject individual contracts which cut pay and conditions, and undermine collective bargaining and union representation. The right to join a union and be represented by a union. 16 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 16 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 70 3114 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. We the undersigned request that the Government take action to improve our health system by reintroducing the Commonwealth Dental Scheme. The axing of the Commonwealth Dental Scheme was a direct result of a Howard Government decision and has caused great hardship to many local residents on low incomes particularly the elderly and those with young children. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to reintroduce the Commonwealth Dental Scheme as a matter of urgency. 70 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 70 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 1592 3115 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, the long dental waiting lists and the Howard Government’s failure to help fund dental care. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to: Re-establish a Commonwealth Dental Health Program. Ease the cost pressures on working families by contributing to the cost of dental care. Help keep people out of hospital for preventable dental conditions. End the Blame Game and work with the States and Territories to fix Australia’s dental care system. 1592 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 1,592 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 162 3115 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. We the undersigned request that the Government take action to improve the funding to Public Schools by restructuring the funding formula to ensure an equitable distribution of funding across all schools. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to restructure formula as a matter of urgency. 162 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 162 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 11 3115 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House its objection to a nuclear reactor or high level nuclear waste dump being built in our area. Your petitioners therefore request the House to reject any nuclear reactors or high level nuclear waste dumps being built in our community. 11 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 11 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 127 3115 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. To the Honourable the speaker and members of the house of Representatives assembled in parliament. The residents of Canberra, ACT draws to the attention of the house to the plight of child soldiers of Uganda, Sudan, Somalia and Algeria. Your petitioners therefore request that the house take immediate action by increasing the awareness of the Australian community in regard to this issue by raising the matter in parliament. In the hopes that this grievous atrocity against children will cease. The three things that we ask for are as follows: The broadcast of invisible children on ten, prime and win. The increasing of news articles written in the newspaper. A radio broadcast of people who have witnessed child soldiers. 127 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 127 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 354 3115 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of concerned residents of Australia draws the attention of the House the need for a Post Office in Jewells. We the undersigned believe that there should be a Post Office in the Jewellstown Shopping Centre. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the House to consider the opening of a Post Office at Jewells, as this area has the population to support their own service. 354 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 354 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 70 3115 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of the citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that there are plans to build a 3 kilometre wide and 1 kilometre deep open uranium mine at the Olympic Dam site near Roxby Downs, 500 kilometres north of Adelaide. If built, radon gas will affect all our cities and country towns. If the government allows the building of this mine we will have problems for thousands of years. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to step in and halt the expansion of the Olympic Dam site. 70 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 70 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 34 3116 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of certain Citizens of Australia originally from Latvia draws to the attention of the House the following: Since the end of the Second World War, many Latvians have immigrated to Australia permanently and have settled here becoming Australian citizens and raising their families. However, for many decades we, Latvians, have sought to receive our Pension Entitlements from our country of origin, Latvia, without success. Many of us had worked for period of between 15 and 35 years whilst in Latvia. To the present, all our efforts on behalf of our community through the Government of Latvia’s Diplomatic representative here have been unsuccessful. We are aware that other Latvian residents in the United States of America, Germany and other countries receive their pension entitlements. We therefore ask the House, to seek whatever can be undertaken within both Governmental and Diplomatic avenues to raise these issues with the Latvian Government counterparts. This is sought to make the anomaly that prevails addressed and justified entitlements available to those whom have given a majority of their working life to Latvia in the recent past. It is with request that we seek a just and equitable resolution to this matter. 34 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 34 citizens) Petitions received. 3116 10000 The CLERK The Clerk —Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows: 3116 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 17 March 2008, concerning a petition dealing with aspects of Australia’s immigration policy. As noted in the petition, the majority of Australians describe themselves as Christian. Judeo-Christian traditions have played an important part in Australia’s history, strongly influencing our values, beliefs and institutions. Selecting or refusing immigrants based on their religion, however, would be contrary to Australia’s migration program, which does not discriminate on the basis of race or religion. Anyone from any country may apply to migrate, regardless of their ethnic origin, gender, colour or religion, provided that they meet the criteria set down in law. Australia is and will remain a multicultural society. The Government is committed to a non-discriminatory immigration policy and has no plans to review this aspect of the migration program. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention on behalf of the petitioners. I trust the information provided is helpful. from the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, to a petition presented on 17 March by the Speaker (from 269 citizens). 3116 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 17 March 2008 referring the petition about treatment for mesothelioma sufferers through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Medicines are listed on the PBS on the advice of an independent, expert advisory body known as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) which is made up of doctors, other health professionals and a consumer representative. The PBAC considers applications from companies for PBS listing having regard to the medicine’s clinical effectiveness and value for money compared with other available treatments. I am pleased to advise that at its November 2007 meeting, the PBAC recommended the listing of the drug ALIMTA® (pemetrexed disodium) be extended for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. ALIMTA was PBS-listed on 1 January 2008 for the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. On 1 February 2008, the PBS listing restriction for ALIMTA was changed to include the treatment of all forms of malignant mesothelioma. This change was made because of the difficulty in establishing whether a tumour located outside the pleural region actually originated from within the pleural region, which could have denied access to patients who should have qualified for PBS subsidy. I trust that the above information is of use. from the Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon, to a petition presented on 17 March by the Speaker (from 833 citizens). 3117 Dear Ms Irwin Thank you for your letter of 17 March 2008 in relation to a petition from Mr Matthew Kool about dissatisfaction in Centrelink service provision, in particular, the Morwell Centrelink Customer Service Centre. I also received a copy of the petition earlier in the year through a representation by the Member for Gippsland, the Hon Peter McGauran MP, who wrote to me directly on Mr Kool’s behalf. I take feedback such as this seriously and I asked Centrelink to review the issues raised by Mr Kool. Both myself and Centrelink are committed to excellence in customer service and we will continue to build confidence in the way Centrelink conducts its business, through continuous improvement. I acknowledge that at times breakdowns can occur. However, as an organisation, Centrelink values and responds to customer feedback and takes necessary action when required. Since July 2005, Centrelink has undertaken the systematic measuring of how long customers wait between entering Customer Service Centres and being seen by an employee. Although queue wait times at Morwell are generally within the Centrelink standard, delays were identified for several weeks towards the end of 2007 and at the beginning of 2008. This was a result of a seasonal peak in workload, arising from former students entering the labour force. This has now been overcome and, since early February, Morwell Customer Service Centre has been well within the acceptable queue wait time. As a result of the issues with queue wait times for the above mentioned period, a thorough review of Morwell’s operations, including staffing levels, was undertaken in late January 2008 prior to and during the time of the petition. Several measures were introduced as a result of the review. These include ensuring more effective rostering of employees to better meet peak periods, improved management of workflow and employee work practices and an increased emphasis on employee training to ensure availability of skills across all customer groups. A new leadership team was appointed to identify and lead the implementation of these changes. These measures have already led to significant improvements in queue wait times. In addition, the office layout at Morwell has been redesigned to address the concerns of senior customers by creating a separate service area for them. The changes have been commented on positively by this particular customer group. In the near future, Centrelink will be holding a community focus group to identify any further areas for improvement. Two different teams of employees work within the Morwell Customer Service Centre; one is dedicated to face-to-face customer service and one is part of a national business integrity team focused on compliance processing work on a national basis. The business integrity team does not normally provide front-line customer service, however, the team assists front-line employees during periods of peak demand by providing targeted support for customers wishing to take up the self-service option. The front-line employees provide services to all customers at two access points in the office; the Seniors and the Working Age service areas. The new office layout is such that the working areas are physically independent of each other. Centrelink is committed to making it easy for customers to access our services. Morwell, along with Warragul and Wonthaggi Customer Service Centres, provide services to the LaTrobe Valley and South Gippsland areas. In view of the distance some customers, who wish to have face-to-face contact, have to travel to access Centrelink services, a series of Agents operate in most of the major small towns across the region. Customers are also being encouraged, where possible, to conduct aspects of their business online or by telephone via Interactive Voice Response, thus reducing their need to personally visit Customer Service Centres. The Morwell Centrelink Customer Service Centre services the three major centres of Morwell, Moe and Traralgon. No onsite service has ever been provided within Moe or Traralgon as both areas are in reasonable proximity to Morwell. Under Social Security Law, customers also have rights of review and appeal against decisions made by Centrelink. The review and appeals system is designed to protect customer rights and ensure correct decisions are made in accordance with legislation. It consists of both internal and external review mechanisms. Customers who are dissatisfied with the service they have received can contact Centrelink’s Customer Relations Line on Freecall 1800 050 004. Where there is evidence that a breakdown in service has occurred, the matter is thoroughly investigated. from the Minister for Human Services, Senator Ludwig, to a petition presented on 17 March by the Speaker (from 1,713 citizens). 3118 Bills R2955 3118 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 3118 Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney —Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women) 16:26:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 3118 Bills R2956 3118 Bills returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 3118 Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney —Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women) 16:27:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 3118 Committees 3118 3118 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Forshaw has been appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. 3119 Bills R2978 3119 Bills R2921 3119 Bills R2916 3119 Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request. 3119 Bills R2926 3119 Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate and without further requests. 3119 Bills R2958 3119 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 3119 Bills R2946 3119 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 3119 Leave of Absence Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Reid —Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services) 16:31:00 —I move: That leave of absence from 26 May 2008 to 4 September be given to Ms King for maternity purposes. Question agreed to. 3119 Business 3119 Mr PRICE (Chifley) 16:32:00 —by leave—I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, at the commencement of the Main Committee meeting tomorrow, the first item of business shall be Members’ statements, each for no longer than 3 minutes, with the item of business continuing for 30 minutes irrespective of suspensions for divisions in the House. Question agreed to. 3119 Bills R2970 3119 Bills R2959 3119 Bills R2961 3119 3119 16:33:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —I move: That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. I indicate to the House that these measures enjoy the support of the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax. Question agreed to. 3120 Bills R2973 Cognate bills: 3120 Bills R2974 3120 Bills R2975 3120 Bills R2976 3120 Bills R2977 3120 Debate resumed from 15 May, on motion by Mr Swan: That this bill be now read a second time. 3120 16:34:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 0 Mr DUTTON —I rise to speak to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009. I also speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2007-2008 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2007-2008. These important cognate bills will appropriate funds for approximately one-quarter of the Commonwealth government’s spending. The coalition supports the appropriation of moneys from consolidated revenues to Commonwealth government departments and agencies outlined in the details of these bills. However, these bills are also a key part of the ongoing political stunt by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, and the Treasurer in particular to dupe Australians into a false sense of security that the country’s finances are being managed responsibly by this government. In the lead-up to the budget I spoke on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2007-08 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2007-08. The government used those bills as an opportunity to include $643 million of so-called cuts. As I said then, the $643 million included underspends in some programs, the transferring of some of the spending across to other programs and also some cuts in programs which the coalition announced before the election or that we undertook to deliver to the Australian people prior to the campaign period but which were not implemented for administrative reasons. The government tried to sell these as legitimate cuts to fight inflation. Appropriation bills Nos 3 and 4 for 2007-08 set the precedent, and I note that the government has continued with this theme into the 2008-09 budget. The Australian people should quite rightly ask themselves, ‘Are we getting what we voted for?’ The modus operandi of this government is simple. It is weak on policy and strong on spin. They make promises that they cannot keep, such as lowering the price of groceries, and then they sit on their hands and watch what happens under FuelWatch—that is, fuel prices go up. The budget, of which these bills before the House are a key component, shows us that the government is high taxing and high spending. The government has cut $15.2 billion in coalition programs but has added $30.1 billion in new Labor spending. In fact, spending will increase by $14.9 billion over the estimates, and it is that point which I would like to examine in some detail for a moment. The Treasurer has made repeated claims that this budget is not political but that it is a nation-building budget for the future; it is a budget for the next decade. And we have heard this quoted ad nauseam. Mr Swan has said that he wants to remove politics from the job and that he wants to take the politics out of budgets. Can you believe this bloke? He wants to take the politics out of budgets by ‘framing economic policy with an eye to the next decade, not the next poll or the next election’. Keep that quote in mind when you consider this carefully. Remember that this is a budget for the next decade when you consider that expenditure from 2009-10 onwards over the forward estimates will rise—and rise significantly. It will take a significant jump from 2008-09 to 2009-10 in particular. According to the budget papers the real growth in budget spending from 2008-09 to 2009-10 will be 5.5 per cent. With the exception of the year the GST was introduced you have to go back to the former Labor government in 1991-92 to find a similarly sized increase. But what does that mean? Perhaps I can allow the Assistant Treasurer to explain this for us. When he was asked, on Sky’s Agenda program, about the significant spending rises to occur in 2009-10 and later, he replied that the ‘forward estimates indicate forecasts and of course in next year’s budget we’ll reassess the situation and will make changes accordingly’. So this is the government’s long-term, 10-year, non-political strategy. Think about this in the context of the ALP’s MO: talk up the problem, frighten people, make hollow promises and then stand around and watch, generally for some period to come, until governments of the future fix the problem. That is what happened with Labor in the past; it is what will happen with Labor into the future. Labor spend. They tax and spend, put us into debt and then wait for the return of a coalition government to shore the finances of the country back to a reasonable state. It is the case, at the moment, of history repeating itself, and people should take note of the first budget delivered by this Labor government. The government have talked up inflation and talked up saving for the future. They have talked about the long-term commitment to nation building and, when it comes down to it, all that was delivered by the Treasurer on the evening of 13 May 2008 was a one-year budget. The government was quick to criticise the coalition for its spending habits when it was in opposition but the reality is that as a percentage of GDP the coalition was one of the lowest-spending governments of the last 30 years. The appropriation bills we are debating today are full of spin. The government claims to have found $7 billion in savings in 2008-09. There are many examples in the budget papers of so-called savings that are simply a redirection of funding—in other words, the government has cut a coalition program and replaced it with their own Labor Party program. Yet they claim this as a saving under the auspices of their ‘responsible economic management’ measures. Take for example the measure with the title ‘Responsible Economic Management—Green Vouchers for Schools’, which is on page 350 of Budget Paper No. 2. It says: The Government will redirect funding from the Green Vouchers for Schools program to the new National Solar Schools Plan. This measure will provide savings of $334.3 million over four years to partially offset the Government’s election commitment National Solar Schools Plan. Here the government claims $334.3 million in savings—savings which simply do not exist, as money is being channelled directly into a Labor program. And the Labor economic genius, Lindsay Tanner, claims the money is not inflationary anymore! This economic theory seems to be based on a principle of money laundering. The money is dirty and inflationary in a coalition program, but when washed through the budget, resurfacing as a Labor program, it is no longer inflationary! In total there is almost $4 billion over the estimates for similar measures which simply redirect funding, with the claim that the associated measure is some form of saving. That is all spin, no substance. The coalition has been accused of not planning for the future, of not saving the proceeds of the mining boom. But let us take a minute to look at the facts. The coalition inherited from the previous incompetent Labor government a $96 billion debt. Through the responsible and effective fiscal management by Australia’s most successful federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, that debt was paid off. Then the coalition developed a plan to use the budget surplus to prepare the next generation for the fiscal challenges that it will face. The coalition government’s Intergenerational report shows that over the next 40 years pressure on the budget will increase as a result of the ageing of the population—with the number of Australians aged over 65 expected to double. The coalition inherited a ballooning, unfunded superannuation liability, which we addressed by closing the PSS and creating the Future Fund. To ensure Australia’s long-term financial security, and to remove a substantial financial burden from the next generation and improve their ability to cope with the effect of an ageing population, we created the Future Fund. In doing so we also passed the Future Fund Act 2006, which put in place the governance arrangements for the fund. That is a very important point to underscore as part of this debate. That fund was a concept quite foreign to the Labor Party. This is not a normal investment fund. Something that I think is sometimes lost is that this is not just like a term deposit down at the local bank or a managed share fund. Peter Costello’s legacy—the coalition legacy—in that budget was to provide that Future Fund. Surpluses have now become the norm, and governments have a variety of options to think about when considering what to do with the budget surplus, and whether that money should be spent or saved. Of course the coalition, as much as possible, returned the surpluses to the Australian people in the form of tax cuts, and created this futuristic fund which kept an eye on the future to try to offset some future liabilities that would otherwise have hung around the necks of many young Australians for generations to come. The Future Fund is Australia’s nest egg. It will provide a significant contribution to Australia’s financial security onward into the future, thanks to the coalition. The next generation will not have to pay for the liabilities of this generation. The coalition left in place a distinct accountability regime for the Future Fund.  The Future Fund Act 2006 states that the mandate must have regard to maximising returns on the fund over the long term, consistent with international best practice for institutional investment and other matters considered relevant by ministers. The current mandate sets a target return of between 4.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent above the CPI measure of inflation over the long term. The board has interpreted this as an objective to provide a return of at least 5 per cent above CPI over rolling 10-year periods. It is recognised that as the fund transitions to a long-term strategic asset allocation, a return lower than this benchmark is expected. The Board of Guardians is responsible for deciding how to invest assets. The board is governed by both Future Fund and Higher Education Endowment Fund legislation and the investment mandates are established by the responsible ministers: the Treasurer and the now Minister for Finance and Deregulation. The board, with the support of the Future Fund Management Agency, builds the investment strategy and is accountable for the performance of the fund. Compare the responsibility, accountability and transparency of the arrangements of the Future Fund that I have just outlined to that of the proposed Building Australia Fund, the Education Investment Fund and the Health and Hospitals Fund, hereafter referred to as the Labor Party slush funds. Labor has announced that it will place $41 billion into these slush funds and then spend $41 billion of the slush funds, as well as the interest, on infrastructure projects. This was announced in the budget and there is precious little detail available on how these slush funds will be set up and how the slush will be administered. This of course causes us considerable concern because we are talking about a large amount of taxpayers’ money—$41 billion, plus interest—in the slush fund that will require significant management, accountability and transparency. This is Australia’s dividend from the mining boom and the Labor Party are already in discussions about how to divvy it up between the state governments. 00ATG Shorten, Bill, MP Mr Shorten —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have listened to the member for Dickson using the term ‘slush fund’. ‘Slush fund’ has a clear connotation of people using funds for their personal advantage. Clearly the funds proposed by the federal government are not that. I understand, under standing orders, that speakers in this place should not impugn the personal motivations of other members of parliament. So the point of order is— 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—The term ‘slush fund’ has not been regarded as unparliamentary. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr DUTTON —Of course, the Labor Party in New South Wales is certainly the king of these sorts of issues. It is interesting to see contributions from individuals about the operation of the New South Wales government and certain issues which have been aired there recently. We would not like to see a transfer of that sort of behaviour from the New South Wales Labor Party into the federal arena. I think it would be a very sad development indeed that a New South Wales Labor Party member would make that contribution, and such a weak point of order should be noted as part of this debate. 00ATG Shorten, Bill, MP Mr Shorten — Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the member for Dickson is geographically challenged, but I am from Victoria. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The point has been made. There is no point of order. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr DUTTON —Already Victoria has said—if we want to talk about Victoria—it expects about a quarter of the Building Australia Fund, and we know that Queensland thinks it is getting about $8 billion. Who knows what other grubby deals have already been done between New South Wales, Victoria, the Northern Territory, Queensland—wherever it might be. Labor Party grubby paws are all over this deal. We are concerned we are left with a lot of unanswered questions about how the money will be spent: what rate of return will the government seek; will the government be seeking public-private partnerships; how will this be legislated; will the legislation, like the coalition’s legislation for the Future Fund, include a target rate of return for the investment? Not that that would be too important in the long term, of course, because Labor is intent on spending not just the return but also the capital—also the capital. Again, that is a point which distinguishes it from that which the coalition put forward in terms of the Future Fund, where we preserve the capital with some eye on the future. Labor has no credibility when you look at their track record at a state level in terms of infrastructure spending, and that is also a point that commentators need to take into consideration when Mr Rudd, in his proposals with this slush fund, will be paying for the work—in many cases the failed work—of state Labor governments. The government has already shown that it is incapable of making the sound, sensible decisions that are required to successfully run this great country, so it is no surprise that it will seek help with these various infrastructure funds. They have held summits, they have held talk fests, they have set up endless reviews, they have sat around and watched petrol prices go up and up and up, so why should we expect the treatment of the $41 billion slush fund to be any different? In the spirit of its indecisiveness, this government will engage others to work out the projects on which all of this money, including the capital, will be spent. Presumably, the people who assess the projects will then put recommendations up for cabinet consideration, where it will then go behind closed doors for no-one to see. This is where the political interference certainly will come in. The veil of cabinet-in-confidence will come down over the projects and the Australian public will have no idea about the decision-making process and which projects get missed and why. The government has been given the opportunity to assure Australians that the decision-making process will be open and transparent, but as yet there has been nothing. They have done nothing else while they have been in government, and this is no exception. Cabinet documents will not be released and the government cannot commit to not announcing projects during election campaigns. Thus I think we are seeing the birth of the biggest election war chest in Australian political history. Despite the Treasurer’s rhetoric about this budget not being political, despite the Treasurer’s rhetoric about it being for the future of Australia and despite the Treasurer telling us that the budget is a decade-long exercise in fiscal responsibility, the budget is political—it is about the next 12 months for Australia and the only thing in this equation is the future of the Labor Party over the next decade, at both a federal and a state level. The infrastructure funds are certainly nothing more than slush funds—slush funds for Labor and their mates. We cannot be sure and will never be sure that the infrastructure projects that Labor will undertake will not favour marginal seats, as the ultimate decision about these projects will be behind closed doors. Rex Connor would have loved this process. Another area that first concerned me when I read about these infrastructure funds and the large amount of construction that the Prime Minister plans to undertake—probably personally, if he can find the time—is: how will Australia’s construction industry cope with the surge in investment? Where will Labor find the skills it needs to undertake this mammoth nation-building task? I was quickly reminded, however, that this budget will put 134,000 people out of work. One hundred and thirty-four thousand Australians will not be paying tax and will instead be on welfare. One hundred and thirty-four thousand Australians, through the deliberate policy measures of the Labor Party in this budget, will find it more difficult to cope with rising grocery prices, petrol prices and other cost of living pressures, including the higher interest rates that this inflationary budget will surely bring. After realising that 134,000 Australians will be looking for work, it became apparent where the manpower for the nation building will come from. No doubt soon we will see technical colleges springing up all over Australia to retrain those unfortunate 134,000 Australians. They are unfortunate because we have a Labor government who believes in higher unemployment, and they will be the first to suffer. The budget for 2008-09 and these appropriation bills are not all that they seem. They are examples of Labor Party spin. It is trickery, and it is clever trickery. It is a typical Labor budget, high taxing and high spending. There is no doubt that Australians are feeling cheated by their government. They were promised cheaper petrol, but the government acknowledge that there is nothing more that they can do, in the Prime Minister’s own words. They were promised cheaper groceries, and again the government are doing nothing to help deliver cheaper groceries. The government promised an inflation-fighting budget, and again they have not delivered. Consider the views of these experts. Goldman Sachs, in its budget review, said: While the ALP has gone to great lengths to claim that this Budget will ease inflationary pressures, most of the supply enhancing initiatives involve large implementation lags. In reality, the ALP’s biggest contribution to inflation is that it is not making the inflation process worse. This is from Chris Richardson, head of Access Economics’ macroeconomic group: “The risk from this budget is that inflation could go up,” … “The risk is that the economy is travelling faster and that puts upwards pressure on wages, prices and interest rates. Chances are that interest rates this year are likely to go up rather than down.” That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the inflation-fighting budget that we had to have. In conclusion, it must be said that, while we are examining these bills and the expenditure measures that relate to them, we will be paying careful attention to the nature of the spending cuts and exactly whom they impact the most. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation can expect many questions in the coming months about why these cuts are appropriate and exactly how these cuts will put downward pressure on inflation. These bills provide a capacity to appropriate money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the proper running of the government, and the detail is provided in the bills. The issue contained within this debate and within the budget will not disappear quickly. We will continue to ask questions about how the slush fund money will be spent, and I look forward to that debate. (Time expired) 3125 16:55:00 Shorten, Bill, MP 00ATG Maribyrnong ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services 1 0 Mr SHORTEN —I rise to support Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and related bills. This is a nation-building budget, a budget for which this country has waited 11 long years. It is a budget which heralds a new and much needed era of strategic investment by the Australian government to harness future opportunities and deal with future challenges. The Rudd government has its eyes firmly on the future, with a passion to give all Australians a fair go. It is the first instalment of a coherent agenda to deal with the realities of 21st century life. It puts the importance of education and a smarter society squarely at the forefront. Australia is the lucky country, but luck does not come by chance. To maximise our opportunities, we have to skill our workforce and engage in the increasing global competition for resources of labour. We cannot compete solely on the price of labour; that is a race to the bottom we do not want to win. Education is the key to going up the value-added chain and, after the last 10 years of neglect, it is a vision to applaud. This is a budget which starts to deal with the big, over-the-horizon issues. It certainly is not a budget that this nation has seen for many years. It is not a short-term, electoral cycle budget, the likes of which we became accustomed to under the former Prime Minister and the member for Higgins. It is not the budget of an alcopop-swilling, divided, narcissistically disloyal, self-blogging, luxury-car-tax-defending, chair-sniffing Liberal Party. It is a budget that in fact acknowledges the challenges ahead and lays down the foundation to meet them. (Quorum formed) In infrastructure, health, education, training and environment, this is a budget which builds greater capacity for economic growth well into the future. The Rudd government knows there are significant tests and challenges ahead, but we are determined to meet them all head-on as responsible economic managers planning for and investing in our future and supporting those Australians who are doing it tough. In the words of our Treasurer, this budget is: 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. This budget makes the down payment for future prosperity by making investments today for the economy of tomorrow. This budget meets the government’s commitments and begins a new era of responsible long-term investment to strengthen our economy, fight inflation and meet the future from a position of strength. This budget has been delivered in times far more testing than those faced by the previous government, not only because of the inflation legacy they left us but also because of the more uncertain international economic outlook as a consequence of the credit crunch and the impact on the outlook for economic growth, in the United States in particular. Of course, some of the decisions included in this year’s budget have been made even harder because of the negligence of the previous administration. That the decisions were hard, however, did not stop the Treasurer from making them, and that is the true mark of a responsible economic manager. This government has been single minded in laying the foundations for Australia’s future. In contrast to the previous government’s reckless pork barrelling and blatant vote grabbing, this government is investing in priority areas of education, health and environment to build prosperity in the future. We are implementing our election commitments in areas like health, child care and education to meet the needs of a modern Australia while delivering for families. The new spending in 2008-09 is offset by spending cuts—the tough decisions which were not the hallmark of the previous government. We must never forget that workers and families are the backbone of our economy. Our $55 billion Working Families Support Package rewards families for their hard work and helps them cope with the rising costs of living. In a few short months, the Rudd Labor government has earned the respect of commentators and the electorate alike by tackling the hard issues. In this budget the government has dealt head-on with the acceleration of inflation and the tightening of domestic financial conditions. These conditions are in part, I believe, a direct consequence of the Howard government’s sustained underinvestment in physical and social infrastructure in preference for short-term spending, synchronised—like the Chinese synchronised swimming team—with the electoral cycle. In 1907, Justice Higgins, in making his famous Harvester judgement in my electorate of Maribyrnong, heard from workers’ wives about the difficulty in meeting everyday costs of living, including food, shelter and clothing, and about their consequential loss of dignity. One hundred years later, these issues are still plaguing many Australians. In the tradition of Justice Higgins and the fair go of Australia, the reforms in this budget will help people make ends meet, through tax cuts, the Working Families Support Package and other messages. This government is fighting inflation because it hurts the economy and it hurts working families. That is why the government will deliver a strong surplus of 1.8 per cent of GDP, with every dollar of new spending in 2008 more than matched by spending cuts. Growth and real spending will be 1.1 per cent in 2008-09—the lowest rate for nine years. Over four years, this budget makes savings of $33.3 billion, including no less than $7.3 billion in 2008-09. We understand a strong surplus is required to bear down on inflationary pressures in the economy; to provide funds for long-term investment in the infrastructure, education, training, health and hospital needs of the nation; and to ensure a strong budget at a time of heightened uncertainty in the global economy. I understand Australia’s greatest resource is our people. Investing in people, in their health, their skills and their families, is the only path to a successful future and a more modern, productive economy. That is where the government has squarely aimed this budget—and not a minute too soon, as the Howard government, asleep at the wheel, failed to ensure that Australia trained enough new or existing workers to keep up with the skill demands that have been placed on the Australian economy and its workers. There is unprecedented demand for Australia’s resources on the back of growing global prosperity. Our mineral and energy resources are enjoying record prices. Our iron, steel, alumina and aluminium exports are contributing to building and shaping the future global prosperity. Our economy, as a consequence, has been growing at a steady clip for the last 16 years. But the previous government failed to invest over this period, and it is not a mistake the Rudd government will make. Our government is focusing on improving productivity by investing in skills and infrastructure and encouraging participation. This budget deals with the three Ps which hold the key to Australia’s future prosperity: productivity, participation and population. Higher productivity leads to higher real GDP and higher real wages, while increased participation obviously means employment and real GDP growth. Productivity growth means we can produce more goods and services with the same resources and is the key to improving living standards. The budget has a range of measures aimed at building economic capacity to maximise Australia’s fortunes and deal with both the current and future challenges. Productivity has averaged 1.4 per cent per annum over the past five years—lower than any other five-year period in the last decade and a half. This slowdown has increased price pressures, as firms seek to recover higher input costs. The budget starts to redress this underachievement. In fact, the number of new funds—from the building fund to the Health and Hospitals Fund, to the Education Investment Fund—shows at last a determination to save and invest in Australia’s future. Indeed, in 2008-09, Infrastructure Australia will clear the bottlenecks left by the previous government, complete a national infrastructure audit and develop an infrastructure priority list to guide public and private investment. And it will develop best practice guidelines for public-private partnerships. Business needs flexibility in the workplace to boost productivity, and employees need job security, the protection of minimum conditions and time with family. The government’s workplace relations laws provide both fairness and flexibility, things the previous government’s Work Choices promised but, as thousands of Australians know to their cost, spectacularly failed to deliver. We can export more than iron ore to China, because of Australia’s world-class funds management industry. A funds management industry built up by a strong superannuation industry, built as a result of the foresight of the Hawke and Keating Labor governments and with the contribution of Mr Bill Kelty, former Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In what key business leaders have called a vote of confidence for the fund management industry, changes in the financial services industry will benefit all Australians by diversifying the economy and by providing opportunities in knowledge and financial innovation jobs, making Australia a financial services hub of the Asia-Pacific. The government is also committed to improving skills through $1.9 billion to deliver up to 450,000 additional training places over the next number of years. The government is investing in the education and skills of all Australians in order to lift participation rates in the economy by establishing Skilling Australia for the Future, trade training centres in schools, increased skilled migration and Skills Australia. As the budget is providing incentives for the population to improve the ability of people to contribute constructively in order to improve their overall living standards, we need to recognise that ageing is a particular longer term challenge facing the economy. As the population ages and the proportion of people in the workforce falls, the challenge will be to maintain economic growth while containing pressures on the budget. Whilst the ageing population may be a challenge, it is a challenge that we as a nation are lucky to have, as ageing certainly beats the alternative. This budget starts to put in place policies to address it, including the provision of incentives such as personal income tax cuts. This government has reduced tax as a share of the GDP from the tax bandit years of the Howard government which saw revenue as 24.7 per cent of the national GDP in 2007-08 to 23.8 per cent in 2008-09. This meets the government’s medium-term objective of keeping taxation, as a share of GDP on average, below the high levels of the Howard government’s most recent years before it lost office at the last election. The government will fully implement its promise to reduce personal income tax by $47 billion over four years. This tax cut is directed at low- and middle-income families—the backbone of the economy, as I said earlier. They will allow low-income earners, including part-time workers, to keep more of their income, will ease the financial pressure on families and 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 receiving $14,000 or less will pay no tax at all. In addition to the announced cuts in tax rates, the Henry review of Australia’s tax system is a welcome and long overdue initiative focusing on root and branch tax reform. The budget also helps parents with care for their children and investment in their education. Access to high-quality child care plays an important role in improving children’s education and development and helps parents to choose to return to work. Childcare and education costs are addressed by lifting the childcare tax rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent—which is valued at $1.6 billion—and introducing a new education tax refund valued at $4.4 billion. The government is also improving housing affordability with a $2.2 billion package through the First Home Saver Account, the National Rental Affordability Scheme and the Housing Affordability Fund. This government understands that all Australians are a valued and valuable part of our community, and this budget has been framed to ensure policies that are socially inclusive. Carers and older Australians make significant contributions to our society, and this budget reflects that commitment. To assist seniors and carers to meet rising costs, the Rudd government will provide one-off lump sum payments of $500 to eligible senior Australians, $1,000 to carer payment recipients and $600 to carer allowance recipients by 30 June 2008, at a cost of $1.8 billion. The government has also, for the first time, extended the utilities allowance to carer payment and disability support pension recipients and increased the following yearly allowances: the seniors concession allowance from $218 to $500 and the utilities allowance from $107.20 to $500. I am also delighted that the government is introducing fairer assessment of the child carer payment from 1 July 2009, which will cost another $274 million over five years. As a result, an additional 19,000 carers of children with a severe disability are expected to be able to access the carer payment in 2009-10. Importantly, a further $20 million has been allocated to help families adjust when a child has experienced a catastrophic event such as a severe illness, a major disability or an injury due to an accident. Importantly, $100 million of capital funding will be provided to the states to build new supported accommodation for people with disabilities. Our DNA is hard-wired to make sure our children have the best opportunities in life, and the government understands this. We understand the fear and anxiety of elderly parents of children with disabilities—parents who worry about the care of their child when they are no longer able to care for them themselves. Up to 35 new facilities will benefit approximately 200-plus people who do not have access to appropriate accommodation at this stage. It is a small first step, but a vital one which helps our most vulnerable citizens. I do believe that this government is united by a common desire to see every individual enjoy the longest life full of quality and meaning. I am excited by the opportunity this budget offers my constituency in the disability community, as I indicated in my first speech, not so that people with disability receive special treatment but so they receive the same treatment as everybody else—the rights which are theirs with the dignity that they deserve. This budget also provides for the development of a national disability strategy. Consultations will commence, and this strategy is another demonstration of leadership from this government in this area. In conclusion, this budget has all the hallmarks of a true progressive Labor document. Ralph Waldo Emerson described the difference between American progressives and conservatives. He said: Mankind … is divided between the party of Conservatism and the party of Innovation, between the Past and the Future, between Memory and Hope. If we adapt his analysis to Australia, it is clear that Labor is the party of innovation, of hope and of the future. Arthur Schlesinger, speaking of the politics of hope, argued that in politics ‘Innovation is the salient energy; Conservatism the pause on the last movement.’ The concept of pause fitted the previous Howard government all too well. In thwarting the move to a republic, neutralising the hope for reconciliation, downplaying global warming and the importance of climate control, failing to secure and protect Australia’s long-term water resources and not addressing the productivity slide and the skills crisis, the conservatives sat back or slid backwards. The most extreme step, well beyond a mere pause, was the Work Choices laws, which returned Australia to the 1890s temporarily. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 00ATG Shorten, Bill, MP Mr SHORTEN —Yet John Howard was neither a Liberal federalist, in the member for Sturt’s mould, nor a leader in the Alfred Deakin liberal tradition. His industrial relations experiment relied upon a contemporary and questionable interpretation of the community’s mandate. Mr Howard was perhaps less the ideologue that he is portrayed as by some of his critics and more of the opportunist. Unquestionably, we saw the Howard decade end any remaining strand of liberalism in the Liberal Party—that is, what has not been ended by the right wing of the New South Wales Liberal Party. It is certainly far from clear what, if anything, the new leader—or new leaders—of the Liberals will add. The modern Labor Party is a party of hope and innovation, which has been proved by the federal budget introduced into this place by the Treasurer. To repeat the Treasurer’s words: It is a Labor Budget for the nation. For Australia’s future. For all Australians. I commend the bill to this House. 3130 17:15:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —I would recommend to the member for Maribyrnong that he read the articles from the former member for Werriwa in the Financial Review on Fridays because he will find them very illuminating about what the former member thinks of this Labor budget. I do not think he agrees with the member for Maribyrnong. I am not sure whether, when the former member for Werriwa was leader of the Labor Party and the member for Maribyrnong was leader of his union, they were close friends. The former member has some quite interesting things to say about the Labor Party’s budget. It would be good reading for the member for Maribyrnong and even for the member for Reid, who was very close to the former member for Werriwa for a very long time. As well as being the member for Sturt, I am fortunate to be the shadow minister for justice and border protection and it is in that role that I intend to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009, the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009, the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009, the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2007-2008 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2007-2008 to elucidate to the House the failings of this government with respect to the Australian Federal Police and Customs in particular. I am also the assisting shadow minister for immigration so, if I have time in the appropriations debate, I intend to also speak about some of the failings of this government on immigration, particularly in relation to my great state of South Australia. As a government, our record on border protection and national security is second to none. I think that most of the Australian public would agree, even if they did not agree with all of the aspects of the former government’s policies, that one thing that was overwhelmingly supported was our record on border protection and national security. Threats to our security are becoming increasingly complex and unpredictable. A government’s first responsibility must always be to protect the freedom and way of life that we treasure. In its 11 years the Howard government recognised the importance of border protection and national security. Between its election in March 1996 and its last budget in 2007, the coalition increased funding to all of our security agencies. Customs funding was increased from $357 million to $1,000 million, Australian Federal Police funding was increased from $205 million to $976 million, ASIO funding was increased from $52 million to $291 million, and AFP staff were increased from 2,722 as at June 1996 to an incredible 6,011 in June 2007. Over 11 years the previous government gave our border protection and national security agencies real teeth: it increased regional and global cooperation in law enforcement activities and legal assistance to boost the fight against terrorism and transnational crime; it delivered substantial enhancements of aviation and maritime security; it delivered a ‘tough on drugs’ approach that has increased seizures and reduced drug use; and it tackled illegal immigration both on our borders and at the source. By comparison, the new Labor government has shown itself to be weak and uninterested in border protection and national security. I turn to some of the aspects of this budget that expose the Labor government for their weakness with border protection and national security. The first is their confidence trick in relation to the ‘more cops on the beat’ announcement in the budget and before the election. The delivery of more sworn Federal Police officers by this government has been revealed by the budget papers as a three-year trickle followed by a fourth-year tsunami that may never come. The 2008-09 budget reveals that the vast bulk of Labor’s 500 sworn Federal Police officers will not come to be employed until after the next federal election. The budget shows that only $36.7 million or 19 per cent of funding for this initiative will be spent before the next election, due in 2010. The government is clearly so embarrassed about this funding shortfall that they have refused to include any detail on how many extra sworn officers will be employed each year. Our calculations suggest that in the coming year there will be 31 new sworn officers, followed by 30 officers in 2009-10 and 39 officers in 2010-11. This means that, far from the 500 new officers trumpeted by Labor’s election promise, only 99 officers will be delivered before the next election, then in 2011-12 another 213 officers will become active, followed by the final 188 in 2012-13. The stated intention of this ALP promise was to bolster the Australian Federal Police numbers on the streets. The budget has revealed that their promise was utterly hollow. We need a strong Federal Police force to protect Australia from transnational crime, overseas and onshore terrorist operations, people-smuggling and human slave-trading operations, child pornography rings and the scourge of ice, Afghan brown heroin and other drugs, and we need them for all of the other important work that they do. The public expected to see Labor’s AFP officers on the streets on 1 January 2008. Instead we will see most of them after 2011. Labor’s promise was all spin and no substance. The budget also slashed border protection funding. The Australian Customs Service have suffered a substantial budget cut, exposing Labor’s old-fashioned weakness in the area of border protection and national security. Australian Customs have been slashed by $51.5 million in real terms, which amounts to a 3.4 per cent cut to the Customs budget. Australian Customs have more demands placed on them than ever before in protecting Australia’s borders from dangerous illicit drugs, disease and the terrorist threat, amongst other things. With reports indicating increases in illegal tobacco or chop-chop and Afghan brown heroin on the streets of Australian cities, this is not the time to be cutting the Customs budget. Cuts to Australian Customs, who are the front line in Australia’s border protection security, would have been unthinkable for any sensible government. The ALP has played to form and has started undoing the strong support that our national security agencies enjoyed under the coalition government. Underfunded agencies will be unable to deliver strong border protection which places Australia’s interests and Australian lives at risk. Not content with cuts to Customs, the new Labor government has slugged working families with a travel tax grab. Australian working families looking to take a break or to have a holiday are going to be slugged as of 1 July 2008 with a new tax, courtesy of the Rudd government’s first budget. The 2008-09 budget has revealed an increase in the passenger movement charge from $38 to $47, a 24 per cent increase that will force up the price of airline tickets for Australian holiday-makers as well as overseas tourists. This is another inflationary tax hike to add to the growing pile, with taxes on premixed drinks and luxury cars announced prebudget. The government have been especially tricky in relation to this measure. They claim in their promotional material that this tax, which will raise $459.3 million over the next four years, is necessary to offset the cost of a range of aviation security initiatives and the cost of processing international passengers at international airports. If this were true, we would see that money being put back into Customs. The fact is, as I have already said, that Customs has seen its budget slashed this year by $51.5 million in real terms. This is really a raw deal for Customs. Next year alone they will collect $106.3 million from this tax on the public, only to see it funnelled into Wayne Swan’s general revenue, as they continue having to protect Australia’s borders with reduced funds. This revenue will not be used to protect Australian travellers; this is just another ALP tax hike. The Australian Federal Police task force charged with tracking and catching online child predators and paedophiles has been cut in Labor’s first budget. Labor has got this completely wrong. One of the greatest fears a parent has is that their child will be preyed upon in an internet chat room or harassed online. The Protecting Australian Families Online package gave parents some peace of mind, knowing that the Australian Federal Police were actively tracking child predators and paedophiles. Labor have replaced it with their cyber safety plan, which removes $37.2 million over five years from the overall package. Disturbingly, they have cut $2.8 million over four years from the AFP’s role. Under Labor’s plan, the AFP is left with fewer resources to tackle these insidious predators. Critically, our capacity to work with international agencies through the online child-exploitation task force has been reduced. The internet operates globally, and effectively tackling child exploitation requires international coordination. The challenges increase exponentially each year. This area needs increased resources, not fewer. When there is a $21.7 billion budget surplus, it beggars belief that Labor feels the need to make cuts in this important area. This bizarre move highlights the Rudd government’s overall shift away from the coalition’s record of strong support for our national security agencies to the old fashioned Labor weakness in this vital area. The Rudd government is obsessed with tokenism and spin in matters of national security. The 2008 budget shows that the activities of Australia’s national anticorruption watchdog, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, are being crippled by underfunding. ACLEI was established by the Howard government to root out corruption in federal agencies. Despite the Rudd government’s promise to increase the size of the AFP, the government has failed to adequately fund ACLEI proportionately to that increase. Media reports indicate that a former head of ACLEI, John McMillan, said that to be effective the body needed a tenfold increase in investigative staff and substantial extra funding. The same report suggests that ACLEI will be unable to perform duties such as wire-tapping and covert operations essential to rooting out corruption. While the Rudd government trumpets increases in the size of the Australian Federal Police—which are illusory in themselves as they are back-ended to 2011-12—they are failing to resource agencies who watch the watchers. This lack of proper resourcing for oversight agencies has real consequences. In this case, those consequences pertain to the credibility of our national security agencies. So, in the area of Customs and the AFP, the government has unfortunately shown itself to be returning to old Labor. Reduced funding for Customs; no real and substantial increase of any kind in the AFP—there is a strong argument to suggest that there has been a cut to the AFP’s funding in real terms—a confidence trick of 500 new federal police officers, of which 401 will not be delivered until after the next federal election; a cut of $51.5 million to Customs when they are already stretched. And yesterday we saw a breach of security at Sydney airport where a man travelled through Customs without being stopped and then left and was only picked up as he was leaving Customs—a visitor to the airport. So Customs is stretched and yet their funding is being reduced. The public is being slugged with an increased passenger movement charge, none of which is going to Customs. The battle against child predation has been weakened by cuts to the AFP’s role, and ACLEI, which watches the watchers, is being underfunded. Turning to my role as assisting shadow minister for immigration and citizenship, I would like to comment on some immigration issues, particularly in relation to South Australia. On 1 September last year the former federal government made some changes to immigration matters, and the state government has also made some changes in South Australia, and I would like to comment on those. Increasing the age limit for migrants in the skilled migration program from 45 to 50 in regional and low-population-growth areas would assist to attract many additional skilled migrants to South Australia. There are many people who wish to migrate to Australia who would make a valuable contribution to our society. However, many of them are unable to do so due to their age. People between the ages of 45 and 50 can still make a very valuable and significant contribution to the economy and labour market as they tend to be highly skilled and are able to assist businesses, Australian citizens and permanent residents via transferable skills and knowledge. Australia’s two biggest competitors in the skilled migration front are Canada and New Zealand, both of which have an age limit for skilled migrants that exceeds ours. So I am suggesting that raising the upper age limit of the skilled migration program from 45 to 50 would be a benefit to South Australia, particularly if that was in regional and low-population-growth areas. I would also like to see a reinstatement of the value of international students studying in South Australia. Prior to the 1 September changes to the general skilled migration program, there was a significant benefit to international students in studying in South Australia. This helped South Australia attract a significant increase in the number of international students studying at Adelaide. This system awarded applicants with five points for studying in a regional area. While these points are still available under the revised program, they do not have the same impact and attractiveness that they did previously. Under the old system, a 25-year-old international student studying a Bachelor of IT in Adelaide would have obtained the following points: 60 for skills, 30 for age, 20 for English for obtaining a minimum of six in each of the four components of the IELTS test, five for Australian qualification and five for regional study—120 in total. By comparison, the student studying in Sydney would have obtained the following points: 60 for skills, 30 for age, 20 for English for obtaining the same mark and five for Australian qualification—115 in total. Under the previous system, this student would need to study in South Australia in order to be eligible for the five points for regional study so they could meet the 120 points requirement. One of the biggest changes to the new GSM program introduced in September 2007 is to English. Previously, a score of six in each of the four components of the test resulted in 20 points. Now, six equals 15 points and seven equals 25 points. Using the same scenario as before but substituting the applicant’s score from six to seven in each of the four components of the IELTS test, the results would be as follows in South Australia: 60 for skills, 30 for age, 25 for English, five for Australian qualification and five for regional study—125 in total. Using the same scenario for Sydney, the Sydney based student would obtain the following: 60 for skills, 30 for age, 25 for English and five for Australian qualification—120 in total. As you can see, if an international student chooses to study for a 60-point occupation in Sydney, Melbourne or Perth and obtains seven in each component of the IELTS test, they can satisfy the points requirement to be eligible for their permanent residency. Under the old system, this was not possible. This change is detrimental to South Australia and South Australian educational institutions and threatens the ongoing viability of the international education market in my great state. In fact, under this system, when looking at the student studying in South Australia, they can satisfy the minimum points requirement of 120 without relying on the five points for regional study. In effect, regional study becomes irrelevant or obsolete. There was a change the state government made, too, which has affected international students studying in South Australia. Under the pre-September 2007 GSM program, the state government would sponsor international students to the skilled independent regional visa upon completion of their studies in South Australia. Under the new program, the state government will not sponsor an international student unless they can demonstrate that they have at least 12 months work experience post qualification. This is to the disadvantage of South Australia. In contrast to this arrangement, the Western Australian government are quite happy to offer state sponsorship to their and our recent graduates. Under the new GSM program, any student who completes 12 months work experience in Australia is eligible for 10 points. Another scenario is where a student studies IT in Adelaide but only scores six in each of the four components of the IELTS test and obtains 15 points for English. They would obtain the following points: 60 for skills, 30 for age, 15 for English, five for Australian qualification and five for regional study—115 in total. That is not enough to obtain residency, so this student would apply for a temporary graduate visa that allows them the opportunity to obtain 12 months work experience in order to be eligible for an additional 10 points. There is no requirement that a student must remain in South Australia to obtain these points. As a result of this, the IT graduate could then move interstate in order to find employment and be eligible for residency. The unfortunate reality is that it is extremely difficult for most international graduates to find work in South Australia. As such, we will lose a significant number of graduates. Both of these scenarios open the doors for our recent graduates to depart South Australia. You can see that there are some changes that the new federal government could make, such as in the area of the age limit for skilled migrants. They could reinstate the value of international students studying in regional areas. The state government in South Australia could help by reinstating their previous attitude towards work experience. I am pleased to see that the member for Maribyrnong has come back into the House to hear my speech. No doubt, when he went back to his office, his staff told him that he was missing an excellent speech and that he could learn something from it. I reiterate the call that I made to him when he was in the House at the beginning at my speech to go back and read his old friend Mark Latham’s columns in the Financial Review. He writes every Friday and is writing some excellent stuff about the failures of the current Labor government and particularly of the Prime Minister, some of which have been very memorable. (Time expired) 3135 17:35:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 0 Mr HALE —I rise today to make my contribution to this debate in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009. Let me also put on record my support for and recognition of all stolen generation people around Australia today on this special and significant day for them. On the night of the budget speech, the Treasurer outlined clearly to the people of Australia that this budget was designed to meet the somewhat big challenges of the future. He went on to say: It is a Budget that strengthens Australia’s economic foundations, and delivers for working families under pressure. It was paramount that this budget was the responsible budget that our nation needs at a time of international turbulence and inflationary pressures at home. It is a budget carefully designed to fight inflation and to ensure we meet the uncertainties of the future from a position of strength. This is a budget with a $55 billion Working Families Support Package at its very core. In my electorate of Solomon, it is the working families that are suffering. Today, I will outline for the House the commitment that has been made and that will be delivered to the people of Solomon in the budget for 2008-09. This budget provides a strong emphasis on Northern Australia and ends the blame shifting and lost opportunities—unlike the previous government’s focus. Once again, those opposite have rolled out the same tired lines today in question time, blaming the states. All regions of the Northern Territory have suffered due to the blame game continually being played and what this has caused is confusion, resentment and a lack of progress on many key issues that are affecting the lives of the good people of the Top End. I will say this of the people in the Top End: we are a happy bunch, and we go about our business well without fuss and generally look after our patch. However, over the past 11 years, the people in Northern Australia have been let down and it is high time we ended the blame game and moved forward for the good of the people of the Top End. It is with a great deal of pride and enthusiasm that I support this bill because it delivers many vital pieces of infrastructure in the electorate that I was elected to represent. An election promise was made by the now Prime Minister and I back in July 2007 and, with the full support of my colleagues, I am proud to stand today in this House and, on behalf of the Rudd Labor government, deliver on that promise. I speak of the GP superclinic in Palmerston. In this budget, $10 million is allocated to deliver this vital service as soon as possible. This service is not only absolutely necessary and desperately needed for the Palmerston residents, but it will also aid our neighbours in the rural areas as well as take pressure off the often stretched Royal Darwin Hospital. I have been speaking to people in Palmerston and, as I have said before, they are sick and tired of the blame game. It does not matter who ‘technically’ is responsible for providing health care. All they want, just like all of us, is to know that when their loved ones are sick they can see a doctor anytime of the day or night without having to travel ridiculous distances, which often causes more stress in an already stressful situation. The good people of Solomon need it, they want it, they deserve it, and only a Rudd Labor government is going to deliver it. That is because that is what we do: we deliver for working families. While I am talking about delivering on election promises, I will mention another significant and vital piece of infrastructure for the people of Darwin and Palmerston—the Tiger Brennan Drive extension. Our government has committed $11.2 million in this budget for the upgrading of Tiger Brennan Drive, and it is extremely pleasing to see that stage 1 of this project has already started. When completed, this upgrading will have seen some $74 million of federal funding committed to it. Our government is committed to completing this important link between the growing rural region and the expanding Darwin and Palmerston areas. This major investment will improve the safety and the travel time for people commuting between Palmerston, Darwin, the northern suburbs and the rural areas. Completing this extension is an issue that is close to my heart, as I and thousands of other Palmerston and rural residents sit in gridlock every morning and afternoon getting to and from work. This project is also part of a national projects initiative that is designed to deliver major benefits to the business community by allowing easier access for industry to the East Arm port and the trade development zone. When it is completed, this major infrastructure spend will have significantly improved efficiency and safety. Our government is realising the potential of the north through a range of budget initiatives for infrastructure and regional development. These investments will promote economic growth, and benefit not only the Territory but the nation as a whole. There is $78 million allocated to the Territory in this budget for nation-building road projects. These initiatives are vital for the community and businesses that utilise the community, beef and mining roads. This commitment includes almost $9 million to start projects that were not scheduled to start until 2009-10. For many Territory communities and businesses, due to the vast expanse of the Territory, the roads and rail are the lifeblood of the NT. We need to have seamless access from Adelaide to the East Arm port facility. These initiatives are great examples of the federal and Territory governments working together to deliver vital pieces of infrastructure for the people of Solomon and the Territory. While I am talking about new initiatives from our government and examples of governments working together to deliver for the people of Solomon, it is fantastic to see that $8 million over four years has been allocated in the budget to establish the Office of Northern Australia. This office will provide high-level advice to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia. Both men are extremely knowledgeable and passionate, just as I am, about realising the potential of the north. The Office of Northern Australia will provide a source of environmental, economic and social policy expertise in relation to Northern Australian issues to ensure we achieve sustainable development outcomes. I commend our government for implementing this great initiative. During the 2007 election campaign, my opposition focused much of their re-election credentials on law and order issues. Instances of lawless behaviour in this country are on the increase and, unfortunately, in Solomon we are not immune from this. The government in this budget will provide funding to the tune of $15 million over three years to fund grants under the safer suburbs program. The program aims to reduce crime, antisocial behaviour and gang activity through a range of measures, including the installation of closed circuit television cameras and improved street lighting. The Northern Territory will receive $2.5 million to be used in Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs. This is only one part of combating the rising crime rate. However, this level of commitment from the government has been well received by the community. Sport is a vital ingredient of our lifestyle in Solomon. That is why I am excited about the budget commitments our government has provided. The government will provide $2.5 million over five years to help an NT AFL team and netball team participate in an interstate competition. This commitment provides an opportunity for people who choose to live, work and play in the Northern Territory not to be disadvantaged by their location. This initiative will enable young athletes to remain in the Northern Territory with the support of family as they strive for AFL or Australian selection in Australian Rules football or netball respectively. Further to this, it is also about developing administrators, strength and conditioning staff, coaches and managers, so that they can continue to educate future generations involved in sport. Both the member for Lingiari and I are very excited about this commitment. This government is serious about increasing participation in sport through developing community facilities. In fact, almost $21 million will go to more than 90 community sports and recreation facilities around Australia. It is great news for the people of Solomon that $3 million has been allocated in this year’s budget to fund the much needed upgrades to the Hidden Valley drag strip. These upgrades will give a much needed injection for the hardworking committee up there and will ensure that the people of Solomon get to enjoy top-class meets. 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. We need a strong surplus to anchor a strong economy, to do our bit to ease inflationary pressures in the economy, and to build a buffer against international turbulence. To fund ongoing long-term investment in ports, roads, railways, hospitals, universities and vocational education we need to deliver growth with low inflation into the future. That is why it is great news that our government is providing an additional $3 million to Charles Darwin University. As a former student of CDU, I know only too well the fallout of the previous government’s lack of investment in our higher education system. This is an investment in IT, communications, research and teaching, laboratories, libraries, places to study, teaching spaces and critical student amenities at Charles Darwin University. This spending on critical infrastructure is part of our national $11 billion budget investment through the Education Investment Fund which will pay for ongoing improvements in our TAFEs and universities. This budget helps parents care for their children and invest in their education. In Solomon we have one of the highest population growth rates in the country. Each week I sign letters of congratulations to the new mums and dads in Solomon. That is why I am delighted to support the new childcare initiatives our government is introducing through this budget. Access to affordable high quality child care is critical in improving kids’ education and development; it also helps the mums or dads who choose to return to work after having a baby. The reality is that most families usually have both mum and dad out working, and often most of the second income actually goes out in paying childcare fees. That is why our childcare tax rebate is so critical for our nation’s working families. This budget commits $1.6 billion over four years to enable the rebate to increase from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. That means half of the out-of-pocket childcare costs will be paid for. Not only that, we will be making these payments every three months instead of the once-a-year payment that existed previously. What that means for the mums and dads of Solomon and Australia is that the money will be available at a time when the bills come in. This budget is also about delivering for small business. Our government is committed to small business; that is why we are delivering our election promise to establish more than 30 business advisory centres around Australia—$41 million has been provided in the budget to fund one-stop small business advisory centres across Australia. I am excited that one of the 30 new offices will be located in Darwin. In fact, $300,000 is allocated in our government’s first budget to establish the Darwin business enterprise centre. This valuable centre will provide much needed advice for those wanting to establish or improve a business and is part of our government’s overall small business strategy that will cut red tape in areas of business regulation. That is something that small businesses are crying out for. These centres will improve the lives of so many hardworking small business owners in Solomon. The government recognises the financial pressures that seniors face. Our government is committed to helping seniors make ends meet amidst the growing cost of living. In this budget we are committing $5.2 billion in additional funding for seniors. The implementation of Labor’s election commitments in this budget will provide an average additional annual benefit of $400 for age pensioners and seniors. The government has also introduced into parliament a bill to pay age pensioners and seniors a $500 bonus—2.7 million seniors will benefit from this measure. This bonus will be paid before the end of this financial year. These bonuses come on top of significant increases in the utilities allowance, an extension to the telephone allowance, new dental funding for concession card holders and petrol vouchers for volunteers who use their own transport. We recognise that this is only a start but I know that for senior Territorians it is a much needed and a much warranted start. This budget has delivered for the people of Solomon. This budget will be good for families and it will be good for families with children in child care. It is fantastic for the people of Palmerston and the rural areas who for so long have missed out on vital health services and infrastructure upgrades. I join the members for Wills, Port Adelaide and Maribyrnong in congratulating the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the executive in putting together this budget. It was the first Labor budget in 13 years and the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have certainly delivered for the people of Solomon. All of them have mentioned one common theme throughout their speeches: the lack of investment from the previous government in infrastructure and planning. Nowhere was this so evident as in the seat of Solomon. The people of Solomon were let down by the previous government. I commend this bill to the House. 3139 17:51:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —In rising to address Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 I want to set out a simple proposition in relation to my portfolio area of climate change, the environment and urban water. That proposition is this: when it comes to actions in this budget to protect the environment, what we have seen is the impression of activity as part of a broader culture of deceit. I want to deal with this impression of activity across four fronts: firstly, in relation to the catastrophic damage—and I underline the words catastrophic damage—which is underway at present in the solar panel sector; secondly, to deal with some of the fraud in relation to the failure to act on climate change; thirdly, the damage they have done to urban and community water programs; and, fourthly, the total failure to take meaningful steps in relation to whaling and the case against whaling internationally—in particular the failure to include a single dollar in the forward estimates for observation of Japanese whaling activity or to protest against Japan’s actions through the International Court of Justice. Let me turn first to the solar panel sector and let me start by going back to 28 March 2007. On 28 March 2007 the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, and the current Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts stood on the steps of Solartec. Solartec is a home-based small business in Canberra which assists with solar panel installation. This is what Mr Rudd said: Well it’s good to be here in Chapman today with Phil and with Soph and baby Abi and their home based business Solartech and with Peter Garrett, the Shadow Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. We’re here today to talk about climate change and we’re here today to talk about the role of renewable energy. We’re pleased today to be able to announce Labor’s new Solar Home Plan. He went on to say: We need to boost renewable energies in general. Solar is the most greenhouse-friendly energy available on the planet and, therefore, we just need to take some practical steps to make it possible for as many families as possible to invest in this. And this is what Phil May, the co-director of Solartec Renewables, based in Canberra, said just after the budget. On 15 May Phil May said simply: They have totally destroyed (the solar industry), absolutely and totally ruined it. I defy one member of the government to stand in this chamber to defend what has been done to the solar sector, to defend what has been done to Phil May and his wife Soph and their young child, all of whom had been the beneficiaries of hard work done over many years to create a small business. But this small business is just one of many. What I want to set out today is a very clear case that what we had was a duty on behalf of the government to not do damage and to follow through with its clear election promise. We had on election night a breach which was fundamental. It was a breach of their election promise not to means test the solar rebate. It was a breach of their duty to any small business operators in Australia not to destroy their business overnight. It was a breach in particular of the expectations they set with the Australian public that they would take action to promote, and not to destroy, the solar panel sector. This is a dark and dirty secret which everyone in the government is aware of. They know that it was a catastrophic failure of policy and that, if you took any small business sector in Australia and within three days took away 60, 70 or in some cases 80 per cent of their forward orders, that would be culpable mismanagement. But to do it in one of the very sectors which the government used as a way of campaigning for itself is just sheer negligence and is part of a broader culture of deceit. What I want to show is that in addition to a duty and a breach we have clear and quantifiable damage to specific industries and specific firms around Australia and that real people—apprentices and others—have already begun to lose their jobs. I want to show that there is a way forward through rectification, that this measure can easily be undone. Let me turn first to the question of duty in relation to the solar panel sector. What we saw on 28 March 2007 in the suburb of Chapman in Canberra on the steps of Solartec was Mr Rudd committing to taking a series of steps. What he also said that day—and I want to quote it because it is so clear and unequivocal—was: I think the thing also is that if you encourage solar by way of this sort of national subsidy, or rebate scheme, what happens is that you encourage the industry more broadly. And if you do that, ultimately our objective would be to see manufacturing costs come down. If that’s the case then of course it becomes more and more accessible over time to families to purchase. Nobody could have put it more clearly, and that is why the coalition government had a solar panel rebate in place. That is why, when you look at a system which costs between $15,000 and $20,000 to place solar panels on the roof of an average house, we believed it was necessary to put in place an $8,000 rebate. We did it not as a welfare measure but as an environmental measure. The net effect of that was to see a dramatic increase in the uptake of solar panels following the implementation of this measure after the last budget. We saw the growth of the solar panel sector around Australia. We know that this was a good thing. We know that the then opposition, the now government, trumpeted that not only would they match this but they would exceed it and they would help grow the solar panel sector because they thought it would help with peak energy demand. They thought it would help with growing the sector and they thought it would help with climate change. This was one of their fundamental election promises and one of the key messages they took to the Australian people. And yet we see that there is a breach. And it was a fundamental breach because on budget night what was announced was that, as of midnight, the solar panel rebate would no longer be available to households with an income of more than $100,000. That means that, if a mum and dad are on $51,000 each, then between the two of them—whether they are a teacher and a nurse or a policeman and a kindergarten teacher—they do not qualify. And yet we know that many of the cases—60, 70, 80 per cent of families—who sought to put solar panels on their roofs were in that category which has now been excluded. On 16 May, Hamish Wall, the general manager of business development with Nicholls Solar, a company that installs solar panels said on The World Today: ... we had one household which consisted of a nurse and a teacher and obviously under the Federal Government’s policy they’re rich and therefore they are no longer eligible for the rebate. The result has been very simple: this change, made by executive order and not reviewable by the parliament, has wreaked havoc through the industry. And let me look at the breach in the way in which it was carried out. The executive order which came into effect was immediate. There was no consultation with the industry and there was no prospect for review whatsoever. This is an executive order which does not require legislation, cannot be disallowed before the parliament and is therefore utterly and completely beyond the reach of this chamber and the Parliament of Australia to review a decision which overnight can take away 60 to 70 to 80 per cent of the business of any small business. It defies imagination that any business sector, let alone the very sector which they held up as the future of Australian energy generation, can be treated that way. And do we see any sympathy on this front from the government members? In fact, what we see is an errant arrogance. We have seen from the finance minister and the Treasurer a dismissal of the claims of small business operators. The finance minister said: Well, we’ll see whether these claims from these companies turn out to be true or not. This is from the Leon Byner program on 5AA of 21 May 2008: No company that is running a business on the basis of a government subsidy has a right to assume that the taxpayer is going to tip money into their business indefinitely. Except they do have a right to presume that when a government makes a solemn promise in the lead-up to an election, and that it is a fundamental part of the way they present themselves to the Australian people, that promise will not be broken at the very first budget. This is what we see from the Treasurer, Mr Swan: I am happy to have a look at any evidence that people have got in the case of means testing. He also says: I do not necessarily think some of the dire consequences that are being predicted by some people in the industry will come true. These are not predictions, and this is what I want to put to the government: these are simple, clear absolute facts that are occurring within the industry today. That brings me to the question of damage. The discussions I have had with the solar panel sector have been numerous. There have been emails, faxes, telephone conversations, meetings—all manner of communication. What they have said time and time again is that within three days, in many cases, they had lost 50, 60, 70 and even 80 per cent of their business. That is a tale of palpable mismanagement and arrogant disregard. Let me continue with Phil May, who said: In the three days immediately following the budget we lost $360,000 in cancelled orders. This is the businessperson Mr Rudd used as a prop to parade his solar energy credentials around the country. What does Mr May’s wife say? I am absolutely heartbroken that they could bite the hand that helped them promote their policies. That is Sophia, co-director of Solartec Renewables. What about Conergy, another company? They said: Following the government’s solar means test announcement Australian families have now cancelled 80 per cent of their solar system orders due to their cost being prohibitive, meaning less solar panels on roofs. These are the words of the small business sector itself. These are not words that we have created. Rodger Meads of Conergy  said: This has translated to immediate job losses across the industry at a time when we believed it had a bright future. It will send the solar power industry back to the early nineties. This is an extract of an email that was copied to me but was addressed to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts from Travis Hargreaves of Chidlow in Western Australia: By 9.30 a.m. on the day after the budget the six site visits were all cancelled due to the customers being ineligible. I then contacted 45 other customers who I had booked site visits with. Only two out of the 45 are still booked for a site visit. I am now out of a job and my ability to continue my night-time studies has been put into jeopardy. This is what the communications director of the Clean Energy Council said in the Sydney Morning Herald business section on 19 May 2008: People are absolutely frantic. We have endless calls and emails in the last 72 hours and all our phones are running hot. Customers are pulling out in droves. She also said: The government has killed the industry stone cold dead. Erik Zimmerman, the chief executive of Rezeko, also known as Beyond Building, has said that he has lost $1.8 million for a medium-sized business operator in forward contracts. These are not hypothetical. The message to the Treasurer and the finance minister is: get in touch with the real Australia, because these are small business people who have worked and sweated and put their life’s work on the line and you have destroyed it overnight. It takes a rare genius of almost Whitlamesque capacity to create so much destruction in such a short time. This is a real sector whose jobs are gone, whose promoters are fearful for their own future. It is affecting our environment and it breaks absolutely with the commitment made by the government. I could go on. Adrian Ferraretto, a solar operator from the Solar Shop Australia, said that 60 per cent of his business, costing about $2 million a month, and up to 50 jobs—half of his workforce—would be lost. I just want to say that again: up to $2 million a month and 50 jobs. This is real and it is happening and if the finance minister and the Treasurer of Australia want the evidence, that is the evidence. I have behind me a folder filled with emails and testimonials, from small business operators and from mums and dads who had wished to purchase solar panels, to indicate that the sector is in disarray. This brings me to the last point I wish to make, that there is need for rectification. The rectification is simple—fulfil your election promise. Fulfil the commitment you made to Phil and Sophia when you stood on the steps of Solartec over a year ago and pledged that you would promote and not destroy the solar industry. I cannot believe that the government actually intended to destroy the solar sector, but I do believe that they are blind to the consequences of their action and, most frighteningly, utterly arrogant as to the implications for jobs and for those small business operators. The message is very simple: reverse this measure. We cannot have an impact in this parliament for a very simple reason: it is a non-reviewable decision. It is a decision taken by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts with a stroke of the pen which has wiped out jobs and which is threatening to wipe out family businesses. As I said, all of this fits into a broader pattern of the impression of activity and a culture of deceit. Moving beyond solar, very simply what we see in relation to climate change is that funding over 2007-08 and over 2008-09 has been cut by a total of $42 million—$21 million domestically and $21 million internationally. We see that the much-lauded Renewable Energy Fund has been put back and will not commence yet. The clean energy target has been ruled out. And I read the news today that the former head of the New South Wales cabinet office has declared that a clean energy target which would provide incentives for clean coal and clean gas, in addition to renewable energy, would be a far less distortional way to go than a renewables only approach which puts back indefinitely the cleaning up of 92 per cent of Australia’s energy sources. We see again there is no recognition of the many billions of dollars that will be reaped from revenue under the emissions trading scheme in this year’s budget—no estimation whatsoever. We see in terms of climate that the Asia-Pacific partnership has lost $50 million and has effectively been gutted as our principal means of engaging with India and China, the biggest sources of growing emissions in the world. When you have to deal with a global problem, you have to deal with the source of that global problem. The avenue which was established and which was given bipartisan support under the previous government has effectively been destroyed. We see as well that the Green Car Innovation Fund is not going to happen in the coming year, not in the second year and not in the third year. In the fourth year we might get something. So, ultimately, we have seen the impression of activity. I now turn to the question of water. Every member who was in this chamber during the last term of government was engaged with wonderful community water grants programs all around Australia—with the Dromana Bowls Club and with so many different community groups. This program has simply been abolished. Tens of millions of litres of water were saved and thousands of people around Australia were educated in terms of the benefits of saving water. It was a great program. Its destruction is to be mourned. What we see now is that no sporting group around Australia—football, netball, cricket, bowls or any other group—will have access to funds to recycle water, to capture water, other than for $10,000, down from $50,000, for surf lifesaving clubs. That one group has some access. This brings me to my very last point—and I think it is an iconic point—and that is: there is no funding in the budget, not a dollar in 2008-09 or in 2009-10 or in any other year, for monitoring or continuing the activity in relation to the Japanese whale hunt or to fulfil the election promise of a case before the International Court of Justice. What we have seen ultimately in this budget in relation to the environment is the continuation of some of the Howard government programs but, above all else, the destruction of the solar panel sector, something which is not hypothetical and which should be condemned and for which the government should apologise and reverse their failures. 3143 18:11:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 0 Ms OWENS —I am pleased to be able to speak to the first Labor budget delivered in this House in 13 years. It is very much a Labor budget—a budget that supports working families, a budget that recognises the essential role that government plays in building for the future, a budget that does not shy away from difficult issues of climate change, a budget that tackles the relationships between state and federal layers of government and a budget that puts in place the building blocks for our future prosperity. And we do need to build. We needed to build several years ago, but there can be no doubt that it is now an urgent matter. It is ironic that after 17 years of unprecedented boom time we have to begin a building phase; after 17 years of boom we face an extraordinary backlog in skills, in schools, in hospitals, in community facilities, in child care, in roads, in public transport, in water and in the environment, both urban and rural. In fact wherever I look in my electorate I find a backlog of work. In the majority of cases we have seen state-federal relations used as an excuse for a lack of action. When it comes to working families, who have no doubt been doing it tough for several years, we have not even seen excuses from the previous government; instead, we have seen denial—denial that there was a crisis in housing affordability, denial that interest rates were causing a problem, denial that there was anything that could be done at all on petrol or grocery prices— 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr Hunt —You are kidding! E09 Owens, Julie, MP Ms OWENS —No, I am not actually. There was a lot of denial and a complete lack of action on any of it. There was denial that affordable, accessible child care was an increasing problem for many. We heard, of course, that working families had never been better off and that inflation was exactly where the government of the day wanted it. We saw denial on major capacity constraints such as infrastructure and skill shortages. At last that time is over. The days of denial, the days of inaction and the blame game are in the past. It is not possible to compensate for 11 years of neglect, but this budget begins the work. It is a nation-building budget. It is my hope also that it is a budget that begins to rebuild the people’s trust in this House. As unheard of as it has been over the last decade, this budget actually delivers on all of our election promises. I have had quite a time in my electorate, both before and since the budget, convincing people that we really would deliver on all of our election promises, and I think even now that we have done it there are many that are still looking for the gaps because it is such a rare thing, unfortunately, in Australian politics. So we find ourselves coming out of an era where government denied so much and did so little, where expectations were so low, to a new era of nation building where we see our strengths, acknowledge weaknesses and work to address them. Suddenly we are now having a debate. We are recognising underlying issues that need addressing if we are to secure our future. We are acknowledging them as a community and debating possible paths forward. There are new debates on housing affordability, interest rates, inflation, skill shortages, infrastructure, climate change, homelessness, carers, people with disabilities and education. It is a particularly interesting time to be in the electorate. Just wonder for a moment where the debate would be if we had not changed government. Would we even be talking about interest rates or would we still be denying the issue? Would we still be denying there is a skills problem or an infrastructure crisis with productivity slipping below par compared to other OECD countries? Would we be saying that there was no problem and that mortgage and rental stress were not real, even though interest rates caused repossessions to double in the six months leading up to the election in the suburbs of Northmead and Blacktown in my electorate, if we still had a government saying that there was no problem? Even now, the opposition claims that we on this side of the House are making much of it up and that things are really just fine. Fortunately the people of Australia do know better and recognise not only the need for urgent action in so many areas but also the need for strong fiscal management. The Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 delivers on both. We will be providing a strong surplus of 1.8 per cent of GDP and every dollar of new spending in 2008-09 is more than matched by spending cuts. The growth in real spending will be 1.1 per cent in 2008-09, the lowest rate in nine years. Over the next four years we will make savings of $33.3 billion. We have reduced the tax share of GDP from 24.7 per cent in 2007-08 to 23.8 per cent in 2008-09. All of these are measures designed to keep downward pressure on inflation. But it is equally important that we recognise that working families have been under increasing pressure for several years. While the previous government was liberal with tax cuts for the better paid in the community, there was little relief for those on more modest incomes. We have delivered with a $55 billion Working Families Support Package that delivers for families, recognising and rewarding their efforts and providing essential relief from cost pressures. At the heart of the package is $46.7 billion worth of tax relief, over the next four years, directed at low- and middle-income earners. From the first round of tax cuts on 1 July 2008, a family on a single income of $40,000 will be $20.19 better off, increasing to $34.62 by 1 July 2010. Perhaps even more significantly for many people in my electorate, the government’s tax cuts will allow Australians to earn up to $14,900 in 2008-09 without incurring a net tax liability, up from $11,000 this financial year. By 2010-11, a typical second income earner will be able to work 14 hours per week before paying any tax. This is an important measure for families seeking to improve their circumstances, and for us all as it will encourage greater workforce participation. We are also providing real support for families using child care. This is really needed. There are some areas in my electorate, including Westmead and Girraween, where we could build three or four new childcare centres, each with a hundred places, and still not meet the unmet demand—that is, the demand we know of. We have also committed to building 260 new childcare centres in priority areas and introducing a new quality control rating system that will provide parents with the information they need to choose the right centre for them. We are also lifting the rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent and increasing the cap from $4,354 to $7,500 per child. Again, this is a measure that assists families with their daily costs. Rather than paying that rebate annually, we will be paying it quarterly, closer to when families need it. Nationally, we are investing in an education revolution that will improve the quality of and access to education. But to further assist families directly, we are introducing a 50 per cent education tax refund for help with educational expenses, providing up to $375 a year for each child in primary school and $750 for each child at high school. Recognising the rising costs of housing, we are also introducing the first home saver accounts to help families save for their first home. For low-income earners, we will be delivering 50,000 new rental properties by 2011-12 at rents at least 20 per cent below market rates. The government is also committing $3.2 billion for health and hospital reform, including $600 million to slash elective surgery waiting lists and $1 billion to relieve the pressure on public hospitals. We have allocated $491 million for the new Teen Dental Plan. That will allow parents to claim up to $150 per year for a preventative dental check for each of their teenage children. We have also made the Medicare levy fairer by raising the threshold below which people will not have to pay the surcharge if they do not take out private health insurance to $100,000 for singles and $150,000 for couples. Through this measure, families can save up to $1,500 per year, or more if they have more than one child. It is a good, strong package for working families; it is one that I am proud of and one that I know will assist the families in my community. I also know that my community is pleased with the creation of three new funds to invest in nation building. The i-word, as I call it—infrastructure—is one that I have heard frequently, particularly as it relates to the development of our cities and their public transport, water, hospitals, educational institutions and recreational facilities and spaces. The community expects governments to take responsibility in these areas and provide them with the services that they need. I think most people in this House know that I doorknock regularly. I have doorknocked over 45,000 houses since I first ran for parliament four years ago. Last month I knocked on the doors of 800 houses and held nine mobile offices in local shopping centres, as I do every month up until December. That was the week before the budget. I am looking forward to doing it in the first week of the next break after the budget. Overwhelmingly, infrastructure was the key issue that was raised. Nobody out there cares anymore whether it is a state or a federal issue, they just want it fixed. If the state-federal relationship is problematic then they want that fixed too. They look to us to do it because they cannot. Only we can do that. The 150-odd people in this place and the few hundred around the states are the only people in the country who can actually achieve this. I am also proud to be part of a government that takes this responsibility so seriously and that puts the challenge of infrastructure and state-federal relations at the heart of government. It is a challenge, particularly with such a backlog to tackle at both state and federal levels. The budget establishes three national building funds that will put us in a stronger position to tackle future challenges: a Building Australia Fund for infrastructure, an Education Investment Fund for education and a Health and Hospitals Fund. Between the three, the budget provides in the order of $40 billion for capital investment in infrastructure, higher and vocational education and health to modernise and reinvigorate the economy. The impact on future generations of Australians that these funds will provide cannot be underestimated. If we are to move forward as a nation and face the challenges that await us head-on then we need to modernise, rejuvenate, re-think and build for the century. These funds are the beginning and we will build on them in future budgets. Labor is the party of building. All the great infrastructure projects throughout our federation’s history have come from a time when Labor was in government. The Building Australia Fund will provide $20 billion toward infrastructure projects—rail, roads, ports and, just as important in this new digital age, broadband that will enable all Australians access to the latest technology and information systems available. Infrastructure underpins efficiency and it not only allows an economy to operate effectively but it also allows communities to function. I am continually shocked when people call me or when I am doorknocking and I find houses, even in Parramatta—the geographic centre of Sydney—that are in black spots. This is a major issue for our future, and one that this government is more than willing to tackle. In Parramatta, the government is providing funds for a study into a metro rail project from Parramatta to the city that will create more options for commuters—an extremely important project given that the rail lines from Parramatta to the city are now running at close to capacity. Kevin Rudd has promised an education revolution and this budget delivers the first down payment. During the election campaign the then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, visited a local school in Parramatta, Arthur Phillip High School, that runs an innovative program that ensures every student in the senior years has access to a computer. It has been an incredibly successful project, and when you go to that school you can see the engagement of the young men and women with their laptops, even in their lunch hour. This budget delivers $1.2 billion over five years to deliver computers and communications technologies to all students from years 9 through to 12. Again, this is an overdue investment in infrastructure if we are to see our education system well set up for the next decades. There is $2.5 billion over 10 years to put a trades training centre in every single high school in the country, helping to address the chronic skills shortages we are facing at this time and that we will continue to face in future years if we do not act now. There is an additional $1.9 billion to deliver up to 630,000 new training places as well, with many of those training places already delivered. If you are young and new to the workforce, there will be training available. If you are mid-career and need to sharpen your skills, there will be training available. And if you are changing your career and moving into new fields there will be training available. It is very much an education revolution. The ability to adapt and the capacity to learn is how we build a stronger society, and education is the key. And education begins with early childhood learning. This budget delivers another election promise with $533.5 million to provide universal access to a preschool year—15 hours a week for 40 weeks—for all four-year-olds by 2013. That access to preschool education was also an issue that was raised quite strongly during my doorknocking in the week before the budget. I had to write quite a few letters to people once it was announced, confirming that we were honouring that election commitment that meant so much to them. There are measures for early childhood learning, an education tax refund, trades centres and computers in schools, more places for vocational education and training and, as well as that, $500 million of extra funding to be delivered before 30 June this year to help universities upgrade and maintain teaching and research facilities. That $500 million includes $15.9 million for the University of Western Sydney, which is only a small redress for their treatment at the hands of the previous government. In fact, I went to the launch of the new building about 18 months ago on the Parramatta campus to find that it was the only new building that had been funded in the previous nine years. The University of Western Sydney has a long way to go to recover from 10 years of neglect, as do many universities around the country. This, again, is only a first step, a down payment for the future. But in Western Sydney, it is an extremely important one. Our enrolment rates at university are just over half the Sydney-wide average—something we are well aware of and something that we know must be turned around. In addition there is the Education Investment Fund, which is the second nation-building fund in the budget, providing $11 billion, the capital and earnings of which will be drawn down over time to invest in higher education and vocational education and training facilities—again, an extremely important development for Western Sydney. If we are to maintain world-class universities we must invest in them and allow them to grow and innovate. The previous government was the only one in the developed world to disinvest in universities over the past decade. It is a short-sightedness which is difficult to comprehend. The stark reality is that we need to be putting resources into universities and TAFEs, where the workers of today and tomorrow learn their craft. If we are to make a better tomorrow, we need to invest in education, and this budget does just that. There are a number of Parramatta-specific projects in the budget. There is a tourism project that provides $500,000 for the development of Parramatta Stories. Parramatta has arguably the best heritage assets in the country. We have more heritage buildings in Parramatta than there are in The Rocks, yet we earn less than one per cent of our GDP from tourism compared to about five per cent Sydney wide. Most of those heritage assets are within walking distance from the river and we are well overdue to develop that tourism potential. At the moment, if you arrive in Parramatta, it is very difficult to know where to go. There are very few packaged tourism products. This $500,000 allows Parramatta council to begin the development of those first stories that guide people through the extraordinary heritage assets in the region. This project is extremely important to the local economy and one that should provide considerable return in the mid to long term. We have also been given $1.5 million for a bike path between Parramatta and Blacktown. The Parramatta electorate sits almost entirely within the Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust. There are more than 30 creeks in Parramatta that stretch through the electorate, from north to south and east to west. At the moment, if you had a machete, you could walk from Parramatta to Blacktown along Toongabbie Creek and then Blacktown Creek. I am not really suggesting that anybody get a machete. Along much of those creeks there are bike paths but there are significant gaps between the two. This $1.2 million will allow two local councils to bridge some of those gaps and create a very important piece of infrastructure that will link the two major CBDs in the area to the suburban areas between. I also report back to the House the positive response that we have had to the homelessness strategy. Parramatta has the largest population of people sleeping rough outside the Sydney CBD in Australia, with over 500 every night sleeping rough. We are a CBD, so we do attract people into the area as well as creating quite a few of our own due to the rising housing prices that come with booms in major CBDs. So it is a very major issue in the area and there are some extraordinary organisations, including Street Level Community Centre and Parramatta Mission, doing some remarkable work with the homeless. The feedback that I get is not just about the budget allocation and how important that is to the work that they do but about the fact that it is now on the agenda and being debated at the forefront of government policy. People have worked largely under the radar and struggled for so long and given so much of their time, and we in this House should all acknowledge that we do not actually fund the work that is done for the homeless; it is done very much by people underpaid and overworked and by volunteers who contribute in that area. How appreciative they are of the support that they are being given should be matched by how appreciative we are in this House of the support they give. It is a good strong budget that delivers for working families. It is a nation-building project that considers needs for the future and puts in place the structures and funds to tackle our long-term needs. It does not do everything; there is much more to be done. People expect so much more of a Labor government than they do of a conservative one. But we have delivered a responsible, caring budget that puts us in good stead to build the prosperity of this country. (Time expired) 3148 18:31:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 0 0 Mr BROADBENT —On listening to the member for Parramatta run through her list of election promises fulfilled for the electorate of Parramatta, I only wish and dream that perhaps I would be standing here today announcing that we would be doing something about the Sandy Point Community Centre, which was an election promise we could not fulfil because we did not win the election. We would be announcing some funds for the Sustainability Centre at Koonwarra. We would also be announcing other funds in our Regional Partnerships program which would have been terribly important to the electorate. The role of a member of parliament does not change greatly going from government to opposition. In that process we are still representatives of our electorates and we are still a bridge from the people to the executive. That is why I said to the parliamentary secretary at the table that I will be attending his autism breakfast tomorrow morning along with many others. You would be surprised who attends that sort of function, because there is such a concern. The job of a local member continues on, addressing the issues, such as the miseries of autism and allied conditions that affect the community. I will start with a positive: this government has allocated $190 million to begin to address this issue and I am supportive of the government of the day that has heard the concerns of many across the community on both sides of the House and is prepared to give charge to the parliamentary secretary to tackle that problem on behalf of families. But I will call the member for Parramatta to account, along with the rest of the government, in regard to inflation, interest rates and unemployment figures. I will defend the economic credentials of the Howard government over nearly 12 years of good governance in this country, good economic management on behalf of the community that enabled us then to deliver the benefits that are being spent now by this government. In fact, generally over the whole of this budget what we are seeing is very much of the Howard government’s abilities in economic management for this government to be able to deliver, even though slightly changed. There has not been great change in this budget. There have been some different allocations but not great change. What I register in the community is a broad disappointment. You talk about working families, but let us talk about living pensioners. People are concerned about petrol prices or grocery prices and the rhetoric of the Rudd group before the election campaign. What we have to do as a community and as a nation is call governments that come into power like this to account for the rhetoric that they had before the election. They led the nation to believe that they could do something about petrol prices. They were going to do something different for pensioners. They were going to do something different on the environment. They were going to do something different in education. They were going to do better than the government of the day was doing. But what has actually happened in regard to petrol and pensioners? We have a situation now where the Rudd government is right up that well-known creek rowing that very well known barbed wire canoe. This week the Prime Minister said: ‘I can’t do anything about this issue on petrol. I can’t do anything about it and I have given up.’ That is a terrible admission. I would have thought he would have said, ‘The rise in petrol prices is a tragedy and it is difficult for the nation to deal with, but we will spend every day with every minister putting every bit of energy they can possibly put into keeping those things at the lowest price we can.’ I do not think they have done that. They have really just given up on that issue straightaway. They are not prepared to continue to work to find a way. There are things like what the Howard government did on petrol prices. If the Howard government had not acted on fuel excise, fuel would have been 17c dearer today, if not more. The Howard government was shown to be flexible. I will continue to defend the Howard government’s record. It should not be diminished, particularly in the area of community support. That brings me to Regional Partnerships, which has been sold by the new government as a previous rort—going back five years ago, looking at a report. Therefore, for purely base, political reasons, they axed the whole project. What my community is telling me is that these were very good projects. Let me talk about the Warragul RSL project, which should have been signed off on last July. This issue did not need me to go to our government and talk about it because the issue was done and dusted—signed, finished and over. There were other requests that we had in on Regional Partnerships that we were working on to get funded. I will admit that, after raising an issue about a federal Labor government promise on ABC radio the other day, all of a sudden a phone call came through that the minister was coming down to give them $190,000. I will be writing to the Prime Minister to say—as I had written to Mr Howard in the past and received support—that there are some issues in some programs that actually need to be addressed. The commitment by the Howard government last July to fund the Warragul RSL through Regional Partnerships was because of its community base and what it does within the Warragul community. These diggers have been sadly and unfortunately let down, only because there was an act of political bastardry in regard to these Regional Partnerships programs. The government had not thought it through. They wanted to make a statement—an attack on the coalition, an attack on the National Party, an attack on what they saw as a rorting program—but in truth, they should have looked at it closely and looked at how many of their own members had received so many Regional Partnerships grants. They were not even in the regions, but they had access to these funds. What did they tell me? They said, ‘Write a letter to your Premier and see if they will top up the funds.’ It is a struggle for us to get any money out of our state governments, because they keep putting it on the federal government to pay so much. There has been so much cost-shifting going on. Now there will be cost-shifting wars between state Labor governments and a federal Labor government. We have to consider the genuine people of the Warragul RSL—and I am talking about a whole lot of programs across Australia. I am talking about the recreation centre at Druin. I am talking about the recreation program in place at Traralgon. I am talking about the $2 million promised by Simon Crean when he was down with the Moe people. The Latrobe council now have a letter to say they are not going to get it, but I dare say that, after I have said this tonight, that will be fulfilled as well. I made the commitment that I would come to this House and I would call on the government to fulfil its election promises, as outlined by the member for Parramatta and as has been outlined by the member for Bass. That was more like a Christmas benefit, the member for Bass listing her election promises and what will be fulfilled over there. It was unbelievable. I have never experienced such largesse by a government in the whole of my life. That was amazing. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall interjecting— MT4 Broadbent, Russell, MP Mr BROADBENT —No, I am talking about the member for Bass, not Parramatta. Parramatta got plenty of dough, too, but nothing like Bass. The amount of money was just incredible. The Labor Party virtually purchased the seat with its promises. The disappointment that rages across the whole of this budget also comes from the environment. Look at what they are doing to Landcare. Look at what they are doing to the whole program. They have made some changes in the environment area that actually reduce the amount of money. Who would have thought a Labor government would have come into power and reduced the money allocated for the benefit of the Australian community, the future and the environment? Who would have thought that a Labor government would make cuts in those areas that are most important not only to the environment as a whole and what we are leaving to our future generations but also to funds expended mostly in the regions. Why? They do not believe they have a political future in the regions of Australia and they are pulling funds out of there. They are base political reasons once again. There is great disappointment across the community on what they expected of this government and what they have received. What you saw at the election was, yes, the end of the Howard era and the beginning of a new government. But this budget is actually the first time that the community could make any assessment whatsoever of what the government is doing. I have actually been positive. I have said to the Koonwarra Sustainable Communities Centre, ‘I think that this government will have a program that you can apply for.’ They would like to have a place where they can have demonstration projects in the environment, particularly in regard to wastewater, and where people can come and see how they might invest in those things for their own purposes around their home, their farm, their business or whatever. There is great disappointment in this budget. It is disappointment that is being felt right across the community at a time when the government has a lot of money that it is able to spend. I wish to address today the issue of aged care and the ageing population. In its outcomes summary the government declares that its priority in this budget is to improve equitable access to community and residential aged care and to strengthen existing access arrangements. But the actual commitments in the budget fall well short of the industry’s hopes and expectations. There was relief that a feared cut in the coalition’s adjustment payment did not materialise, but the announcement of interest-free loans did little to eliminate concerns over how the industry is going to fund future expansion. For the first time in Australian history there are more people over the age of 40 than below the age of 40. We have recognised for some years that we have to do more to provide for our own futures, rather than leave future generations the legacy of a crippling financial burden. Australians in recent years have been urged and encouraged to provide for their own retirement through superannuation and investment, rather than relying totally on social welfare in their retirement years. As people live longer they have also been urged to work beyond what has long been considered the retirement age, and the Howard government did provide incentives for them to do exactly that. These measures and messages have been largely understood and accepted by the Australian population. Australians are making a major contribution to planning their own futures and they are working longer. But we still seem to be unable or unwilling to come to grips with one of the major problems of an ageing population, that of care of the frail aged. It is an emotional issue because it affects every family at some stage. Too often decisions about aged care seem to be put off until they can no longer be avoided. This is true at the personal level, at the community level and at a national level. Quite often we do not make a decision on care for an aged family member until faced with the inevitable. It seems the same thing applies at a community and national level when it comes to planning and providing accommodation and care for the aged. The most contentious issue facing the aged-care industry at the moment is raising capital for new high-care places. As the population ages and the demand for high-care places continues to grow, this problem will snowball. We have the inequitable situation at the moment where entrants into residential low-care accommodation are required to pay an accommodation bond. However those entering high-care facilities do not. This situation is reflected in the lopsided capital income of the two classes of accommodation which cater for approximately equal numbers of residents. Figures prepared by the Aged Care Association of Australia show the high-care sector earned a total of $123 million dollars in the 2003-04 financial year from capped accommodation charges. For the same period, the low-care sector earned an estimated $288 million dollars from the interest on accommodation bonds and retained fees. Without significant cross-subsidisation from the low-care sector it is highly unlikely that any new high-care beds would have been built. In his review of the aged-care sector in 2004, Professor Warren Hogan made 19 wide-ranging recommendations aimed at improving equity and access, improving efficiency and quality of care, and achieving sustainability in the aged-care sector. The Howard government legislated to give effect to one of Professor Hogan’s recommendations for improving sustainability. It provided residents and their families with greater security and peace of mind with regard to accommodation bonds. The legislation established new prudential arrangements applying to providers to ensure their ability to refund the bonds. It also provided residents and their families with more information about the financial standing of a provider. Other key recommendations aimed at achieving sustainability relating to the simplification of residents’ fees and a more consistent requirement for accommodation bonds have also gone into effect. But the critical area of accommodation bonds for entrants into high-care accommodation has still to be addressed. Professor Hogan argues that the options for making capital contributions should be consistent between high-care and low-care facilities. He called for an end to the present accommodation bond system with retention payments. New entrants to both high- and low-care places, he says, should have the option of paying either a refundable deposit or a daily rental charge for the duration of a resident’s stay. There is no doubt we will have to act sooner rather than later if we are to meet the challenge that will be posed by the growing demand for aged-care places in the decades ahead. In the next 10 years alone it has been estimated that the capital requirement will be more than $9 billion. The difficulty is going to be to strike a balance between the demands on governments to provide increasing amounts of taxpayers’ money and the responsibility of residents to contribute to the cost of their own care. Earlier attempts to introduce accommodation bonds for high-care residents proved too difficult. I know—I was there. There was concerted opposition to any notion that a resident would have to sell the family home to get into a nursing home. We are now at the point where we have to revisit the issue of refundable deposits if we are going to meet the challenges ahead. That challenge is magnified for the smaller, community based facilities such as I have in my electorate of McMillan. They are already struggling to find the capital they need to provide the places for aged members of their local communities who want to spend their declining years in familiar surroundings and with easy access for family and friends. Surely we can no longer sanction a system that discriminates against one sector of the aged community. As I said before, it is an emotional issue and one that will surely spark a lively debate. But, if we are to continue to provide the standard of accommodation and care we expect for our aged population, it is a debate we have to have. My hope is that this time it will be conducted in a reasoned and calm atmosphere with the objective of reaching a fair outcome for all concerned. Last time this issue was used it was in the heat of an election campaign and it was used to discredit the federal Liberal coalition government at the time it was just trying to do the right thing in aged care. I put the challenge out now to the new Labor government to address this issue of bonds and allocations in nursing homes across Australia so that into the future we can have a nursing home system, an aged-care system, that addresses our needs and, as our numbers increase, as the pressure increases, we will meet the challenge. We have a little respite at the moment because the Howard government went from putting $2 billion into aged care when they were elected to $6 billion when they finally left office. They poured billions of dollars into aged care to make the difference that we have made. But even that will catch up with us in the future if we do not act now to make sure that those that are providing care, especially those community based people particularly in electorates such as mine—and I am sure yours, Mr Deputy Speaker—have the means to do so. We need to support those people so that aged-care residents can have a facility close to home, nearby, and one that provides the very high quality of service that we would expect for our aged community. 3153 18:52:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 0 Ms REA —I also rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and the cognate bills before the House this evening, the passing of which will see the delivery of the first budget by the Rudd Labor government from Treasurer Wayne Swan. In doing so, I congratulate the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and indeed the entire Labor cabinet for delivering a very balanced and sensible budget that lays a solid foundation for the necessary investment in skills and infrastructure whilst maintaining downward pressure on interest rates and inflation. It is a budget that delivers these outcomes while ensuring that those most disadvantaged in our community are not left behind. I am proud to support a Labor budget that recognises the need to invest in an education system that will grow our economy by giving every member of this and future generations the chance to achieve and contribute to our society and participate in the workforce in a meaningful way. This budget is not just for the current constituents of Bonner—and indeed the country—but for future constituents as well. First and foremost it is a budget that has kept faith with the Australian people. Every single election commitment, no matter how big or small, has been honoured, including a massive $46.7 billion in tax cuts over the next four years. The opposition tends to deride the government’s talk of a very clear focus on working families. Well, I can assure the opposition that in my electorate of Bonner there are many working families and they are doing it tough. The cost of living has risen dramatically of recent times and I do not need to detail the impact that petrol prices and rising interest rates have had on those families trying to cover basic household costs and provide an education for their children. The cost of housing alone has risen dramatically and is now an unacceptably high percentage of many household budgets. In the electorate of Bonner, at roughly 27.2 per cent of addresses people are renting while 36.8 per cent are homes that are currently being purchased. That is why I am very pleased that the government has announced the Housing Affordability Fund. It is a fund that will see the government invest $500 million to lower the cost of building new homes, by working with all levels of government, particularly local government, to reform infrastructure and planning requirements. As a former Brisbane city councillor, I think it is wonderful to hear of a federal government that is actually prepared to support local government in delivering this very important infrastructure in an affordable way to local residents. The Housing Affordability Fund will be available to local government, potentially in partnership with developers, or even to state and territory governments, for projects that will make a real difference to the cost of new homes. Increasingly, though, it is first home buyers who are being shut out of the housing market. First home buyers now account for 18 per cent—or barely one in six—of all home purchasers, compared to 22 per cent in June of 1996. The first home mortgage has more than doubled in 10 years, from $104,000 in December 1997 to $231,000 in December 2007. The proportion of 18- to 34-year-olds buying their first home fell from 48 per cent to 44 per cent between 1994 and 2004. This is a real issue for many people, not just in my electorate but across the country. To try to reverse these trends the government has committed $850 million to establish first home saver accounts. These new accounts will be up and running in the second half of this year. The accounts are the first of their kind in Australia—the biggest revolution in our savings culture since a Labor government introduced compulsory superannuation. The accounts will provide a simple, tax-effective way for Australians to save a meaningful deposit for the purchase of their first home. Since the announcement of these new accounts the government has increased the benefits to low-income earners. The scheme has been extended to provide assistance to low-income earners through the provision of a minimum 15 per cent government contribution on after-tax contributions of up to $5,000 each year. A couple earning average incomes and putting aside 10 per cent of their incomes for their home could be able to save a deposit of $80,000, depending on returns. The accounts are also an important element of the government’s efforts to increase national savings—in fact, the estimate is that they will contribute around $4 billion to national savings within four years. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is also very important to residents in my electorate. It is perhaps the most ambitious of the government’s new housing policy commitments. The scheme will provide an annual incentive to institutional investors to build new homes and rent them to low- and moderate-income earners at 20 per cent below market rates. The Australian government will provide institutional investors with an annual $6,000 refundable tax credit for new buildings. There will also be the capacity to provide this credit as a grant to non-taxable entities, so many operators in the community housing sector will also be able to deliver affordable rental housing to people in the communities that they serve. In fact, in the first five years the government aims to bring 50,000 properties on board and, if it is successful, will expand the scheme to 100,000 properties over the following five years—a major new investment in Australia’s affordable housing stock. The scheme will not just be another form of welfare housing. Rather, it will provide affordable accommodation for lower income singles and families in the workforce. Many of those people employed in service industries who simply cannot find affordable rents in the town or the city that they are living in will now be able to do so. But, of course, we cannot talk about housing affordability without looking at those most vulnerable—those who are currently homeless and living rough. The government has developed the A Place to Call Home strategy, which will see $150 million funded in this budget to build 600 new homes for the homeless across the nation over the next five years. The A Place to Call Home strategy will see homeless families and individuals moved directly into these homes instead of going into refuges. They will also receive tenancy and other support for the first 12 months. Those placed in the new housing will not have to leave at the end of the support period. The homes will be transferred to the general public housing pool and their tenancy extended in accordance with normal arrangements for public housing. A Place to Call Home is an immediate response to tackle homelessness and successfully reintegrate people into the broader community, and it will stop them from cycling in and out of homelessness services—a feature that is very common for those sleeping rough today. Today’s capital funding will help to ensure that homeless individuals and families get the support they need to permanently break the cycle of homelessness and allow them an opportunity to establish a place they call home. I particularly support the initiative where people—families in particular—will be able to move straight into a house rather than going through the often disruptive and very stressful period of being in a refuge, particularly for women with small children. It is pleasing to see that Queensland will actually receive 35.7 per cent of this funding. Indeed, that will see 143 new homes. It is also a reality out there that there are many families where both parents work because they have to or because they choose to. The right for women to pursue a career and participate in the workforce has been hard fought over many years. The opportunity for many women to work and raise a family is recognised as a basic right in our modern society. The only impediment is the need for parents to have access to good quality and affordable child care. That is why I am very pleased to support the government’s initiative in this budget to increase the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent for all working families. No parent can confidently participate in the workforce if they are worried or uneasy about the care their children are receiving, and as a mother of three I know that feeling only too well. I am also well aware of many women in the electorate of Bonner who face a very real dilemma regarding their financial future. Due to rising interest rates, they are faced with higher mortgage payments, necessitating a second income in the household, but for many the cost of child care is a prohibitive factor in them returning to work. Increasing the childcare tax rebate to 50 per cent and increasing the maximum amount of rebate to $7,500 will be the difference between many families living below or above the poverty line. It enables many women to return to the workforce, which of course will mean not only more financial security for them and their families but also a significant benefit to the current skills crisis. Families win, children win, women win and the economy wins. This rebate, in conjunction with the expansion of the civil penalties scheme to ensure greater compliance, will mean that child care is becoming more affordable and of better quality than at any time in the last 12 years. While this budget brings much needed relief to many current households, it does not do so at the expense of future investment for the children of those working families that we are trying to assist. Funds are provided to ensure the implementation of the government’s education revolution. I have been visiting my local schools regularly since the election and I am overwhelmed by the enthusiasm that abounds for the computers in schools program and the rollout of trade training centres. There is a genuine and general willingness by each school community to work in partnership with the government to deliver these vital new initiatives in a way that will be most beneficial to each of their students. Of course, education infrastructure does not stop here. I am particularly pleased that the $500,000 promised to help build the Gumdale State School hall has been delivered in this budget. This facility will not only provide much needed equipment and services for one of the fastest growing primary schools—not just in the electorate of Bonner but in fact in the city of Brisbane—but also provide very important community facilities, equipment and much needed space, enabling local community organisations to also deliver services in this local area. Given that it services the suburb of Wakerley—and we have seen nearly 4,000 new residents move into this suburb alone in the last four years—this multipurpose hall will be a really great boost to this very close-knit and growing community. As we also know, education does not stop when the bell rings at three o’clock, and that is why I am very pleased that the government has honoured its commitment to introduce an education tax refund to assist families in providing the necessary technology at home that many students require to achieve. The government will introduce a new 50 per cent education tax refund from 1 July 2008 at a cost of around $4.4 billion over the next four years. So those parents who are entitled to family tax benefit part A or whose schoolchildren receive youth allowance or a similar payment will be able to claim a 50 per cent tax refund of up to $750 for each child undertaking primary school studies and a 50 per cent tax refund of up to $1,500 in education expenses for each student undertaking secondary school studies. Parents can simply claim the refund against eligible expenses incurred from 1 July 2008 when they complete their 2008-09 income tax return. The government will also roll out universal access to early learning for all four-year-olds by 2013. The government will fund 15 hours per week for 40 weeks per year of play based learning and development programs. We all know how important it is to instil a love of learning and build an appreciation for education at that very young age if we want our children to succeed through primary school, secondary school and, indeed, tertiary education. That is why I am sure that the 11,377 primary students and 7,698 secondary students in Bonner will be very pleased to benefit from this refund. While this budget has delivered on these important initiatives, I am also pleased that we finally have a federal government that is also prepared to invest, in Brisbane in particular, in the hard infrastructure necessary to ease traffic congestion and provide support to industry. The construction of the Gateway Motorway missing links will mean that Queensland motorists will have a first-class arterial road linking the Pacific Motorway to the Bruce Highway. The $10 million investment, to be matched by $10 million from the Bligh government, will allow planning work to start on the 12½-kilometre section from Nudgee Road to the Bruce Highway and the 4½-kilometre section from Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road to the Pacific Motorway, a significant stretch of road in the electorate of Bonner. From 2009-10, an additional $195 million will be invested in preconstruction funding for these links under the AusLink 2 investment program. The Queensland government is currently investing $1.9 billion to upgrade the Gateway Motorway to six and eight lanes. Anyone who at any time of day has sat in the traffic snarls on the Gateway Motorway knows just how important this duplication is. There are already up to 70,000 motorists using these sections of road every day and, if we do nothing, by 2012 over 94,000 commuters will be sitting in daily traffic jams. That means that urban congestion, if we do nothing, will cost families and businesses in Brisbane $3 billion a year by 2020, simply because many working parents are spending more time in their cars—which of course means that they have less time at home with their kids. The completion of the Gateway duplication will make a real difference, particularly to quality of life for all Bonner residents. It is the key missing link which, when built, will enable future investment in easing congestion on the road network that depends on the smooth running of this motorway. I am proud to support these appropriation bills that will deliver a budget that brings economic and social benefits to all Australians. It is just the beginning and we know that there is more to be done, but it is a solid beginning and it lays the foundation for the Rudd Labor government to continue to create a fairer, more inclusive and more productive Australia. 3157 19:09:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 0 Mr TUCKEY —Just before the member for Bonner departs the House, I must  say I was interested in some of her remarks. She can be congratulated for her enthusiasm, but a bit of practical knowledge might have helped somewhat. She talked about first home saver accounts, but that amount of money is not going to do much if you have got to pay $300,000 to $400,000 for a block of land. And why are blocks of land so expensive in Australia? You would think we had run out of territory. We have got the territory, but we have ridiculous impositions of state government and local government charges and delays. The fact is that, unless governments address the fundamental issues—for instance, the gross escalation of land prices relevant to house prices—then it does not matter if you give people a few thousand dollars to add to their savings account and some tax deductibility. Nobody wants to talk about the process of leasing land for a weekly or monthly charge over 90 years to homeowners, which would then halve the borrowings they might need to obtain a house. Nobody has looked at the opportunity of allowing the rural sector to lease land on their properties for rural homes that could be built thereafter for less than $50,000. We have laws in Australia that prevent people allocating rural land for release to people wishing to live there—and, of course, if the residents’ debts were minimal then they could work comfortably at wages relative to the rural sector’s capacity to pay. I could go on; I just note those particular things. I note that the rights of women were mentioned—but not if you are working fly-in, fly-out and have a gross family income of over $150,000 and you are trying to buy a house in Sydney or Melbourne, or Brisbane for that matter. If you do not have $150,000 you cannot afford a house. Are those people rich? Are they to be denied the bit of assistance that the baby bonus provides? I have a daughter who has just had to buy a second child car seat because she now has another baby, and what are they—500 bucks each? It is big money, and a lot of young people do not have it. This is how silly it is, because I did the figures. You could have two neighbours living in Sydney in a median house price area. The first purchased their house in 2001 and the other, in 2003. By an accident of history, they have a differential in interest charges—nothing to do with interest rates, just the interest on the additional median cost of that house—of $18,000. If the first buyer is on an income of $149,000, they are entitled to the baby bonus, but, if the other people are on $151,000, they are not, yet the latter are by comparison about $16,000 a year worse off than their neighbours who bought two years earlier. Is that a help? Is that helping working families? Not by my measure. It is a case of people needing to learn what ‘rich’ means in this day and age. If you wish to house your family as your parents housed you, $150,000 is a ridiculous amount to consider evidence of wealth. After the budget was announced, I walked up to a doorstop interview the next morning and made a fundamental comment: ‘The budget delivered Peter Costello’s tax cuts and Wayne Swan’s tax increases.’ And to what do the government’s tax increases apply? Consumption. Now, you can argue that that is a good idea if you want to stop people buying and put people out of work in retail and car sales and all those sorts of things—if you think that is the way to manage the economy. I want to put an alternative view in this debate. The reality is, of course, that it is inflationary by any measure. Our leader came forward and said, ‘We’ll take 5c off petrol tax.’ That is a reduction in prices. It is clearly measurable. Don’t ever tell me you need to mess up the GST system any more. When Paul Keating was confronted with the GST, at least he had the honesty to tell the Australian people, ‘Vote Liberal and you’ll get the GST, because I won’t oppose it.’ Please remember, he tried to bring one in in earlier years and it was knocked on the head by the trade union movement with a sleazy meeting in a motel room here in Canberra. Government members—Come on! SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY ——That is a matter of recorded history, but don’t worry about it. The reality was that he had the honesty to do so and the outcome would have been one in which there was no petrol tax— HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr Raguse —Twenty per cent. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —It was not 20 per cent either. I think it was 15 per cent. It would have been a clean change and Labor thought there were votes in doing it the other way around. But we do not notice any suggestion today that they would roll it back. So what are we looking at? We are looking at some pretty interesting situations. As someone who has been here a lot longer than anybody else sitting in this chamber at the moment—and some are so new the drips are still coming off their ears—I remember standing in this place, on this side of the House, pleading with the government of the day to save the private hospital and private health insurance industry. I served a term as shadow minister for health and I could see what was happening, and it was happening deliberately. The Constitution forbids an Australian parliament commercially conscripting doctors, dentists or others in those professions. Of course, therefore, you cannot have the British National Health Service by government determination, but you can sure get it by default. If there had been another three years of the Keating government, there would be no private health industry today. People were deserting in droves. All the good risks—insurance is about matching good risks with bad risks—were giving up, and that escalated the premiums. Then another group would give up. It was beyond the resources of most elderly people who needed access to the private system to get their elective surgery. You can talk about throwing money at state governments until you are blue in the face, but let me tell you: any hospital that runs on a budget treats patients as a liability—‘you can’t have too many of them, because you haven’t got enough money’. The private health system is the only backstop for people. Again, to create an opportunity for all the good risks to desert guarantees, above all else, that thousands of other people in need will not be able to afford private health insurance. You did not tell anybody at the election that you were going to pull this trick and we know why: because you would not have been able to be elected on this issue. People know that the only way to keep private health insurance and private hospitals viable is to have a system that people can afford. If they cannot afford it, they have no choice. You will never be able to fund a public hospital system to the extent that meets the private needs of people. As I say, I have been to the conferences and I have heard honest health administrators say that waiting lists are part of the management processes of public hospitals. That is a conspiracy. It is not generous and it is bad policy. Let us talk about fighting inflation. There are two opportunities to fight inflation. The one chosen by this government is the blunt instrument: you raise taxes, you accumulate the money and you take it out of circulation. You start to starve the economy into submission. Looking over your shoulder is the Reserve Bank, independent admittedly, with another blunt instrument: forcing up interest rates to achieve the same reduction. You do not try to grow your economy on firm foundations; you turn around and starve it into submission. Anybody that consults the history of this place will see that every time government tries that intervention, unfortunately, it ends in a recession—the last one famously called ‘the recession we had to have’. You cannot use those instruments successfully. So what are the alternatives? The alternative is to keep nominal wages low but buying power high—the evidence of the Howard government was an increase of close to 20 per cent in real wages with not very significant increases. Why is that? Because there is no such thing as a free lunch. You can increase workers’ wages. My father earned £6 a week. He raised four children, bought a house and never had his wife in paid employment. Today his wages would be $1,500 a week as a motor mechanic and if his wife were not working he could not afford a house. And we call that progress. The reality is that the first part of addressing inflation is to keep wages properly linked to productivity and to let the market prevail. I nearly laughed when I heard a very prominent labour leader, a union leader, saying that people coming out on section 457 visas should get market wages. They have convinced the Labor government to review 4,000 wage awards—for ‘market wages’ read ‘AWAs’. That is what they are. When it suits their rhetoric they think it is a good idea. What do you want? Do you want to regulate the labour market, with all the constraints that places on growth, and then try to kill growth off with interest rates and taxes, putting money into funds where it cannot be spent when it is needed? If you have not addressed the shortfall in the supply of labour, then you have got a problem. We had 457s, and when it became an opportunity to win an election they were criticised as stealing Aussie jobs. What Aussie jobs? We have four per cent unemployment—which, when I was studying economics, was considered full employment. We have high participation rates. You are going to build all these schools, but I do not know where the kids are coming from to fill them. You cannot materialise people. The Deputy Prime Minister stands up here day after day, waving her hands around and telling us, ‘I’ve got the answer; we’re going to increase skill training.’ That is a good idea, as long as you have someone to teach. What is the history of Australia? Where have most of the voters come from for the Labor Party? They have come from immigrants—the 10-pound Poms and all the other people who came out here, the Vietnamese and others who filled the jobs that were available and all trained their kids in skills. Yet we have the trade union movement out there fighting bitterly against bringing people in on 457 temporary visas now, and I laugh about it. In my electorate the other day, a $40 million piece of premanufactured equipment—a ship-loader for iron ore—turned up on a heavy-lift vessel. The vessel picked it up and dropped it on the wharf, and the only work available to Australians out of that $40 million was to connect up the electricity and the conveyor belt. How many union members did you sign up where that thing was built? How much tax, payroll tax and expenditure in small business did we get from that? Why was it built somewhere else? Because there are not enough people here to build it. The greenies complain about exporting live animals. The major reason is that we have not got the human capacity in my electorate, at the established meatworks, to slaughter those animals. And we say they have to be skilled! Have you guys ever looked at a meat chain, where one bloke stands there with a knife and cuts and the next animal comes along and he cuts? There are people in the boning room and that sort of thing who need some skills, and they should be upgraded. But why don’t you let them in? They might even join the union. They just might. But you do not get them over there in the Middle East or wherever the animals go. I just cannot understand your reasoning. When they got a few people into the meatworks in my electorate, the local sports store sold out of pushbikes the next day. They all bought one to ride to work. They do not do that in the Middle East. They do not do that in other places. Yet there is this stupid belief that, if you can tighten up the wages movement and the supply, you will get all these wage increases and that they are going to deliver a benefit. They do not. When you double the wages of some kid at McDonald’s, what happens to the price of the burger? Do you think McDonald’s say, ‘Tough luck for us’? No, they put the price up. That is inflation. Then there are all the infrastructure issues. Your government has decided to sideline all this money. Now, we sidelined money to pay the unfunded superannuation of public servants. That is a legitimate reason for a Future Fund. But your reason is that, if you spend the money, there is nobody to do the work because you have a culture of stopping people coming here to work—unskilled as well as skilled, and at ridiculous wages. Then you say, ‘Don’t pay them the award,’ which we believe in. You think we have not got a problem. But what is the window of opportunity? It is great to see a new mine open in my electorate just last week—a huge one for nickel—and to hear Don Argus, the chairman of BHP Billiton, say that they anticipate that the current boom is lengthy. I hope he is right. But, with the way you as a government are planning to upstage the infrastructure, it could be over by the time the benefits are achieved. Let me give an example: your determination to get AWAs out of the road. AWAs were first invented in Western Australia by the Court Liberal government. They revolutionised the iron ore industry. The big companies invested in their infrastructure; they did not ask the taxpayer to do it. And what was the outcome of that? The outcome was that you do not see capesize vessels queued up off Port Hedland for any period of time. They are in and out, they are loaded and no longer do the people who buy the iron ore have to wait six weeks, as I remember, while they had a strike over the colour of the tablecloths in the mess hall. When AWAs came in, that industry became viable. But what happened here on the east coast? You are stuck with awards; you are stuck with government provided infrastructure or the lack of it. And what an embarrassment you have got! When Queensland—the previous speaker comes from there—decided to privatise the Dalrymple Bay coal loader, they would not respond properly to their request for an increase in rates necessary to fund expansion, so it did not happen. There are more ships parked off there. Billions of dollars of revenue, available now, is not coming to Australia. There are no extra taxes—nothing. This budget chose the wrong option. It chose to try and strangle the economy instead of addressing the fundamentals. I know you are going to bring some more immigrants in, but we should have had a massive increase in labour being imported. I like the temporary component because I think that means that you have options, if things slow down in later years, as far as retaining jobs for living Australians goes. But you killed it. You frightened the hell out of our side at that time, which I think was also a shame, and I do not think we gain any credit from doing it. But fancy going out and saying, ‘You’re stealing Aussie jobs,’ when everyone is looking around for an Aussie. You cannot get them. Of course, unskilled people should be brought in, as they have been historically, and historically they educated their kids to be doctors, lawyers, skilled IT people et cetera. It is a bad budget because it has gone the wrong way about fighting inflation. 3161 19:29:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —I say to the member for O’Connor: doesn’t he realise that it was the Howard government that was forcing working families into private health? For the first time in my career in this parliament I am pleased to speak to a budget presented by a Labor government. I have witnessed nine budgets delivered by the coalition since I was elected in 1998, and I can say that for the first time in 12 years we have a budget that begins to address many of the economic and social issues that for too long have been ignored in this country. There are many measures in this budget that address issues that I and other Labor members have fought for over the past decade. Much of the program that Labor took to the people at the election last November will see initial funding in this budget. It is very much a Labor budget which gives priority to programs and funding which directly improves the lives of ordinary Australians. But, before I go into the detail of those measures, I would like to comment on a few more general aspects of the economy that Labor inherited from the previous government and some of the challenges that lie ahead for the government. We are told that we live in prosperous but challenging times. Australia’s terms of trade have seldom been better. The world is beating a path to our door to buy our minerals, our iron ore, our coal and other products of the mining sector. At the same time we are spending more than we are earning. Throughout this bounty of exports our trade balance has been in the red for more than five years without a break. We live in an uncertain world where oil, food and other commodities prices have experienced their highest growth in decades, and we have yet to see the final wash-up from the subprime lending crisis. For many members on the government side and, for that matter, many members opposite, as well as the general public, there is a degree of confidence in the government, the Treasury and the Reserve Bank to guide us safely through the present problems. As the Treasurer describes it in his budget speech: It is the responsible Budget our nation needs at this time of international turbulence, and high inflation at home. It is a bit like hearing the captain on a jumbo jet asking passengers to fasten their seatbelts because there is some turbulence ahead. We all hope that everything is okay and that they know what they are doing up in the cockpit. But managing a national economy is not the same as flying a jumbo jet. There is no autopilot and control is not as easy as pushing a few buttons. And while most of us would just as soon give advice to a jet pilot as we would to economic managers, that should not prevent us from expressing concerns when we see them. Pilot error has, after all, been the cause of more than a few plane crashes. But, just to reassure members, it appears that the Treasurer and his advisers, the Treasury boffins and the gnomes of the Reserve Bank, are all singing from the same anti-inflationary song sheet—and they cannot all be wrong, can they? That is the question. The Treasurer continued in his budget speech that this is ‘a budget carefully designed to fight inflation and ensure we meet the uncertainties of the future from a position of strength’. It certainly sounds like the Treasurer has taken advice and turned on the trouser-belt-tightening sign. But when it comes to economic advice we should mourn the passing of a once thriving species, the two-handed economist. They are sadly missed. Just when you thought that you could see what they were getting at they would make the remark that gave them their name: ‘On the other hand.’ That is not a phrase that we hear often these days, but perhaps we should seek out the alternative view. The recent passing of the former senator and industry minister, the late John Button, reminded me of his sceptical approach to economic advice. In his book As it Happened John Button gives us one of the clearest insights into the decision-making processes in the Hawke and Keating governments and the role of economic advisers. The story is one that should be on the mousepads of all those influencing government policy today—as Button tells it. He said: In 1988, as the economy was booming along, the high priests decided that interest rates should be increased to slow it down. No alternative policies were considered by cabinet. Increasing taxes, a remedy adopted at times of previous economic blow-outs was not considered possible. The government had locked itself into a pattern of promising to lower taxes at each election. Tax cuts had become a trade off for wage restraint and an incentive for higher income earners. That quote has a familiar ring to it, but I will continue: Nobody seemed to have much idea how quickly interest rate increases would work to slow the economy or what the extent of the increases should be. They crept up seemingly with little effect on the boom. Cabinet had no say in interest rate changes. It was an art form administered by experts. We could merely draw attention to the effects of the changes on business and employment. Further increases took place between 1989 and 1990. By that year businesses, many of them overcommitted with debt following a lending spree by financial institutions, began to complain. As industry minister closest to business in the government, I received most of the complaints. On occasions I passed them on to Bob Hawke. I think he thought I was exaggerating. Sometimes he said things like I’ve checked with Peter (meaning Sir Peter Abeles) and he thinks things are not too bad. This seemed for the time to be the end of the matter. Button continues to detail the events that led to his sad conclusion. He continues: On 27 November 1989 I went to the opening of a Zionist Federation headquarters in Canberra. There were a number of prominent businessmen at the function. I talked to some of them briefly but at length with Richard Pratt of Visiboard, who said, ‘I can’t see anybody here who will vote Labor at the next election’. He gave his disarming grin. Jean and I might, of course, but I can’t think of anyone else. He pointed out various businessmen around the room, saying things like, ‘He’s in trouble, that one over there will be broke by Christmas, that one is talking about selling his house.’ He went on to say: I returned to Parliament House with some misgivings, and decided to go and talk to the Treasurer. He was not in his office. I told my staff member Bill Nagle, an economist with a lot of commonsense, about Pratt’s comments. He said he’d go round and see Don Russell, Keating’s principal adviser. Russell listened carefully. ‘Why,’ he asked petulantly, ‘doesn’t someone tell us these things?’ As John Button tells it, Russell later referred to his meeting with Button the following day as a time, in his words, when he heard the economy snap. While that story clearly illustrates how policy making in the ivory tower of Canberra can be so far away from the real world, his comments on Treasury advice are gems, and I am proud to quote those in this House tonight. He said: I was briefed by Treasury officials just prior to the 1990 budget. They came in pairs like the nuns of my childhood memory, supporting each other, watchful custodians of the official line. I listened impatiently. As they were leaving one said, ‘You’ll be pleased to hear, Minister, that we’ve commissioned a study of the effects of high interest rates on investment.’ ‘You mean,’ I asked, ‘that you’ve been advising us all along that high interest rates are necessary without understanding their effect on investment?’ ‘Well,’ he said, ‘we’ve commissioned a study which could be important.’ After they’d gone I talked to some of my staff. ‘We have,’ I said, ‘fallen among f wits.’ When the history of this government is written I can only hope that it is with the clarity and honesty shown by the late John Button. But, more importantly, I hope that we do not have to wait for the economy to snap before we realise that alternative economic policies are necessary to preserve the wellbeing of Australian society. Last week the news broke of the collapse of Beechwood Homes, based in Liverpool, an area I represented until the last election. In March this year I spoke in the House about mortgage stress, lower house prices and falling levels of activity in the home building industry in south-western Sydney. The Beechwood collapse was not the first dead canary in the coalmine, but from the ivory towers of Canberra Liverpool is a world away. The Treasury experts did not hear a snap, just the sound of a one-handed economist clapping. Last week I visited Umina, in the electorate of Robertson, on the New South Wales Central Coast, and a place that I know is familiar to the Assistant Treasurer. As I walked along the main street, a sign that I have not seen for a long, long time caught my eye. I had to take closer look. The sign was printed on new cardboard, not the old and yellowed type I might have expected. It was in the front window of a pizza restaurant and declared ‘Recession buster specials’, followed by a list of cut-price pizzas. That sign might not be the kind of snap that could be heard in Canberra, but it certainly looked to me like another dead canary. The Treasury experts may not know it, but the pizza makers of Umina know we are in a recession. Blessed are those pizza makers. I do not know quite what makes Treasury experts hear a snap, but the other day I certainly did. I took a look at the fine print on the back of my National Australia Bank Visa card statement. I paused to think what interest rate I might have to pay if I did not pay the full amount outstanding. The interest rate quoted was 20.47 per cent. That must be getting very close to loan shark rates. I have to say I wonder about the very many families in the Fowler electorate unable to pay off their monthly balance and forced to pay such high rates of interest. They are definitely the cannon fodder in our fight against inflation. It is no wonder they are attracted to the ‘no interest, no repayments for 12 months’ deals advertised by major retailers, but you can bet the lenders will still get their pound of flesh and some day soon those debt canaries will definitely come home to roost. You can be sure that when Treasury experts warn us that we have to put downward pressure on inflation what they really mean is that we have to put downward pressure on wages. We saw those inflationary pressures build last year and we should note that wages and salaries increased by only 0.9 per cent in the December quarter, the smallest increase in three years. At the same time, company profits increased by 3.9 per cent. Higher immigration and the workplace relations laws of the previous government have kept a lid on wages while company profits have soared. But it is the households of Australia that are bearing the brunt of interest rate rises and, unlike other bouts of inflation, working families can expect little relief in the form of a wages catch-up. Faced with the chorus of economists singing anti-inflation harmonies, we can only hope that they have risen above the assessment that John Button made of those framing economic policy during the previous Labor government. As I promised earlier, I also want to address some of the measures contained in this budget that have long been on the agenda for me and other Labor members. The first of these are the range of measures dealing with assistance to families with children. As deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services in the previous two parliaments, I have taken part in inquiries dealing with the burden of childcare payments on families. I was therefore very pleased to see the government honour its election promise by increasing the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent and paying the rebate quarterly. In the committee’s report Balancing work and family, childcare rebates were seen as the fairest way of assisting working parents with the high cost of child care. Unlike the previous coalition government, which breached its promise before the 2004 election to provide the rebate and stalled its introduction for more than a year, this government has made good on its commitment in its very first budget. Under the previous arrangement, families had to wait until the end of the tax year to get the rebate. That meant a very large out-of-pocket expenditure before families saw the benefit from the scheme, and with rising childcare fees the 30 per cent rebate did not go far enough to provide the level of assistance needed to encourage working mothers to re-enter the workforce or to work increased hours. During the committee’s inquiry the case was put for allowing tax deductibility for childcare expenses. This was rejected for the reason that it would give a higher benefit for parents on higher incomes, while the childcare rebate provides the same benefit for all income levels. I should add that the childcare rebate is not means tested and should be seen as assistance provided to all parents needing childcare provision to participate in the workforce. The same cannot be said for the introduction of means test caps for maternity allowance and family tax benefit part B. In the case of maternity allowance, the means test will affect only the top three per cent of family incomes and effectively even higher incomes where the mother is a high-income earner. This is not cutting back on middle-class welfare; it is putting a cap on welfare for the wealthy. In previous budget speeches I have expressed my concern that wealthy, stay-at-home mums could receive family tax benefit part B. Paying for tennis club fees and gym membership for stay-at-home parents whose youngest child was as old as 17 never did make sense. Now the top 15 per cent of households, those with incomes over $150,000 per year, will not have access to the family tax benefit part B welfare payment. I also applaud the government for increasing the Medicare surcharge threshold to a more realistic figure of $100,000 for singles and $150,000 for couples. For a government that talked often about choice, the coalition did everything it could to make private health insurance compulsory. This budget shows us a government that has rolled up its sleeves and is tackling its ambitious agenda. It is good to see that its highest priorities are the issues affecting families across Australia. Pensioners have not been ignored, but it is interesting to note that some pensioners see reason to protest now that we have a Labor government—something they never, ever did while John Howard was Prime Minister. While the previous government was very generous to self-funded retirees, pensioners got very little. It is strange that only now that we have a Labor government have they found their voice. Perhaps that is because they know that only a Labor government will listen to them. I look forward to this government’s future budgets and the fulfilment of Labor’s agenda for a fairer Australia. 3165 19:50:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —Today I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and related bills for the 2008-09 budget. Sadly, the good people of my electorate of Paterson are to suffer under the ruthless Rudd Labor government’s first budget. The 2008 budget has seen some of the most valuable funding and support programs for regional and rural communities axed by this metro-centric government. This program was designed to assist community groups with large projects outside their budget constraints to bring regional communities together to work as one. The Regional Partnerships program had delivered for the community at Paterson—for example helping the coastal patrol at Forster-Tuncurry to purchase a rescue vessel suitable for shallow waters. Some $22,550 in matching funding was provided for these heroes who put their lives on the line for others. Port Stephens Community Arts Centre was helped to extend its premises to include woodworking facilities with a $65,866 grant—again, bringing the community together by providing an outlet for ambition. Gresford Showground Reserve was helped to increase capacity of the arena and improve customer and tourist resources with a grant of $27,500. Expansion of the Karuah Community Hub was made possible with a $264,000 grant. That has helped this community left empty by a Pacific Highway bypass. Gloucester Community Workshop Facility was assisted with the costs of construction and the fit-out of the facility with a $103,764 grant. This group helps make the homes for the disabled usable—hardly a pork-barrelling measure, unless the Rudd government thinks that disabled people are not worth funding or fighting for. Communities were left waiting for answers on Regional Partnership grants prior to this budget, which would have been an enormously valuable exercise for seniors, families, the disabled and low-income earners with their respective parts of the electorate. They have now missed out on the funding because of a ruthless Rudd Labor government budget. Projects such as the building of extensions to the rear of the existing Uniting Church in Karuah to create the Karuah Community Caring and Youth Centre, which would have provided a safe place to be and opportunities for young people to interact with their community, only sought just over $147,000 out of a $310 million program. The Local Government Training Institute is managed by the 12 member councils in the Hunter region that actively seek opportunities for cooperation and resource sharing. The core business of the unit is to research, develop and coordinate training for council employees which is cost-effective and accessible locally to all concerned. The project cost was $1.836 million and the funding sought was only $700,000. Other projects that were under development by the Hunter Area Consultative Committee that will never see the light of day include the Dungog multipurpose centre that the Dungog Agricultural and Horticultural Society and the Dungog Shire Council have been working together to develop. This project had already secured state government funding to the tune of $65,000. The additional funding from the Regional Partnerships program would have allowed for a larger centre to cater for indoor sports. Clarence Town Senior Citizens Centre wanted to expand its existing facility to double the size of the centre, upgrade the kitchen facilities and provide disabled access to facilitate expansion in the group’s activities. Clarence Town, although a growing community, has restricted public transport facilities and a lack of modern community facilities. This, combined with an ageing population, makes plans to improve the building to create better community facilities commendable. The Fighter World relocation funding of $528,000 was approved by the coalition, but not contracted. This grant would have assisted in relocating the only themed specific aviation museum in Australia to a more suitable site at RAAF Williamtown, enabling Fighter World to increase its exposure to potential visitors and, among other things, display exhibits such as the Sabre, Machi, Mirage, F111 and FA18 aircraft. Simply put, the scrapping of Regional Partnerships programs means less money for regional Australia. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation has gutted Regional Partnerships by announcing the program will be cutting the coalition’s Growing Regions program by $145 million. Many promises were made in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election—erratic, vote-grabbing promises made by the Rudd Labor Party, with little or no foresight or substance to ensure their ultimate completion. Health care is an issue of great importance to the Paterson electorate. With one of the highest aged constituencies in Australia, we rely on our health facilities and workforce as much as any other region in the country. Health services in the Paterson electorate are under pressure. Overworked and under-resourced centres such as the Tomaree Community Hospital in Port Stephens are struggling to maintain their level of medical care on a budget stretched almost to breaking point. Our public health system suffers from a shortage of doctors, leading to excessive working hours and strain. One doctor was recently quoted as saying that he was very much looking forward to working only a 12-hour shift. The situation has become so dire at the Tomaree Community Hospital that we have recently had five out of 10 doctors at the facility threatening to withdraw their services due to excessive working hours. We cannot blame these tireless health professionals from being forced to take such extreme measures, for it is on their shoulders that the burden of health care in Australia rests. All this while we have the Cape Hawke community hospital, a private hospital at Forster in the Great Lakes region, with a floor of empty beds and a New South Wales Labor government dragging its feet in signing a much awaited agreement to allow public patients into this hospital. When will common sense overcome political ideology and reluctance to help the community? During the election campaign Labor promised the people of Paterson millions of dollars to establish GP superclinics in the Paterson electorate. In joint Labor Party media statements dated 12 and 22 November 2007 from the then shadow minister for health and ageing, the Hon. Nicola Roxon, all of the local ALP members and the ALP candidate for Paterson, it was confirmed: Labor will invest $5 million to establish two GP Super Clinics in the Charlton electorate and Port Stephens. After the recent budget, we now find that funding for the Port Stephens GP superclinic in the electorate of Paterson is apparently not so readily available and it could take up to five years before anything substantial is done to help the health service providers and constituents of the Paterson electorate. The Rudd Labor government continued advocating the supposed benefits that the GP superclinic would have. These benefits appear to have been ignored as we see another delayed promise, unfulfilled within the term of the current government. It comes as no surprise then to see that the Rudd Labor government has also reneged on a core promise to the serving men and women of RAAF Base Williamtown, when in the budget there was no announcement of the promised defence family health centre for Williamtown. In a joint media release dated 22 November 2007, the now Minister for Defence stated: Labor’s package of investment in the Hunter includes two Defence Family Health Clinics to service the Singleton and Williamtown bases. The Rudd Labor government claim to have put defence families front and centre this year but have failed to actually deliver. This was a key promise on health services for the defence families of those who serve our nation. I ask: where is the member for Newcastle on this issue, as RAAF Base Williamtown is now in her electorate? She is silent and missing in action. The personnel of RAAF Base Williamtown were promised by Labor before the election that they would have one of the 12 defence family healthcare clinics to provide free dental and health care for ADF dependent spouses and children. In fact, the $33.1 million promise was slashed to $12.2 million and then spread over four years, only five clinics have sought to be built instead of 12 and limits to the dental service are capped at $300. You are all right if you are in the Army at Singleton Army Base, which just happens to be in the Minister for Defence’s electorate of Hunter. It will receive one of the trial systems with no dedicated clinic, just a rebate system of sorts. Again, Labor has delivered nothing for Williamtown personnel and their families. There are many issues in and around the Paterson electorate that have a direct impact on the health and wellbeing of my constituents and the people of the region. An unequivocal promise was made in a media statement dated 12 November 2007 from the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, and other Labor candidates. It stated: Federal Labor supports the provision of Medicare funding for an MRI machine in Maitland. We now again see another Labor backflip, with the first warning signs for this promise being broken when the Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, in February recalled the existing tender for ‘an MRI service covering Newcastle and the Hunter’, which was announced on 26 September 2007, and simply added in the word ‘Maitland’. Anyone who knows the area would already consider Maitland a part of the Hunter because it is where the valley actually starts. Too bad for the people of Maitland that Joel Fitzgibbon, member for Hunter, was reported in the Maitland Mercury recently to have ‘not been briefed’ on the issue and could not go into bat to get the funding from his federal Labor colleagues for his own pre-election promise—a promise for a separate MRI licence for Maitland. If the blame game is to stop between state and federal governments, a great start would be for the government’s own ministers to stop the blame game on each other. Labor promised secure, long-term funding for the GP Access After Hours clinics at Toronto Polyclinic, Newcastle Community Health Centre and Maitland, Belmont and John Hunter hospitals. Instead we see a Labor ‘streamlining’ of funding for after-hours medical services, a reduction of $26 million over five years. If only Arn Sprogis were still the CEO of the Hunter Division of GPs, he would be going off his brain at this reduction in funding. He fought very hard for the funding we currently have and it appears all to have been in vain. As the Paterson electorate covers almost 10,000 square kilometres, this decision to hinder the provision of vital after-hours medical services hurts the constituents of the Paterson electorate deeply. The recent Rudd Labor government decision to increase the income threshold for those required to pay the additional Medicare levy will directly hurt those who choose to continue membership with private health insurers. By increasing this threshold, Mr Rudd and Mr Swan are inducing a mass exodus from private health insurance. An industry report has predicted almost one million members will abandon their fund and many funds have already publicly discussed dramatic premium increases as a direct result of this decision. These premium increases tempt even more to leave the health funds, placing an even greater pressure on our already suffering public health system. Even Mark Fitzgibbon, managing director of NIB Health and brother of the member for Hunter, has confirmed that the recent changes would adversely affect sales and lapse rates in the industry. Perhaps the member for Hunter should have sought the advice of his family before supporting policies that will no doubt hurt the people of the Hunter region. When it comes to walking the walk on the environment, Labor has failed. It was the coalition that introduced the solar panel rebate and it is simply wrong to scrap the $8,000 rebate for households earning a combined income of over $100,000. These households are not ‘rich’ as Mr Rudd has indicated; they are honest Australians who were trying to help the environment. The Rudd government’s decision to go backwards environmentally means that mums and dads on $51,000 each will now have to pay the full cost of installing solar panels, which typically ranges from $12,000 to $20,000. This is a big cost burden for families as they struggle with higher petrol and grocery prices. They will be denied the opportunity to help in their part to reduce greenhouse gases. This action by the Rudd government is as bad for small businesses as it is for the environment. Already solar companies are laying off staff as home owners rush to cancel their plans to install solar panels. Businesses are reporting that three-quarters of all contracts have been cancelled since the budget was brought down and there is little or no sign of new ones being signed. John Head of Tanilba Bay installed photovoltaic cells on his roof last year. In a letter of appreciation written to me he said: I wish to thank you and your government for coming up with such a wonderful scheme, no doubt this will help with the concerns about global warming. I wish others would take advantage of the scheme. But many will be denied the opportunity because of the cost. Furthermore, in the recent budget, the Rudd government set a target of 134,000 jobs to be lost over the coming year. Unfortunately it is jobs from the solar industry that are the first to go. The environment is the big loser from the Labor government’s misguided decision. People are now being actively discouraged from reducing emissions. Given all the cancellations of solar panel installations, tonnes more CO2 than necessary will be pumped into the atmosphere. The federal opposition and the solar energy industry have both been strongly critical of the plan, which will limit the $8,000 rebate to homeowners earning less than $100,000. Labor’s grab for tax is nowhere more evident than in the alcopop tax. I applaud the coalition stand to reject the alcopop tax and support the opposition leader’s position that this is a tax binge falsely presented to Australians as a health measure. As a father of three teenage children, I am very concerned about the level of alcohol and drug abuse across Australian communities. But this problem is not just confined to some young people; it is also a cultural and social problem for our nation. Labor said the alcopop tax would reduce binge drinking. In fact, the budget papers forecast alcopop consumption to rise by up to 9.3 per cent a year. As the shadow Treasurer, Malcolm Turnbull, stated on 15 May 2008, the revenue from the alcopops tax is going to increase rapidly from $628 million next year to $880 million three years later. These estimates assume more people are going to be drinking these drinks and it looks like Wayne Swan’s revenue forecasts are actually based on the assumption that binge drinking is going to become greater. In research I have found that the average cost of two four-packs of Vodka Cruisers is $27, which equates to nine standard drinks. Mishka Vodka is available for the same price, $27, and is the equivalent of 21 standard drinks. This is why this tax makes no sense. Which one are young people going to choose? Or will this drive teens to other forms of alcohol or, worse still, drug use? I would point out that the drug speed is available for $20 per point, that enough cannabis is available for $10 to make 15 cones, and an ecstasy tablet costs $25, which can be shared between a number of people. It is all about the cost. My local bottlo tells me that the sales of ready-to-drinks have slightly decreased but there has been a sharp increase in the sale of 750-millilitre bottles of straight spirits. This tax has been scorned by my constituents both young and old who drink RTDs and who are adamant this measure will have absolutely no effect on the amount of alcohol that they, their families and their friends will consume. Simply put, the Rudd Labor government have got it wrong. They do not understand the issue and, moreover, they do not know what they are doing. Those that binge-drink usually make a decision to get smashed before they go out. They usually start off at home with spirits like vodka or bourbon. Then, when they arrive at the venue, they will buy an RTD to be fashionable. Next, because of cost, they may have some dope, an eccy tab or, worse still, some ice, which fries the brain and creates the violent episodes we see reported in the media. This tax will do nothing to address the problem of binge drinking and will probably do more to increase the sale of illicit drugs. The National Drug Strategy Household Survey confirms binge drinking by young women since 2001 has actually declined and alcohol abstinence in this group has increased. In March of this year the Rudd Labor government asked the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy to make a report to COAG in December 2008 on options to reduce binge drinking. By introducing this knee-jerk, revenue-raising policy the Labor government has openly stepped outside its own policy-making processes and made a mockery of all its new advisory groups. When the Rudd Labor government realises that it has got it so wrong, will it then put a 70 per cent increase in excise on straight spirits, cask wine or beer? President of the Newcastle and Hunter Hotels Association, Bruce Woods, says that this tax will not address the issue of binge drinking. Bruce Woods and his industry colleagues are concerned with high-volume RTDs such as Smirnoff vodka drinks, with an alcohol content of nine per cent, as opposed to five per cent in a Bacardi Breezer. One of the answers—so simple—is to decrease the alcohol content of RTDs. Bruce Woods says that industry groups support that move as a way of addressing binge drinking and the increases in domestic violence that come from it. The answer is not just charging more for RTDs. Members opposite quote drink spiking and rape of young girls as a reason to increase the tax on RTDs. Well, I put the question: is it better to have a known content of alcohol in a pre-mixed drink in a bottle rather than a drink that can have an enormous of amount of alcohol—from the increase in 750-millilitre bottle sales of Bundy, bourbon and vodka to name a few possibilities? Education on the perils of irresponsible alcohol consumption and drug abuse is the answer, not taxation—particularly taxation that is going into consolidated revenue, not tied to fixing the problem. I support the coalition’s establishment of a national forum of alcohol specialists, educators, police, parents and people with expertise in this and related fields to develop a truly integrated approach to what is truly a national and cultural problem. There are many more issues about the shortcomings of this budget that I would like to address, but time restrictions prevent me at this stage from saying more. (Time expired) 3170 20:10:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 0 Mr CHEESEMAN —I would like to congratulate the Treasurer and the Prime Minister on a tremendous budget—an outstanding budget indeed. The 2008-09 budget did three fundamental things: it delivered comprehensively on our election commitments; it struck the right balance, addressing the complexities of the medium-term economic outlook and its challenges; and, most importantly, this budget looked into the future, putting in place the building blocks to secure this nation’s wellbeing for future generations. I want to talk about how we have delivered on our election commitments and to look specifically at what this means for my own electorate. But first of all I would like to say something about the spirit of the 2008-09 budget. The 2008-09 budget restored the faith of many Australians in politics and government. We went to the Australian people with a series of promises and commitments and in our first budget we have delivered on them all. That has not happened in a long time in Australian politics. A blanket of cynicism, born after a decade of coalition budget cons, has been lifted. In Labor’s first budget there were no ifs and no buts; we simply delivered the funds we promised. We delivered the money we said we would and we did it in the very first year. After 11 years of squandered Costello budgets, phoney black holes, excuses and slip-sliding by the former government, Labor has restored the people’s faith. I have received tremendous feedback in my electorate on this budget. People in my electorate of Corangamite were heartened to see a government that did what it said it would. I congratulate the Treasurer and the Prime Minister again on a great job. I would like to talk a about the impact of the budget in my own electorate. As most members know, Corangamite has been a safe Liberal seat for over 70 years. It has been shockingly neglected. Such was the arrogance of the previous government that they did not promise one single major project in Corangamite at the last election. This was par for the course. Corangamite never got anything at budget time under the previous Liberal government. But this time, under a Labor government, Corangamite’s boat came in. Funding has been delivered for a whole range of projects—infrastructure that will have a lasting impact on our local community. This budget begins a Corangamite transformation. Corangamite is about to become one of Australia’s most exciting regions through these Labor initiatives. Let me go through what has been provided in this budget for our region. First of all, business in our region did very well. The 2008-09 budget has put $20 million into an Innovative Regions Centre in our region aimed directly at offering support to small- and medium-sized businesses. The Innovative Regions Centre puts our region at the forefront of business innovation in Australia. The Innovative Regions Centre provides assistance in business strategies and operations; benchmarking of business and manufacturing processes against best practice; helping in finding the latest research, technology and organisational knowledge to improve products and efficiency; prototyping and testing facilities to turn good ideas into products; and helping to cut through red tape and get the best access to government programs. It is a great commitment, which we have funded upfront in our very first budget. In addition to this we have made major commitments which will transform our road transport system in the region. There is $30 million for the next stages of the crucial Geelong ring road, and money to ensure the Princes Highway duplication and Lavers Hill road upgrade can now both go full steam ahead. The electorate, and particularly the Colac end of my electorate, are absolutely ecstatic about that. Another $10 million has been put on the table in this budget for the Blackrock water recycling plan. This project is critical for sporting fields, parks and industry in the Surf Coast Shire and, importantly, for the Armstrong Creek development, Victoria’s largest housing development and Australia’s second largest. This money for the Blackrock water recycling plan means that there are no excuses why we cannot get on with this project. The spotlight is squarely on the water authority to get cracking. Another real beneficiary of the budget was Deakin University, which received an additional allocation of $30.8 million. What a great kick-along for our education system in my electorate. We also funded a $7 million GP superclinic, which will also double as a GP training facility. The GP superclinic will be fantastic for our region, adding to our service capacity across a whole range of important health services. In our local area we also delivered on funding for some other projects of which I am very proud. We have delivered on funding for a range of important sports and recreation projects that will mean we have a fitter and healthier community. There is $4 million for the Torquay Sports Precinct. This money will enable the Surf Coast Shire to bring forward this much-needed project. These funds will be spent on building two more football ovals, three more soccer pitches, half a dozen new netball courts, and a shared pavilion. It is a great project and great for the health of our community. On top of this we also provided in this budget money for the Quay Reserve sports lighting project, sports lighting for the South Barwon Football and Netball Club, and $3 million for the important Leisurelink replacement facility in Geelong. Thousands of local residents will benefit from these projects. Then there is the money for other community projects in the budget—money for Bannockburn Community Hub, money for the Colac Beechy Centre and money for another great project, the Colac Botanic Gardens. But that is not all; there is more. We have also provided funding for an upgrade to the Torquay Senior Citizens Centre and to the Torquay Community House—all projects again delivered in our very first budget. The Great Ocean Road has been allocated $1 million in the 2008-09 budget to attack weed threats, undertake a climate change risk assessment, build cultural interpretation signage and upgrade the Torquay Surf Life Saving Club. This is a sensational budget for our region. This is the biggest injection of community infrastructure in our region ever. Yes, without a shadow of a doubt, this is the biggest injection of community infrastructure ever in the Corangamite region. And it has all been delivered in year 1 of the Rudd Labor government. I am very, very proud of that. But these are not the only things this budget delivered for our region. As important as this community and business infrastructure is, there are even more important opportunities for our region in this budget. And this is about the long-term vision of this budget. The great thing about this budget is that it is not offering that tired, old, short-sighted fistful of dollars that was the hallmark of coalition budgets. It is about community building and long-term infrastructure provision. It is about both doing things today and providing vision for the future. This budget in that respect is tailor-made for Corangamite. It is tailor-made to address the fundamental long-term challenges faced by our region. Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to draw for you a vision. I want to draw for you a future vision for our region. It is a vision that has emerged with this federal budget. It is a vision that combines all the abovementioned community infrastructure commitments with the other broader major infrastructure fund opportunities this budget also contains. This budget has put a vision within our community’s reach. Think about this: just a few years down the track most of the abovementioned community infrastructure projects will have been completed. We will have a range of new community infrastructure promoting a healthy lifestyle and a stronger community. We will have an efficient road transport system putting a big area of our region within an hour’s drive of Melbourne, and an even broader area within an hour and a half. Within a similar period of time—just a few years ahead—thousands of new housing blocks will be available through Armstrong Creek, in the Golden Plains, Surf Coast and Colac shires with a significant supply-side effect across a range of real estate market niches. A very significant supply-side effect will counter the upward real estate spiral we have witnessed now over a prolonged period. If we put land availability together with existing commitments to community infrastructure, then add to this access to the major infrastructure funds, there is a unique opportunity. Within a few years I am confident the new $20 billion Building Australia Fund will be working to further improve our road and public transport systems, addressing the bottlenecks. I am hopeful we will be successful in winning a slice of the $254 million National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns fund. Let us say we win some access to the $500 Housing Affordability Fund, $359 million of which will be available in the 2008-09 budget. The Housing Affordability Fund is aimed specifically at providing further money for possible water, sewerage, transport or other projects to help councils and developers provide more affordable housing in new developments. Let us imagine many of our residents taking advantage of the $1 billion in funds for making homes energy and water efficient. What do we have? We have a vision of quality housing that a range of people can afford. We have communities where people have amenities, services and facilities, community building facilities, modern environmentally sound suburbs and houses where people are healthy, engaged and active. So we are moving towards that vision in this budget. The 2008-09 budget offers the people of Corangamite a great opportunity to tackle one of the great challenges of our generation—the issue of affordable housing. I cannot underline the opportunity enough. Through this budget, if we play our cards right, Corangamite can become the envy of the rest of Australia. We can offer a wonderful lifestyle, a good standard of living and a strong regional community, and become one of Australia’s more affordable places to live, whilst still being within striking distance of a major capital city. With all levels of government helping to provide community infrastructure, services and land availability, we will have developer competition and few excuses for high land prices. We can become the affordable housing capital of Australia whilst we build a stronger, healthier community. Corangamite and the greater Geelong region are uniquely placed to take advantage of this budget. We are uniquely placed. The federal government has put its money on the table. We are funding crucial roads projects, innovative community water projects and other community infrastructure. And there are further opportunities presenting through the Infrastructure Australia review and the other major infrastructure funds. This region must position itself to take advantage of this terrific budget. Our local councils, and the City of Greater Geelong in particular, need to do the planning and forge the alliances with the other public authorities and the private sector to position themselves first in the queue for the opportunities being made available by the federal government through this far sighted budget. I am talking to all councils, the G21 and the state government about a coordinated effort to take advantage of this budget. The key challenge now for us is to get all levels of government working towards fully capitalising on the opportunities this budget has presented for our region. This budget provides very significant funding to overcome the massive skills shortages that are one of the principal legacies of the previous coalition government. Skill shortages in the building trades are also very important factors in pushing house prices up, so I am working with local schools to take advantage of the $2.5 billion fund to provide improved school trade facilities in all high schools. That is my vision. That is my vision for the working families in my region—more affordable housing by all levels of government contributing to building community infrastructure, utilities and services, good land supply and developer competition; healthier, engaged communities, thinking about the challenges of tomorrow; opportunities for working families within our local region; and more local jobs. That is what this budget puts within our grasp. I do not underestimate the complexities and difficulties of the issue of affordable housing but I do say this: this budget gives us some real opportunities if we have a go. And I want our region to take our best shot at it.  I would just like to finish by pointing to the importance of responsible economic management. This is a responsible budget that delivers for working families and invests in Australia’s future. This budget has a clear eye on the long term. But there is also a clear focus on the immediate concerns of today, particularly the fight against inflation and the need to do the things that will keep downward pressure on interest rates. The Rudd Labor government and the Swan budget have a strong surplus of 1.8 per cent of GDP. This surplus will enable us to continue to invest in long-term improvements in our hospitals, roads, universities and TAFEs. The government has found savings to offset any new spending. We have identified savings of $33.3 billion over four years, including $7.3 billion in the 2008-09 budget. Every dollar of new spending in 2008-09 is more than matched by spending cuts. We have found savings, primarily by getting rid of inefficient and wasteful programs, and better targeting benefits to those who need them most. The 2007-08 and 2008-09 surpluses will be used to invest $40 billion in three nation-building funds: a Building Australia fund, an Education Investment Fund and a Health and Hospitals Fund. Labor governments are consistent. We are the nation builders. Labor are, and have always been, our nation’s builder. This is a budget of heart, intelligence and vision. Australia and my region of Corangamite can build a better future with this budget as its foundation. 3174 20:27:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —After hearing the last member speak, I think it is pretty clear that the only thing that was not funded in Corangamite was probably a set of steak knives for every elector! YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —Next year! HWE Simpkins, Luke, MP Mr SIMPKINS —That’s right; next year! It would appear that there is a fairly clear difference between those electorates that the government won and those that it did not. I will get to that later. Economics is at the core of every government’s ability to govern. If you get the economics right you can pay for the programs, such as climate change, education, health and welfare support, just to name a few. If you get the economy right people can have a job. They can pay for food on the table, they can afford clothing and they can use money on transport to get to where they need to be. Those are the outcomes when you get the economics right for the people of Australia. Now, in the lead-up to the election last year there were some clear expectations put out by the then opposition. Those expectations were that petrol would be reduced in price, that groceries would be cheaper and that housing would be easier to afford. The then opposition railed against the government in all these regards. A simple argument was put out there. What part it played in Labor’s election victory will always be debatable yet there were clear expectations, and they were raised for political gain. No doubt it was done very well. Words were carefully chosen. The impression that was left on Australians was that a Rudd Labor government would be a panacea but it did not take long before the election campaign gloss began to wear off. The Westpac Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment index fell by 8.3 per cent in January and 5.5 per cent in February this year, leaving the index 12.6 per cent lower than in February 2007. In February Westpac’s chief economist, Bill Evans, said that what the index means when it is under 100 points is that ‘pessimists now outnumber optimists’. In March it fell another 9.1 per cent to 88.6 per cent. But it is important that we keep this matter in balance lest I be accused of being selective with the figures. Let us look now at the good news. The Westpac Melbourne Institute index rose in May by 2.7 per cent to 89.8 points. Some may think that is impressive, but compare that to May 2007, when the index was at 123.9 points. 10000 Bevis, Arch (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AR Bevis)—Order! It being 8.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 3175 Private Members' Business 3175 3175 20:30:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —I 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 Honourable 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 Honourable Peter Garrett MP to exercise his powers under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to reject the Traveston Crossing Dam absolutely. Two years ago, on the eve of Anzac Day, the Beattie Labor government announced it would build what it described as a megadam on the Mary River at Traveston Crossing. The announcement shocked and devastated the people of the valley. There have been proposals to build a dam at Traveston Crossing in the past but they have always been rejected because this is a woeful site for a dam. State Labor ministers have subsequently admitted that several other dam site options were recommended more highly than Traveston, but Labor chose this project, presumably because it was in an electorate Labor could not win. Labor just does not care when it floods farmers and country towns and destroys the livelihoods of people who live in regional communities. The Traveston Crossing dam decision follows decades of monumental incompetence by state Labor governments. Premiers like Goss, Beattie and Bligh boasted every week about the number of people migrating from southern states to Queensland; yet, after the defeat of the former coalition government, nothing was spent on infrastructure and services to meet the needs of the growing population. When a drought came to Brisbane, the city faced a water crisis. Labor’s neglect was starting to hurt. A range of commendable water-saving initiatives were implemented. The government even embraced effluent recycling—a project championed for decades by farmers in the Lockyer Valley and on the Darling Downs but never supported by Labor. Suddenly the government had a change of heart and decided to proceed with recycling but not for the food producers—they commandeered the water and will feed treated sewerage into Brisbane’s water supply. In an even more audacious initiative, they announced a new south-east Queensland water grid to steal water from fast-growing areas on the Gold and Sunshine coasts and pipe it to Brisbane. The councils and people of the Gold and Sunshine coasts had provided and paid for their future water needs, but their water infrastructure—including the Gold Coast’s desalination plant—was hijacked by the state government and their water is to go to Brisbane. The Traveston Crossing dam is not needed to meet Brisbane’s water needs. The state government has at long last released a 50-year water plan for south-east Queensland. Their plan includes more recycling, storm water harvesting and six desalination plants. It would take only one more desalination plant to provide the water which Labor plans to harvest from the proposed new dam. A desalination plant would provide water to Brisbane more cheaply, more quickly, more reliably and with much less environmental impact. A study by the University of Technology Sydney, Cardno and the Institute for Sustainable Futures has identified at least 25 cheaper options to provide water for Brisbane than this dam. The Traveston Crossing dam would be an environmental disaster. It would be a very shallow dam with a large surface area and an evaporation rate above 1.5 metres a year. It will be a large, wasteful evaporation pond. It will be a smelly swamp, emitting huge quantities of greenhouse gases from rotting vegetation every time the dam fills and empties. The dam floods more than 600 properties, including many retirement homes, some of the state’s best dairy and farming country, parts of the town of Kandanga, including its sporting fields and cemetery, and areas in Imbil. At least $1 billion of infrastructure will be destroyed, including 11 kilometres of the national highway. The impact on the local community has been devastating, destroying the hopes and aspirations of a generation. They cannot believe such a project could be even contemplated. They are repeatedly lied to by the project proponents, they are scoffed at by the Queensland Premier and their tragedy is ignored by the capital city media. Surveys of the half a million people living from the Sunshine Coast to Hervey Bay show that more than 90 per cent oppose this dam. But Labor will not listen. Apart from an outbreak of common sense or the defeat of the Bligh Labor government, the people of the Mary Valley have one remaining hope to stop this dam—that is, that the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts will use his powers under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to stop the project. The Traveston Crossing dam was declared by the former coalition government’s minister for environment, Ian Campbell, to be a controlled action under the EPBC Act. The new minister will soon receive the environmental impact assessment and the project, therefore, cannot proceed without his consent. The minister has an obligation to act to protect the environmental values of the Mary Valley. This valley has extraordinarily rich biodiversity. The Australian lungfish lives naturally only in the Mary River and adjacent Burnett River, and the natural environment of the Burnett is already heavily modified. This is an ancient and remarkable species—the only fish in Australia with a lung and one of only three in the world. The Australian lungfish is regarded as the longest surviving vertebrate species in the world and is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. The draft environmental impact study admits that ‘it is not known whether lungfish breed in dams’. The Mary River is also the home of the unique Mary River turtle—a turtle with gills. The Mary River cod comes only from this river. It was only identified as a separate species in 1993 and is listed as endangered under the EPBC Act. The draft environmental impact study admits that it is not known if the cod can use fishways, but we do know that fishways constructed in the Paradise Dam have been a failure. The tusked frog, the southern barred frog, the elk skink and the challenger skink will all have their habitat destroyed or degraded. The dam will reduce flows in the river system, with potentially devastating impacts on fish breeding in the rivers of the Great Sandy Strait Ramsar-listed wetlands. The sea grasses in Hervey Bay, an important dugong feeding area, are also threatened. The draft environmental impact study admits that the new dam will be colonised by weed species including the noxious salvinia and water hyacinth. These weeds already cause problems in the Mary River, and it is only the flood flows that clear the river. Damming will reduce the flood flows and leave the river permanently clogged, wiping out other species and making this beautiful waterway unusable for recreation or navigation. Residents in the lower Mary are also concerned that the loss of flood flows will lead to increased siltation and possibly eventually the closure of the river mouth. In the words of nationally known water engineer and kayaker Steve Posselt, who recently paddled the whole river, ‘Don’t Murray the Mary!’ The draft environmental impact study was a farce. Premier Anna Bligh, who released the draft EIS, must think the people of Mary Valley are fools to swallow the nonsense that was passed off as a scientific study. The 1,600-page document and its associated propaganda claim that the Mary Valley will be $244 million a year richer, there will be 778 more people employed permanently—700 people to run a dam?—and the lungfish and the turtle will be better off. And international cricket teams will base themselves at Kandanga! I understand that this glossy EIS has now been withdrawn and a new document is being prepared. I hope it more honestly addresses the real environmental concerns. The challenge will soon be with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. He must have the courage to say no to his Labor colleagues in Queensland. I know Labor blood runs thick, but the case for our unique and precious environment must rise above political allegiances. I am concerned that the minister’s position has already been compromised. There are frequent reports that the Queensland Premier and other ministers will happily tell anyone who asks that they have a ‘wink and a nod’ from the Prime Minister and the former Labor spokesperson on the environment, Mr Albanese, that the federal government will grant an EPBC Act approval. Queensland Treasurer Andrew Fraser told state parliament recently that the government has already spent $500 million on this dam project—all without even submitting an environmental impact statement. Before the autumn break, I stood at this dispatch box and invited the environment minister to come to the Mary Valley and see the dam site for himself. He said he would and he did, even if he did not tell me as the local member that he was coming. But he spent his day with Mr Graham Newton of Queensland Water Infrastructure, the project proponents. Only a very small group of local residents were even allowed to meet the minister and then only briefly at a truncated meeting before he was whisked away by Mr Newton. Last year Mr Albanese also visited the site—he said alone. But now it is known that the former Labor shadow minister was also accompanied by Mr Newton. How can local people be confident that the minister will fairly assess the issues of concern when he has so aligned himself with the project’s proponents? No Labor identity, either state or federal, seems to be prepared to even listen to the people whose lives are being destroyed by this dam and those who are prepared to stand up for the precious environment of the Mary Valley. I appeal to the minister in assessing the EIS to have the courage, the guts, to stand up for the environment and put an end to this disgraceful project. (Time expired) 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—Is the motion seconded? ZT4 Somlyay, Alex, MP Mr Somlyay —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 3178 20:40:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —I am glad to be speaking on this motion. After hearing the ramblings and babblings of the member for Wide Bay, I can see that he has learnt nothing from his experiences in government and he is going to learn nothing from his experience in opposition. It is a real turn-up for the books, I have got to say, to hear this former minister talking about turtles and lungfish and biodiversity and the environment, in this place. He sounds like a greenie, like he has just woken up to the fact that there is an environment, when there is no dam that he has come across in his life that he has not supported. Let me just give the member for Wide Bay and a number of other people some facts. Queensland has actually been in and out of drought for many decades, and the reality is that few governments have had the courage to make the hard decisions that need to be made. Well, the Queensland government are making those tough decisions, and they are doing that in a proper way, through a proper process. The Nationals would have no idea what I am talking about. I am talking about a real process, using environmental impact assessments, going through the proper motions in terms of what needs to be done to assess the viability of this essential water infrastructure. But again the Nationals would have no idea; they are more used to the ‘regional rorts’ program where you just tick something off if it is a mate’s project but do not make any assessment as to its viability. Queensland is going through the biggest water infrastructure reforms in its history. Right now, the Queensland state government is investing billions of dollars in making sure that all Queenslanders have a water future—not just a few Queenslanders in a few National Party seats. If you listened to the member for Wide Bay, that was what he was talking about. It is not about Queensland. He has divvied up Queensland into a few family farms and he makes all his decisions and the Nationals do all their decision making based on an issue’s impact on a few family farms, but they forget about all other Queenslanders. Queenslanders expect a lot more than that. They expect some courage and they expect something to be done, which is exactly what is happening right now. Billions of dollars are being invested in water recycling, something that the member for Wide Bay still opposes, using the old rhetoric, the old speak. He still does not agree with it. He still goes out there and uses emotional language, talking about sewage going back into drinking water. If he were serious about water recycling, serious about a water future, he would not be using that sort of language. It is Labor that is doing the desalination plants. It is Labor that is building the dams. It is Labor that is putting in the water-recycling pipes. It is Labor that is taking the issue of water recycling in Queensland seriously—something that the Nationals never took seriously when they had the opportunity. This debate is just typical of them. They are loud, tough and strong in opposition when they cannot do anything but, when they are in government, they are meek and mild and quiet because their masters, the Liberals, tell them not to say anything at all. So I am very happy to be following the member for Wide Bay in talking about his motion, because Queenslanders do understand the very important and serious nature of this subject, of what this motion should actually be about. No amount of grandstanding and preaching by this former minister will do anything to save either himself or his party from where they are at at the moment. Nor does anyone take seriously their feigned concern about wetlands, turtles and lungfish. If it came from somebody else, you might take it seriously, but no-one believes it coming from the Nationals. No-one actually believes it. This is the irony of the debate before us. There is no way that a trumped-up Liberal in gumboots is going to prove to anybody out there that they are actually concerned about lungfish or turtles. They are just concerned about the family farm, which would be fair enough if they were actually going to do something about it that meant something. The reality is that Queensland is facing the most dire position in terms of water security that it has ever faced. If you left it up to the Nationals, you would never get anything done. There is no courage. There is no plan for the future. There is nothing at all. They cannot even figure out a plan to save themselves; how are they going to save the rest of Queensland? The reality is that this motion is more about cheap political point scoring than anything else. It is an ineffective, inefficient motion. It is clumsy, it is hypocritical and it is an attempt by the Nationals to try to look relevant for just one more bleak moment, because that is all that is left to these guys. They will do anything and say anything when it comes to scoring cheap political points. On a more technical note, if this was a serious motion, it would not be before us right now, because right now the Queensland Labor government is actually going through a proper environmental impact assessment, where the merits of this project, this infrastructure, will be judged against something that the Nationals just do not understand and do not comprehend. They have gone off just a little bit too early, just a little bit half-cocked—coming into this place, trying to convince people that somehow this is all a done deal. We will see if it is a done deal. If it is, at least it will be based on a merit process, at least it will have gone through the motions, at least there will be proper compensation and at least we will have done this right and gone through the processes. The member for Wide Bay shakes his head, because when they were in power they would not have even done that; they would have just made whatever decision they liked—good, bad or indifferent. They would have asked no-one, consulted with no-one and not gone through any process. That is what would have taken place. We will go through the proper process. We will assess through a fair dinkum process what the merits of this critical bit of infrastructure are. It is not just about the divide that the member for Wide Bay talked about. He used the emotive language of ‘stealing water’ from the Gold Coast. No-one is stealing water from anyone else. The water does not belong to just one group of people; it belongs to all Queenslanders. We have to share the resource. We have to use the resource as best we can. That is the reality and that is something that the Nationals just never understand. It is all about a one-sided debate, a one-sided argument, where it all lands back to their vested interests. The member for Wide Bay mentioned inviting the minister up to have a look at the site. There is a lot more involved in a multi-billion-dollar piece of infrastructure going through a full assessment process than just having a couple of Liberals in gumboots turning up in a four-wheel drive one Sunday afternoon, putting on the hard hats, donning the protective reflective vests, pointing to a few hills and a few gullies, having a bit of a chat amongst themselves, then retiring back to the local pub for a counter meal and talking about it all. There is a lot more to assessing a multi-billion-dollar project than that. Through his own admission, that is what the member for Wide Bay just said. He has made an assessment on a multi-billion-dollar project on the basis that he turned up on site, stood somewhere in the middle of a gully, I assume, pointed to the hills and looked around—what a nice day it was. On that basis he made his decision. That was the old days of the Nationals; that is how they used to make decisions. Let me tell you: now there is a new process called environmental impact assessment. In this case that has not been completed. There are laws, there are acts of parliament, that govern how this is done. So let the process go through and let that be done properly before you make your own assessment. It will be interesting to compare assessments. I am sure there will be a voluminous collection of research, documents and consultations. It will be interesting to read through that document and see what that says—compared to turning up on site in a four-wheel drive one Sunday afternoon, sniffing the breeze a little bit and saying, ‘Well, I think we might be able to make some political capital out of this,’ because, in the end, that is what we are talking about. If these guys were actually serious about water, they would be doing a little bit more than just sniffing the wind. I suggest they wait until this process is completed. I will turn briefly to the technical nature of this motion. I want to raise a couple of issues that are written in there. This is typical of the Nationals: when all the tough decisions have to be made, they walk the other way. This is the same guy who protested about one dam but was happy to support the Franklin Dam in Tasmania. They will protest about one dam but they are happy to support any other dam. There is a pattern building here and the pattern is simple: they will support any dam so long as it is their idea, but they will not support a dam if it is Labor’s idea or if it is being done while Labor is in government. I do not think that is a good way to make a judgement or assessment on the way that this critical bit of infrastructure needs to be provided. The member for Wide Bay says in his motion that the Traveston Crossing dam is expensive. That is pretty good—you must have used the same mathematics that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition used when she said that $40 million was expensive compared to $8 billion. The reality is that all dams are expensive but they are an essential piece of infrastructure. He says it is ‘inefficient, unreliable and environmentally destructive’. How does he know that? He does not know that. Turning up on site does not give you that sort of assessment. He talks about the dam displacing hundreds of Mary Valley families and inundating some of the finest farming land in south-east Queensland. The reality is that it will displace some families, and those families will be more than amply compensated for that displacement. The reality is that there is actually a very generous and fair compensation package in process, in train. (Time expired) 3180 20:50:00 Somlyay, Alex, MP ZT4 Fairfax LP 0 0 Mr SOMLYAY —I was interested to hear the comments of the member for Oxley, because they give the member for Wide Bay the grand opportunity to make sure that every person in the Mary Valley gets a copy of that speech on behalf of the federal Labor Party and the Labor Party of Queensland. The member for Wide Bay and I share a common electorate boundary. Areas in the Mary Valley have moved between our various electorates over the past 20 years, so I know the area very well. I share with those people who live in the Mary Valley the heartache that they have been through in this process for the last two or three years. When Peter Beattie first announced the building of this dam, I was absolutely horrified, and I was not horrified on environmental grounds. The grounds that I was horrified on were that the Mary Valley is some of the best agricultural country in Queensland, something that is becoming a very rare commodity with the urban sprawl that is happening in our region. The member for Wide Bay, as the minister in charge of roads at one stage, was, together with me, involved in a process where the state government had to determine the route of the new Bruce Highway. There was a road being planned from Cooroy to Curra, and there were five alternative routes. There was a lot of heartache for people because their land was threatened with resumption, and the member for Wide Bay stepped in and said, ‘No, we will have the highway following the alignment of the current, existing Bruce Highway to minimise the impact on residents.’ I applauded the member for Wide Bay, the minister at the time, for that, and so did the people of the Mary Valley. Imagine our shock and horror—my shock and horror—at the fact that, when we and the Department of Main Roads had finally determined this route, we had the situation where a state minister was determining the route of the new Bruce Highway and a state minister in a room next door was planning to flood it. At the same time as the minister was planning to build the road, the other minister was planning to flood it. That was my first concern. My second concern was that the state government deregulated the dairy industry. The dairy industry in the Mary Valley was one of the best and most efficient in Queensland in its time. A lot of money was put into the Mary Valley—again, through the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the member for Wide Bay—under the Dairy Regional Assistance Program to restructure some of those industries and farms and give them the opportunity to build bigger and better dairy farms. All that—I think it was over $100 million—would have been flooded and wasted, and all the Commonwealth money that was put into the Mary Valley and those dairy farms was wasted. It was only then that we had the first protest meeting in Gympie about the dam, which I went to. The member for Wide Bay could not be at that very first one, but I was there and I told the crowd at Gympie—there were over 1,000 people; that was an initial reaction to this dam—that the Commonwealth could only intervene on the basis of the environment. We cannot intervene on the basis of land use. Land use is purely a responsibility of the states. I told them that a case would have to be put up on environmental grounds if the Commonwealth were to stop this dam. The state Labor member for Noosa had the guts to come out and oppose this dam. She resigned from the Labor Party over it, and it cost her her seat. I can guarantee you that the people of the Noosa area and the people in the Mary Valley will never vote Labor again because of the way they have been treated over the Traveston Crossing dam. It is an absolute travesty that the work of four, five or six generations has just disappeared, that their livelihood has been taken from them and that their way of life is gone. (Time expired) 3181 20:56:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —This motion by the member for Wide Bay is said to be about the survival of the rare or endangered Mary River turtle, the rare or endangered Australian lungfish, the Mary River cod and a range of other species. The only survival that the member for Wide Bay is concerned with is the survival of his rare and endangered party, the National Party. That is what lies behind this motion; that is what lies behind the support that has been given to this motion by the member for Fairfax. It is striking that this motion by the member for Wide Bay comes from a member of this House who loves dams. The member for Wide Bay has supported dams for his entire time in this parliament. He opposed the draining of Lake Pedder. He supported the construction of the Franklin dam in Tasmania. He supported the construction of the Todd River dam outside Alice Springs. The only thing different about this dam is that it is in the state of Queensland, which is governed by the Australian Labor Party. That is why there is opposition to this dam by the member for Wide Bay. This is an attack on the state government, consistent with what National Party and Liberal Party members are doing repeatedly in this place, which is attacking state governments. It is an attack on the state government of Queensland because the coalition is bereft of ideas for the government of the nation. If there were any ideas for the government of the nation, we would expect to see motions being put forward on national issues in this place by the member for Wide Bay and the Leader of the National Party, not this sort of attack on state governments. Let us just bear in mind a bit of the history about this. This dam was proposed some years ago. It has been under attack by the member for Wide Bay since 2006, while he was a senior minister of the government and in a position to do something about it. The call that he is now making on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts is not a call that he made on the minister for the environment in the previous government. He is now calling for a complete abuse of the processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of the Commonwealth, an act passed by the previous government which sets up a very clear procedure as to how environmental assessment of major projects of this nature is to be conducted. It sets up a process where big projects which can be regarded as having a major environmental effect on matters of national environmental significance are declared to be actions which warrant an appropriate assessment. That assessment is now underway. It has been underway since the referral took place in November 2006. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —Who was in government then? HWG Dreyfus, Mark, MP Mr DREYFUS —It was when the present opposition was in government, and we did not hear from the member for Wide Bay at that time the call that is now being made in this motion, which is for the minister for the environment not to wait until the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act processes are finished but rather to jump in straightaway and take an action that is well outside the scheme of the act. When in government the National Party and the Liberal Party did not pay much attention to proper processes, and perhaps it should be no surprise that now, in opposition, they seem to have thrown proper processes out the window altogether. It is probably with good reason that they did not approach the former minister for the environment, given his track record in not following proper processes. We could refer to the conduct of the former minister for the environment, the member for Wentworth, in ignoring the advice of his department to invest only $2 million— (Time expired) 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 3183 3183 21:01:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 0 Mr TURNOUR —I 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. The centrepiece of the first Rudd government budget is a commitment to fight inflation. These are difficult economic times, with inflation at 16-year highs. Interest rates have increased 12 times since 2001 and eight times since 2004 by the Reserve Bank as it endeavours to bring inflation under control. Rising interest rates, combined with increasing petrol and grocery prices, are putting family budgets under pressure in Cairns and the tropical north. More than 20 per cent of families in Leichhardt are in mortgage stress or paying more than 30 per cent of their income in repayments. For those who do not have mortgages, rents have been increasing, with more than 25 per cent of people in rental stress. It has been critical to get the balance right in this budget. Last week when I was back at home in Leichhardt, I heard anecdotal evidence that shows that our economy is slowing. Last week I spoke to a plumber in Cairns who has had to lay off two workers as the construction industry slows. Developers in Cairns are feeling the pinch of the subprime mortgage fallout and generally the real estate market seems to be easing. A major club owner I spoke to said that takings across the bar were down while the bottle shop was up. The tourism industry, a major industry in Cairns, has been feeling the pinch, with a decline in visitors, and certainly the higher Australian dollar has been part of that. While parts of the economy are growing strongly, there are signs that the economy in the tropical north—and I am sure in other parts—is entering some challenging times. It has therefore been critical to frame a budget that gets the balance right and ensures that we put some money into the pockets of families and individuals who have been doing it tough. We have put a $21.7 billion budget surplus in place, a mild tightening in fiscal policy that will ease pressure on inflation, and I know that businesses and families in Leichhardt want a government that can do all they can to tackle inflation. At the same time, there are people who are doing it tough, and the tax cuts, the increases in the child-care rebate, the lump sum payments of $500 to seniors and the thousand dollar payments to parents will put money in the pockets of people and families in my local community who are doing it tough. Economic commentators are generally in agreement that the government has got the balance right. Shane Oliver, AMP Capital’s chief economist said: I think the Budget strikes the appropriate balance between on the one hand cutting spending a bit to take some pressure off inflation but, on the other hand, not going too far such that it pushes growth down too much. I think the Government did face a really difficult balancing act here. And Goldman Sachs remarked of the budget: After two years of notable conflict, finally we have fiscal policy that is pushing in the same direction as monetary policy. Goldman Sachs are saying that finally we have a government that is putting fiscal policy in the same direction as the Reserve Bank, which is also trying to bring down inflation and combat rising interest rates. This is in stark contrast to the irresponsible budgets under the former Howard government, particularly in its last term. This is clearly demonstrated by the graphical details contained in the Budget Overview on pages 3 and 5, where it is clear that when John Howard was promising to keep interest rates at record lows in 2004 he was spending like a drunken sailor, putting upward pressure on inflation and interest rates. That is what Goldman Sachs was talking about: the fact that we have got a government now that is running a fiscal policy that matches monetary policy, not a government like the Howard government, which was spending like a drunken sailor when it was talking about keeping interest rates at record lows. 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs Mirabella interjecting— HVV Turnour, Jim, MP Mr TURNOUR —It hurts, doesn’t it? It hurts the opposition that that is the reality you are experiencing. The other really positive outcome of this budget is the establishment of three funds: the $20 billion Building Australia Fund, the $11 billion Education Investment Fund and the $10 billion Health and Hospitals Fund. We are about nation building. We are about building for the future and responsible economic management. Later this week we will see a sod turned on the Mulgrave River bridge, and there will be other projects that go on from that because we are putting in place real funds, and there will be nation building into the future. This has been a responsible budget. It delivers for my local community and delivers for families, seniors and people doing it tough all across Australia. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? HVM Bidgood, James, MP Mr Bidgood —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 3184 21:06:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 0 Mr LINDSAY —The member for Leichhardt has a hide, I have go say, standing up in the parliament tonight on this motion. I remind the member for Leichhardt: when you turn the first sod at the Mulgrave River bridge, stand up and tell your community who delivered the funding for that bridge project. It was not the Labor Party; it was AusLink under the former government. I certainly had a part in making sure that that particular bridge was funded, as I did for the road funding that goes on in my electorate. I would also like the member for Leichhardt to look at point (a) of his motion. You say that the budget ‘puts downward pressure on interest rates so as to ease the pressure on family budgets’. Fantastic! You do not tell people that they are not going to have a job, do you. You do not tell them that your budget is putting 134,000 Australians out of work. That is what you have decided to do. I would not be proud of that, Member for Leichhardt. HVV Turnour, Jim, MP Mr Turnour interjecting— HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —Fancy trying to tell Australians, ‘We’re a great government; we’re putting you out of work.’ That is why today the Prime Minister has changed his tune. He does not talk about working families anymore; he talks about working families and those doing it tough. Why are they doing it tough? Because they do not have a job. Fancy standing up in the House tonight and moving this motion. Look at point (b) of the motion, talking about ‘an electorate cynical about political promises’. Too right they are bloody cynical. What about the promise that all of Australia heard: ‘We’re going to do something about petrol prices and grocery prices.’ Yes, you did something about that all right—you put them up. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will refer his remarks through the chair. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —I am sorry; I will. The member for Leichhardt certainly gave his electorate the impression that that would happen. Let me tell you about my own electorate, Member for Leichhardt. I have Australia’s largest Army base in my electorate and a very substantial Air Force base. The Labor candidate in the last election stood up with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence and promised that Townsville and Darwin would be the first two defence bases to get family medical centres. Where were they in the budget, Member for Leichhardt? HVV Turnour, Jim, MP Mr Turnour interjecting— HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —There were five, yes. They were not in Townsville or in Darwin. The Prime Minister also stood up and promised $33 million for family medical centres for defence. What was in the budget? Twelve million dollars. How can you stand up in the parliament and move this motion tonight in all sensitivity? I am sure this embarrasses you somewhat. But, unfortunately, there is more. Look at what the budget has done to defence. Labor’s first budget was not what it appeared to be on the surface. There have been significant cuts in the Defence Support Group. You talk to the Defence Support Group people across Australia and you will find what they have had to do to their budget—reduce services to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. Have a look at what has been lost in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation and even in front-line strategic planning areas. The defence budget cuts, shaves, delays and reorders programs. Labor’s funding for defence has dropped from two per cent to 1.8 per cent of GDP, and the ALP defence budget this year is $966 million less than the previous provision under the Howard government. You should be squirming—$966 million less than what we had provided for this year in the forward estimates. Member for Leichhardt, I am going to continue to hold the Labor government accountable so that the men and women of our Australian Defence Force have the best resources available. You talk about helping ordinary Australians. I call them everyday Australians. I see what has happened with petrol, groceries, private health insurance and home interest rates. In fact, with the policy that you have in relation to the Medicare levy we are going to see hundreds of thousands drop out of private health insurance. Do you know what that is going to do? All of the pensioners in your electorate who scrimp and save to keep their private health insurance will not be able to do it anymore and they will be back on the public waiting list and the public waiting list will get longer. It is a terrible outcome. Perhaps you might like to join me and we will battle this terrible outcome because, as North Queenslanders, we should be able to do that. And we will get even more funding for roads in the next year’s budget. We will do it together. I certainly do not agree with the sentiments expressed in this motion. (Time expired) 3185 21:11:00 Bidgood, James, MP HVM Dawson ALP 1 0 Mr BIDGOOD —This budget delivers for the workers in Dawson and across the nation. All politics is local. Yes, we delivered the tax cuts. We promised them and we delivered them—more efficient, not four tax bands but three tax bands. It is all about local politics. It is all about the family around the kitchen table. It is all about looking after working people and their families, treating them with dignity and respect. What does that mean in the seat of Dawson? It means that we are going to deliver on building a multipurpose stadium for the people of Mackay and the region. The previous National Party member for the seat of Dawson went to two elections promising and promising but never delivering one cent to the rugby league and junior rugby league stadium. HVV Turnour, Jim, MP Mr Turnour —Shame! HVM Bidgood, James, MP Mr BIDGOOD —Over 11 years—absolutely terrible. And the Rudd Labor government has delivered not what she promised, which was $5 million, but $8 million, in full, in the first six months of this new government. All politics is local. We have delivered for the Mackay region. Twenty million dollars will be spent in this financial year on the Townsville port access road. That is part of an overall development of $95 million. We will deliver on the basic essential infrastructure for the people of Dawson. Also in the Burdekin, in the sugarcane town of Ayr, the Burdekin bridge is going to have an upgrade worth $50 million over the next four years. And in this financial year we will deliver $4 million to begin that upgrade. Yes, all politics is local. And, yes, the Rudd Labor government is delivering for the people of Ayr and for the people of the Burdekin shire. We also believe in delivering skills, training and education for the people of Dawson. And, yes, we have delivered again—a $14 million Mining Technology Innovations Centre. The first $3.5 million will be delivered in this tax year. Yes, all politics is local. And, yes, we are delivering for the people of Dawson. What is more, the previous member for the seat of Dawson promised funding, but never delivered one dollar, for the Mackay aquatic park facility, which was a joint venture between three levels of government: local government—Mackay city council—the state government and the federal government. The promise was made, but guess what? Not one dollar was delivered. It is left to this government to actually roll out $4 million in this financial year. We do deliver. All politics is local and we are delivering for the people of Dawson. Not only that, we are also delivering $4.8 million in Roads to Recovery funding in this 2008-09 tax year. We have amazing growth in the seat of Dawson due to the ongoing resource mining boom. We have acres and acres of cane fields along the Bruce Highway being converted to industrial estates. Access to the Bruce Highway and the facilitation of the movement of goods and services is vital. I am pleased to say that we are delivering locally for the people of Dawson in helping productivity, and in upgrading the Connors Road and Farrellys Lane. We are going to deliver $1.1 million to get that process started to facilitate access to the Bruce Highway. Not only that, we will also be upgrading Farrellys Lane from Temples Lane through to Boundary Road—some 3.5 kilometres of road will be upgraded from a two-lane Bruce Highway to a four-lane Bruce Highway. The overall cost of that will be $50 million. So there is a total of $150 million being spent directly on the Bruce Highway by this Rudd Labor government in the seat of Dawson. And guess how much was delivered in the last 11 years? Nowhere near $150 million. We can talk in millions—and millions are great—but do you know what made me so happy? It was delivering for a soccer club in the northern beaches of Mackay (Time expired) 3186 21:16:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to condemn this budget. I rise to condemn those who had a hand in putting it together—and I acknowledge the Assistant Treasurer sitting idly at the bench across—and I rise to condemn all those who would view the budget as anything other than what it is: a cynic’s road into the middle. It is interesting that the motion that was put forward is not only damning but also moribund. I do not think the member for Leichhardt actually understands the motion or the budget premise on which he put it. In the Reserve Bank speech on 15 May the member for Leichhardt said: It is a fact that the Howard government inherited an economy growing strongly in 1996; an economy built on 13 years of sustained economic reform under the stewardship of first the Hawke government and then the Keating government. Inflation was under control and productivity was on the rise. If I may say so, I think the member for Leichhardt is on a different planet to me—perhaps he went with the probe to Mars—because for the 13 years of the Hawke-Keating government inflation averaged 5.3 per cent. That is a fact, Assistant Treasurer. In the final year of the Hawke-Keating government, inflation was 4.2 per cent. And you have the hide, you have the audacity, Member for Leichhardt, you have the blatant effrontery, to come in here and waste this House’s time with motions and speeches that say inflation was under control by the previous Labor government. But these inadequacies do not stop there do they, Member for Leichhardt? You continued to say that ‘productivity was on the rise’ in 1996 when the Howard government took over. I would hate to burst your little productivity bubble, but let me actually refer you, Sir, to the facts. The facts are that of the 13 years of the Hawke-Keating government productivity, by which I gather you mean labour productivity although you do not specify—perhaps, Sir, because you do not understand—labour productivity averaged 2.2 per cent. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must address his remarks through the chair. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr ROBERT —Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the 11 years of the Howard government the average productivity was 2.4 per cent. In the final five years of the Howard government, labour productivity was 2.8 per cent. In the final five years of the Hawke-Keating government, labour productivity was 2.3 per cent. However you want to look at labour productivity figures, they were lower during the Hawke-Keating years. It is interesting to note—and the Assistant Treasurer would know this—that it is easy to have productivity figures high when real wages decline. And in the 13 glorious years of the Hawke-Keating government what happened to real wages? They declined by two per cent. What happened to working families in 13 years? Their wages, their take-home pay after inflation, went backwards by two per cent. What happened after the 11 years of the Howard government? Real wages for working families after inflation went forward. How far? They increased by 20 per cent. It is easy to sit there and quote a productivity increase when real wages go backwards two per cent. But the budget does not end there. We can look at one of the sneaky things that this government have put through—and the Assistant Treasurer would know this very well. They have not used deflation by non-farm GDP. No, they have deflated their outlook by CPI to give them a better result. If they had kept the traditional deflation measure by non-farm GDP, they would realise that the expenses in the 2009-10 financial year grow by almost five per cent—the highest growth in expenses since 1990 taking out, of course, the GST. I did not see that in the Treasurer’s speech. That was hidden on some page within the budget itself. I, of course, have constituents, people like Paul Hamilton from Runaway Bay, now asking questions about fuel because Labor promised to bring the price of fuel down. Labor promised to bring grocery prices down. Let me reiterate to the member for Leichhardt the words of the Leader of the Opposition: watching fuel prices does not bring them down. Your attack on condensate simply sends a message to the world that if you come and mine and explore in this country then you cannot believe the promises of a Labor government because they will change them. This is an appalling budget. This is an appalling motion. This is a complete waste of the House’s time and I condemn it in the strongest possible terms. 3188 21:21:00 Clare, Jason, MP HWL Blaxland ALP 1 0 Mr CLARE —Federal government is ultimately about economic management. It underpins everything that we do and everything that we hope to do. People’s lives and their livelihoods depend on the decisions we make and it is our responsibility to make sure we make the right decisions. Unfortunately, over the last few years government has not made the right decisions and the people that we represent have borne the consequences of those bad decisions. The proof of this is the inflation problem that we inherited and the impact that it is having on millions of Australians around this country today. We can throw statistics back and forth across this chamber tonight, arguing that one side is a better economic manager than the other, but ultimately this debate is not about statistics; it is about people. The fact is that a lot of Australians are doing it really tough at the moment. After 16 years of growth and a minerals boom, not everyone is basking in the economic sunshine. A lot of people are doing it really tough: the one million Australians who are suffering from mortgage stress at the moment, or the 10,000 Australians who lost their homes last year, or, for that matter, the three Australian families in my electorate who will lose their homes tomorrow. That is what I believe debunks the coalition’s claim to be the superior economic manager. Putting together a budget is a tough task. You have to make a lot of tough decisions, responsible decisions for the prevailing economic climate, and doing what you can to make life a little bit easier for those who really need our help. And that is what this budget does. That is what the previous budgets did not do. They fuelled inflation. When a little bit of restraint was needed, the budgets in the last years increased spending by about four per cent—fuelling the flames of inflation, adding to demand and, most importantly, making the Reserve Bank’s job just that much harder. John Howard had his foot on the accelerator, while the Reserve Bank was pulling the handbrake. That is why, despite 12 interest rate rises in a row, and despite 20 warnings from the Reserve Bank in a row, we now have the highest inflation in 16 years. That is why the New South Wales business chamber, hardly a Labor think tank, said: … the Government’s commitment to reining in [inflation] is a welcome improvement over the final Costello budgets. Goldman Sachs has been quoted repeatedly in this chamber, and with good reason. The former company of the shadow Treasurer had this to say about the budget: Finally, after two years of notable conflict, we have fiscal policy pushing in the same direction as monetary policy. Business has welcomed the budget because it puts responsible economic management above buying votes. It is the government’s job—and it is the budget’s job—to make the Reserve Bank’s job so much easier, not harder. Fiscal policy working in concert with monetary policy, pushing in the same direction, rowing in the same direction, and that is what this budget does: cuts spending and encourages saving. We are taking the budget to the gym after those opposite fed it KFC. The coalition fed it up for the election campaign and we are putting it on the fiscal treadmill. The budget does something else that is equally important: it implements the promises we made to the people of Australia. It probably should not be worthy of note, but in this day and age it is. We are a government good to our word. Australians are pretty cynical. They do not expect much from governments—they often do not expect governments to keep their word, but this budget does just that. It implements the tax cuts that we promised; the childcare rebate that we promised; the 50 per cent education tax refund that we promised; the computers in schools that we promised; the universal preschool for four-year-olds that we promised; the dental program that we promised; the training places that we promised; and the Building Australia Fund we promised to build bridges, tunnels, roads, railways and port infrastructure. The plasma screen budgets are over. This is a bridge-building budget. This is a nation-building budget. This is a responsible budget. And the people in my electorate of Blaxland hope it is the first of many. 3189 21:26:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —It is with some amazement that I see the member for Leichhardt is attempting to give congratulations to this budget—a budget that sets the limbo bar lower than ever. It is a budget that has disappointed Australia. I have been in this House for more than six years now, and it is the first budget I have seen that has had pensioners demonstrating in the streets. This is a budget that was specifically targeted at interest groups. You borrowed our tax cuts and you targeted interest groups. You tried to forget about the carers, but you could not knock them off. Then you tried to forget about the pensioners. They let you know, in no uncertain terms, they were not impressed by this budget. The people of Australia are assessing your promises. A year ago we had an Australia that was self-assured and confident. Confidence was high, people were willing to go out and borrow money, they were willing to invest, and now we see a collapse in business confidence, we see a collapse in consumer confidence and, we see Australians wondering what happened when they elected this government some six months ago. They elected a government that was going to put downward pressure on fuel prices, and we have the little Assistant Treasurer over here, little Jiminy Cricket, who is the only thing that stands between them and lower petrol prices or higher petrol prices. And what do we have? We see petrol has gone up by some 17½ cents a litre since the Rudd government was elected. Is that keeping petrol prices low? Is that what Australians elected the Rudd government to do? And on grocery prices, what do we see? What kind of action do we see on grocery prices? Another inquiry! We have an increase in the cost of diesel for heavy vehicles so that it costs more to get produce to market and into the shops. We see Rudd repeatedly breaking his promises. We see higher petrol prices, we see higher grocery prices and we see higher inflation as all of these factors flow through. This is something the people of Australia are not celebrating. They are not celebrating the notion of losing funding to regional areas. They are not celebrating the fact that pensioners were ignored at the last budget, and they are certainly not celebrating FuelWatch. Government members interjecting— 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr HARTSUYKER —I hear the members opposite saying they think Fuelwatch is a good thing. They think FuelWatch is a great thing. Fuelwatch is going to save Australia. How much are we going to save on Fuelwatch? We had the Petrol Commissioner saying we are going to save 5c a litre, we had the Assistant Treasurer saying we were going to save 2c a litre and we had the head of the ACCC saying it is not about saving money at all; it is all about transparency. All of them cannot be right. One of them has to be right, and I am not sure which one it is. Is the Assistant Treasurer right? Are we going to save 2c, Assistant Treasurer? Or are we going to save 5c? Or are we going to save nothing at all? Certainly the experience of motorists in Perth is that the price of petrol there is relatively higher than other places. They are certainly not enjoying FuelWatch. Debate interrupted. 3190 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 3190 3190 21:30:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —The rains that come to Rwanda every April are a chilling reminder of the evil season of genocide that occurred at this time of year, 14 years ago. More than 800,000 people were murdered in 100 days—one every 10 seconds—and the world did nothing. On April 7 this year, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, marked the anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, stating, ‘May the searing memory of the genocide in Rwanda always spur us on our mission.’ One of the most important international legacies of this murderous genocide has been the emergence of the doctrine of ‘responsibility to protect’. The doctrine, formally adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2006, states that each individual state has the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity; and that member states recognise that the international community, through the UN, has a responsibility to assist states to meet their protection obligations and to respond in cases of manifest failure. This is a doctrine that challenges us to place a higher value on the human rights of the individual than the nation-states in which they live. This doctrine represents a paradigm shift in how we think about our international system. It is a worthy doctrine, one that deserves our enthusiastic and indeed evangelical support. However, one must question whether our postwar institutions are capable of making this doctrine a genuine reality. It may be a case of seeking to pour new wine into old wineskins. In Sudan we have had a critical test of the UN’s resolve on responsibility to protect. In the face of a continuing and escalating humanitarian crisis, the international community, including Australia, is failing the test. There are 4.2 million Darfurians dependent on international assistance, 2.5 million have been torn from their homes, and according to the UN 400,000 have been killed. In July last year, the long-awaited UN resolution 1769 established the joint United Nations and African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur. Yet in putting UNAMID together the Sudanese government rejected the UN proposed roster of troop, engineering and police contributing countries. In April this year the special representative for UNAMID reported to the UN his significant frustration at the failure of member states to follow through on their commitments. Of an authorised strength of almost 30,000 troops and other security personnel, there is a little over 9,000 on the ground. UNAMID is also lacking in five critical operational capabilities, including attack helicopters, surveillance aircraft, medium lift support helicopters, military engineers and logistical support. The special representative sadly concluded that ‘even though Darfur is at the top of the international agenda, this attention has not been matched with action to provide UNAMID with the wherewithal to accomplish the tasks assigned to it’. Australia’s commitment is nine military officers and we have provided $13 million in aid, $10 million in 2005. I understand no overtures have been made to provide Australian air assets to Sudan to this point. In Burma, we see another failed test of our global responsibility to protect. The Burmese government have for more than three weeks prevented international assistance and humanitarian aid from permeating their borders, following the devastating Cyclone Nargis. The callousness of the Burmese junta regime has sentenced their people to death, disease and destitution. Save the Children and the UN estimate that the death toll could now exceed 200,000. We read in the media of bodies floating in rice paddies, children naked and dying, families wiped out, shooting of prisoners, broken legs and arms unset, babies sleeping on banana leaves in the mud, and incompetence and corruption in handling of aid supplies. Where 40 relief planes should have been landing every day, there has barely been one. I commend the UN Secretary-General for his efforts in getting the doors open but, frankly, we should not have had to ask. The chairman of the UN Security Council claimed that the 2006 resolution referred only to ‘acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity rather than governmental responsibility to natural disasters’. Well, if what we have observed in Burma does not qualify as a crime against humanity, let us be more specific. Let us do what the member for Mayo has suggested and ensure that the concept of responsibility to protect be extended to humanitarian assistance. Responsibility to protect must be more than warm and fuzzy rhetoric; it must be a promise upon which hundreds of millions of marginalised and oppressed people throughout the world and their families can rely with their lives and give them the hope that they desire for their future. 3191 3191 21:35:00 Shorten, Bill, MP 00ATG Maribyrnong ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services 1 0 Mr SHORTEN —My electorate of Maribyrnong is in Melbourne’s west. Before I talk a little further about that, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that the member for Dawson has turned 49 today and I wish him the best of birthday wishes. Returning from Mackay to Maribyrnong, times have been tough for many in the west over recent years. There is no point in denying it. The decline of manufacturing in particular and the neglect under the Howard years have hit us hard. But I believe the tide is turning. I believe the old powerhouse and workhorse of Melbourne is rising again. Just look at the representation of this area now in the federal government: four ministers and a lowly parliamentary secretary, being me, in the adjoining electorates covering the west and north-west. This is not in itself a magic wand, but we will not engage in the pork-barrelling of the conservatives in their areas and seats. What it does mean is that a large proportion of the Rudd government, unlike the former Howard government, do not need a street directory to navigate the streets of the western suburbs of Melbourne—a nice change from the last 11 years. In fact, the region was shamefully neglected by the previous national government. But there is a rebirth of pride in the west and it is not hurting that until yesterday the Western Bulldogs were 8-0 up in the AFL. We have got 70 different nationalities living together in what I believe is astonishing harmony, adding immeasurably to our cultural and social life. These things may be summed up in the style of that famous advocate from The Castle, Denis Denuto, as ‘the vibe’. There is something more tangible going on. To me it is encapsulated by the launch of a new group called LeadWest. LeadWest is chaired by the Hon. Ralph Willis, who this House will remember well. Its foundation members are the Brimbank, Hobsons Bay, Moonee Valley, Wyndham and Maribyrnong city councils; Melton Shire Council; Victoria University; New Farm; City West Water; and Moonee Valley Racing Club. Last week I launched their direction strategy and I was very impressed with the work that they have done. They call it a road map to create a prosperous, sustainable, healthy and fair region and improve the lives of our people. The western suburbs is one of the fastest-growing regions of the nation. Infrastructure, however, is sadly lacking. There are bottlenecks on our roads and we need added capacity on our suburban and freight rail lines. I am looking forward to the Victorian government’s response to the Eddington report, because I think this will make a big difference. And I welcome the Rudd government’s commitment announced this week of $12 million toward a joint Commonwealth-Victorian study of projects to improve connections between the east and west of Melbourne. There is the telecommunications infrastructure to be built. The internet is vital for both education and business. We need high-speed broadband and we need it quickly—something which the Howard government failed to deliver. It will boost desperately needed business investment in the west. At the moment, too many of our workers commute into the city and beyond for work. It is a little-known fact that we have 16 per cent of Melbourne’s population but only eight per cent of the jobs are in our region. Unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, is unacceptably high. We must give the unemployed the opportunity to re-skill to ensure that children get the education they need and that this is not based upon the postcode in which they live. They need quality education and access to it. We need to promote a culture of lifelong learning. There is no such thing as a job for life anymore. We know that job growth in the west long ago shifted from traditional areas such as manufacturing towards the services sector. We have 12.3 per cent of the state’s manufacturing and transport jobs but only 6.5 per cent of the knowledge based services jobs. The government’s trade in schools program will make a difference, and I am glad that the schools in my electorate are for once on the list to benefit from the Computers in Schools commitment, unlike in previous years. It is fantastic also that the Brumby government is building a new selective school in Wyndham Vale. This will give talented children in the massive western growth corridor the same opportunities for a selective education that those in the inner city of Melbourne currently enjoy. The Minister for Health and Ageing, the member for Gellibrand, and I cohosted a western suburbs 2020 summit last month. It proved that there are many smart people doing a lot of smart thinking in our suburbs. More than 100 people contributed their time and thoughts, many of which mirrored the ideas of the LeadWest strategy paper. I find it comforting and inspiring that so many minds are focused on the future wellbeing of our region. There is a lot to be done and it will take leadership on all levels. Federal, state and local governments must work with community leaders and business to build a future we can all look forward to. Of one thing I am sure: the western suburbs does not deserve any more than any other part of Australia, but we should never receive any less than any other part of Australia. I believe the tide is turning in the western suburbs. 3192 3192 21:40:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 0 0 Mr JOHNSON —Tonight I want to speak very loud and clear as the federal member for Ryan and to highlight to the people of Ryan, and particularly to the residents of Chapel Hill, Kenmore, Moggill, Bellbowrie and Pullenvale in the Ryan electorate, the continuing incompetence and shortsightedness of the Queensland state Labor government, the head of that government, Premier Bligh, and in particular the minister for main roads, Mr Paul Lucas. Mr Lucas recently announced that the Queensland state government would seriously investigate the option of the Moggill pocket sub-arterial stage 1 and stage 2, which is also known locally as the Kenmore bypass. The Kenmore bypass is a local issue that has certainly aroused the very strong interest of the constituents of the western suburbs of Brisbane, and those suburbs I mentioned in particular. If the Kenmore bypass were to proceed, the implications for the people of the western suburbs are serious. Many homes and the residents of those suburbs would be detrimentally affected. The ramifications of this project are that it would effectively slice and dice the suburbs of Bellbowrie, Moggill, Kenmore and Pullenvale. I want to place on the record here in the parliament very strongly and very clearly that, as the federal member for Ryan, I have great reservations—not only about stage 1 but in particular about stage 2 of the Moggill pocket subarterial, because, as sure as day follows night, if stage 1 goes ahead, stage 2 will definitely proceed. As I say, stage 2 will slice through the beautiful suburbs of Bellbowrie, Moggill and Pullenvale and will have an enormous negative impact on the value of many homes and particularly on the lifestyle of many residents in the western suburbs. Those who live in the western suburbs of Brisbane and the Ryan electorate live in a very special part of Brisbane. We are all too aware of the terrible traffic woe that is Moggill Road. Moggill Road is effectively a car park. We have to ensure that transport solutions are genuinely long term and not just bandaid measures, as the state Labor government in Queensland is proposing. The Kenmore bypass proposal would effectively create a second bottleneck, because traffic would merge onto the Centenary Highway and the Western Freeway. This is certainly no visionary solution, as those who live in the western suburbs of Brisbane and in the Ryan electorate would be all too aware. The Centenary residents would be terribly affected. I also represent the Centenary suburbs of Brisbane: Jindalee, Westlake and Middle Park. All those tens of thousands of residents in the wonderful Ryan electorate, which I have a great honour to represent here in the parliament for a third term, would be terribly affected. 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —And represent them well. 00AMX Johnson, Michael, MP Mr JOHNSON —I do seek to represent them very strongly. We know that infrastructure is a very major issue in the western suburbs of Brisbane. We must provide long-term solutions, not just bandaid solutions—and from all accounts Kenmore bypass would be a very short-term, bandaid solution. There are several options that need to be canvassed and need to be explored to find a long-term and sustainable solution. This would include a green bridge, a light rail option and, in particular, an outer western ring road. The concept of an outer western ring road is one that would take heavy freight traffic from the Warrego Highway along the Brisbane Valley across the front of the Wivenhoe Dam. The freight traffic that is increasingly using the Centenary Highway and the Western Freeway would be diverted along this outer western ring road. This freight traffic is increasingly dominating our local roads as it seeks to head north. It is important that the Queensland state government look to a study of the western ring road to be built as part of the overall long-term infrastructure solution to South-East Queensland’s economic and population growth. We hear so much about infrastructure from Labor both at the state level and at the federal level, but, quite clearly, the rhetoric does not match the reality. In April the state government of Queensland announced that it would scrap the initial plans that it had to explore this concept of an outer western ring road. I want to place on the record very strongly and very clearly (1) that I have great reservations about the Kenmore Bypass and (2) that I very strongly support the idea that funding be made available for exploring the capacity of an outer western ring road to be built as something of a long-term visionary plan for the people of Ryan. (Time expired) 3194 3194 21:45:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —According to the Sydney Morning Herald today, Australian officials were stunned by a presentation from a senior Chinese policymaker who was talking about the situation in Tibet. This senior Chinese official admitted that Tibetan economic development was causing a problem between ethnic Han Chinese immigrants and an angry class of unemployed Tibetans. Huge infrastructure investment by the Chinese had not been matched by education spending, leaving migrants from elsewhere in China in a better position to snaffle the jobs and business opportunities. While Chinese government subsidies account for 75 per cent of Tibet’s GDP, the Chinese official said that the region’s ethnic and rural-urban inequalities were getting worse and the challenge of multiculturalism had not been effectively addressed. The conflict between China and the Tibetan subjects has over the last two months drawn the public’s imagination especially during the ill-fated journey of the torch. The Prime Minister performed very well on behalf of Australia in Beijing, striking the right note of proudly representing the different view of human rights in this country and at the same time seeking to preserve good relations with China. I believe that if China implemented only its existing laws on cultural autonomy they would be able to reach a more equitable arrangement with the native Tibetans. Indeed, article 4 of China’s constitution affirms the equality of the country’s 55 ethnic groups and requires the state to adopt policies advancing their ‘special characteristics and needs’. Not only does the constitution prohibit discrimination; it also guarantees minorities the same freedom of thought, expression, assembly and religion as the majority Han Chinese enjoy. Chinese laws and regulations go even further than that. In Tibet these regulations require the hiring of ethnic Tibetans in security roles. They provide for the use of the Tibetan language in education and local government. Regarding education and language, authorities are mandated to provide curriculum in both Chinese and Tibetan and to provide textbooks on the Tibetan language. Signage, street names and judicial proceedings must also be posted in Tibetan. The problem is that these laws and regulations are not put into full effect. Particularly in the area of religion, there are great problems. The Chinese government has interfered with the process of selecting the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama by arresting the Tibetan boy identified by the bona fide research committee and anointing their own choice. It has certainly denigrated the Dalai Lama. As the Chinese intellectual Wang Lixiong said in a statement on the Tibetan crisis by 30 Chinese intellectuals, ‘It is unrealistic for China to demand renunciation of the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama has lofty status amongst people in Tibet particularly amongst Tibetan monks. To demand that monks denounce him is about as practical as asking people to vilify their own parents.’ David L Phillips, a visiting scholar at Columbia University Center for the Study of Human Rights, has argued: Beijing fears that implementing China’s autonomy laws would compromise national sovereignty. But genuine autonomy need not be a half-step towards independence. On the contrary, meaningful autonomy would enhance, not impair, China’s sovereignty. For example, the Hong Kong Basic Law affirmed Beijing’s willingness to come up with a formula that allows a degree of self-rule while asserting the central government’s control over defense and foreign affairs. In my view, the negotiations that are taking place between Tibet and China now after the failed talks that took place between 2002 and 2007 should have two short-term points: first of all, the release of monks as well as other political prisoners; and, secondly, rescinding of the declaration of martial law and the withdrawal of soldiers back to their barracks. The first day of talks that took place recently in Shenzen will lead to further positive developments only if the Chinese government negotiates in good faith with the Dalai Lama. The representatives of the Tibetan government support Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. They support in fact Beijing holding the Olympics and certainly do not oppose it. But they want autonomy for the Tibetan religion within a Chinese framework. Certainly releasing the Panchen Lama would be a great step towards showing China’s sincerity in this area, and I know that Australian parliamentarians will look forward to meeting the Dalai Lama when he comes to Sydney. (Time expired) 3195 3195 21:50:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I rise in the House tonight to bring to the attention of the wider community the small rural community of Valla, which has been left high and dry with the announcement by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development that no funding will be forthcoming for a community development project. The funding amount of approximately $35,000 was only 32 per cent of the total cost of the project. The remaining 68 per cent of the funding was to be provided by community groups, in-kind contributions and volunteers. The community development project was to revitalise the public hall so as to enhance the economic and social participation of the community. The volunteer committee had been working on the funding application for some two years. The funding was promised in October 2007. Further information was requested by the new government in January 2008. But, alas, on 21 January 2008 the funding was withdrawn. The funding would have facilitated the upgrade of the hall to ensure that it was able to meet the needs of the community going into its second century, as the hall was to celebrate 100 years of service in 2009. The Valla community is extremely disappointed. The committee had jumped through all the hoops and complied with all requests. The decision by this federal government to withdraw funding has taken away an opportunity for self-determination. The community told me that all this community needs is a hand up not a hand-out and, with the centenary coming up next year, it was all the more concerning. It is not as if this is a project which is in isolation. Unfortunately, in the last budget, some 116 projects were in the same boat—they were left high and dry by this government. I would hope that it is with some remorse that the members opposite see the withdrawal of funding for a playground for disabled children. It is something that no member of this House should aspire to. I was pleased to see that, after being put under some considerable pressure by the media, the responsible minister saw his way clear to revisit the project. Unfortunately, the same latitude has not been extended to Valla hall. It was interesting to note the comments by Mr David Koch about the call he apparently received from the minister. Mr Koch’s comments were as follows: ... he— that is, the minister— didn’t realise how many community groups were affected. He said their understanding is that the whole partnerships program was a bit of a rort but there are some really good community projects in there so he is going to fast track the examination of all the applications and do it quickly … Is that the decision-making process of this new government—that a minister would abandon a range of projects and discriminate against disabled children in Bundaberg without fully availing himself of all of the facts? I think it is a disgraceful situation. Regional Partnerships is a program that delivered great outcomes to many regional communities. In my community it helped fund a school that gave kids another chance at life, a school where kids who had fallen between the cracks in the state system were able to gain an education and in one case go on to university. I refer also to the Sportz Central project in Coffs Harbour. This project was definitely not a rort. It was co-funded by the local government, the state government and the federal government, so three tiers of government carried out due diligence on this project. We had a project that was widely used by the whole community, a project that, in its current form—it was about to be extended in this funding—was being used seven days and seven nights a week, working for the community 110 per cent. Yet this project was also subject to having its funding withdrawn. It is a disgraceful situation. This minister has basically cut these projects adrift without proper assessment, consultation or consideration, without taking into account the needs of the communities which these projects would serve. I think that the initial decision which came to the attention of the media, in relation to the playground for the disabled children, is only the tip of the iceberg. Communities right across the country are being disadvantaged by this woeful decision and the minister should think again. 3196 3196 21:55:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I rise tonight to provide the House with a summary of some of the dynamic and exciting discussions that were held in my electorate, the electorate of Kingston, as part of the 2020 Summit process. I held a local 2020 summit which many locals contributed to. In addition to this, a number of local school summits were held at Christies Beach Primary School, Braeview Primary School, Reynella East Primary School and Southern Vales Christian College. I was able to visit a number of sessions that were conducted as part of the school summits. Students from all age groups participated, and during these sessions students demonstrated insight into the challenges that we face as a nation into the future, but they also showed enthusiasm to meet these challenges. Students also demonstrated a real commitment to improving their local communities. A wide range of issues were raised and discussed at the school summits. Key areas that were discussed in great detail at all the school summits were climate change, the environment and water. These issues are clearly on the minds of our young people today. During the discussions at Braeview primary, it was clear that tackling climate change was very important to the young students. They believed that addressing climate change was essential to maintain the biodiversity in our country and to protect our water supplies. Students at Braeview believed that education campaigns needed to be developed to encourage people to turn off their electrical appliances, to use solar power, to plant more trees and to encourage car pooling. The students at Braeview believed that Earth Hour was a great idea and suggested that Earth Hour could occur once a week or once a fortnight. Similar to this, students at Southern Vales Christian College discussed environmental issues, including the issue of water. Students at the college thought that there should be stricter water restrictions around the country. In addition, the students at the Southern Vales Christian College believed that the concept of commercial solar powered cars should be supported. Students at the college also discussed areas of health. Specifically, students raised concern at the consequences of binge drinking and smoking and believed that there should be stricter guidelines around the use of these products. Students at Reynella East Primary School discussed issues in an online forum. One of the key things that students discussed was the impact that technology had in shaping the future. One of the key challenges that students identified was the impact that technology would have on the types of employment for the future. Students at Reynella East also raised the importance of developing transport options that do less harm to the environment and the importance of providing a compassionate healthcare system that supported the elderly. Similar themes were also discussed at Christies Beach Primary School. Students discussed the way technology would impact their lives in the future. In particular, they identified that an increase in technology might lead to young people being less active and they supported the development of programs that would encourage young people to be more active and healthy. The students at Christies Beach Primary School also emphasised the importance of identifying alternative fuel sources rather than relying on petrol and also believed that encouraging water conservation through increasing the prevalence of rainwater tanks in people’s backyards was essential. The feedback given by the students, some as young as eight years of age, clearly indicated that our younger generation is actively participating in our debate about our country’s future. These young people are engaged and concerned about not only the future of their country but also the future of their community. This enthusiasm was not just confined to the schools summit; it was also evident in the local Kingston 2020 summit. We had a cross-section of the southern Adelaide community attending the summit, and participants articulated a broad range of creative ideas on building a modern Australia. These ideas included developing a national charter of consumer rights, grassroots investment in assisting pensioners and low-income earners to battle climate change in their own homes and reduce their power bills, greater investment in rail for both public transport and freight, and artists-in-residence at schools as part of the education program in the arts. I would like to sincerely thank everyone in the electorate of Kingston for their enthusiastic contribution to the 2020 summit and I look forward to the outcomes of the summit process. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 10 pm, the debate is interrupted. 3197 22:00:00 House adjourned at 10 pm 2008-05-26 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 4 pm. 3198 Governor-General's Speech 3198 Debate resumed from 15 May, on motion by Mr Hale: That the Address be agreed to. 3198 16:00:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 0 0 Mrs HULL —I rise today to speak to the address-in-reply to the Governor-General’s opening speech. Whilst I was listening to the Governor-General’s opening speech, I carefully appraised and intently considered his words and explanations of what the new government were intending to do and how they were intending to govern over the next three years until the next election. It had me thinking about many of the issues that I confronted when I came here as a new member of parliament in October 1998. I thought I should look at my maiden speech to see whether this place had changed my views, whether I was staying true to the ideals I had when I, as a very strong advocate for rural and regional issues, first decided it would be a great thing to represent the constituents of the Riverina and whether I had changed my perspective on those issues confronting our rural seats. When I looked at my maiden speech from 1998 I felt that I could easily make that speech today. I feel quite comforted that I have not lost my way and have not lost sight of the things that matter most to people in rural and regional Australia, particularly to people in the Riverina. In my maiden speech I spoke passionately about health: the long waiting lists that we were experiencing at the time, the shortage of medical practitioners and the closure of services in small rural towns because they did not have the infrastructure, the services and the medical facilities to attract medical practitioners. I am happy to say that, whilst there are still many health issues confronting the Riverina and of course rural Australia, there have been significant gains made. As a representative of that region, I feel proud that I have stayed focused on these issues. Many solutions have been delivered by the Regional Solutions Program, through our former Deputy Prime Minister, who at the time was the agricultural minister, the Hon. John Anderson, and subsequently through other ministers. The Regional Solutions Program delivered medical centres in rural communities to ensure that we could attract a doctor, a GP, into our communities. The fabulous medical centre in Gundagai came about under Regional Solutions. Dr Paul Mara is such a champion for rural health. I sincerely admire him and his wife, Virginia, for their attention to rural health. They could be off having a better lifestyle in a larger provincial city or maybe in the city itself, but they do stay committed to rural practice and to rural general practice obstetrics. They are the answer to many people’s prayers. I am very proud of the specialist centres and medical centres that were delivered through Regional Solutions. One was in Coleambally. They have been dotted right across my electorate, and they have contributed to the successful resolution of the shortage of doctors that I spoke passionately about in 1998. In looking through my delivery in regard to those nine years, I could see that each area has been positively influenced by the policies of the former government, and I feel that I have worked to assist in shaping many of those. Previously in the Riverina, if you had cancer and you were unable to afford to be away from your family for the long and exhaustive treatments in Sydney or you had pressing issues such as family or job commitments et cetera, the only option you had was to accept it and hope for the best. You had to go away many times for 12 months at a time for your treatments to a city that you were unfamiliar with. You had the extraordinary stress of being removed from your family and a comforting environment at a very stressful time. The former government was able to deliver to the Riverina Cancer Care Centre funding for linear accelerators. The community got behind the push for a cancer care centre, under a former state member, the Hon. Joe Schipp, and with many of our practitioners. In around only 18 months, we were able to raise over $3 million to build the facility. Then the former government came on and gave the HPG funds in order to fund the linear accelerator. At the end of 2006 we were able to fund the second linear accelerator. Now we see people from Canberra and districts far and wide being sent to Wagga Wagga to have their treatment in the Riverina Cancer Care Centre. We also had a problem in that, if you had a substance abuse addiction, there was nowhere that you could get assistance. There was nowhere that you could get rehab, so you were vulnerable and had to leave the environs to get assistance for your substance abuse. We were able to fund the Peppers through the National Illicit Drug Strategy. That has been ongoing, providing extraordinary support and assistance for families not only in the Riverina but also beyond to enable them to be rehabilitated and to move successfully back into communities and have life mean something, rather than their being sucked into substance abuse. We had few carer respite centres and programs, and we have been able to have those delivered. We had, and still do have, enormous issues with dental waiting lists. But, thankfully, we have the Charles Sturt University dental school, which was approved and budgeted for by the previous government in their last budget. We will be extraordinarily thankful for that. It will be training dentists in a rural environment. We have proven through Charles Sturt University the benefit of training rural professionals in a rural stream in a rural environment, including pharmacy training. Before Charles Sturt University offered pharmacy training, you might have got two pharmacists out from the city into the rural areas from every graduation. We had an extreme shortage of pharmacists. But since Charles Sturt has been operational we have had the benefit of being able to retain over 90 per cent of those graduates in rural and regional areas. We are proving in veterinary science that, if you train a vet in heavy animals and in rural areas, they are more likely to stay in those rural areas. Hopefully, the same will be delivered through the dental program that will be run out of Charles Sturt University in both Bathurst and Orange, with three other campuses to be set up for that training program. We have worked a long time to try to resolve many of the issues that I cited in my 1998 speech. The Practice Incentives Program under our former government saw well over $3 million in payments to GPs and the Riverina division of general practice in the region in order to retain those GPs in that region. Again, I looked at my first speech and asked: ‘Have we made a difference? Have we cut through? Have we delivered on any of the things that I raised then?’ I am very proud to say that we have. The one thing that I raised that I was specifically involved in was the RAAF base at Forest Hill. It was under threat of closure at the time through the Defence Efficiency Review. That would have seen a loss of around 1,500 jobs in Wagga Wagga alone in my electorate. We had already been reeling from the loss of many hundreds of jobs prior to the 1998 election. We were able to save that RAAF base. Not only did we save those jobs and the base as it was but the building works are almost completed and the extension of the RAAF base commenced in January this year which will see all of these recruits in the Royal Australian Air Force being trained in Wagga Wagga. There are things that we have achieved since the 1998 election. The one thing that I was very passionate about was the effective competition policy. That is still, I believe, one of the pressing issues confronting my constituents. When I made my maiden speech, I was extraordinarily concerned by what competition policy was doing to rural and regional areas. It was one of those areas that seemed to be delivering more ‘disbenefits’ than benefits. It was something that had been a campaign, almost a crusade, of the then former Keating government. Then competition was equally taken up by the last government. It was pursued equally as aggressively. I am one of those people who stood against competition policy and its effects from the former government that I was a part of, and it appears now that my voice is going to have to continue to be carried in the chamber opposing deregulation, opposing these issues that affect the people whom I represent. I stand here today not aggressively anti government policies, because I was aggressively anti those policies when I was part of the government. I chose to vote against the sale of Telstra, against my government. I fought against my government at the time on the issue of the deregulation of the wheat industry and the removal of the single desk for wheat. I thought we put up a mighty fight against the deregulation of the wheat industry. I know it seems that I have done this issue to death, but I stand here in genuine despair for those people whom I represent because I am back here now on the opposition benches and I am still fighting the same issue of deregulation and the removal of the single desk. In my maiden speech, I said: When asked for their opinion on national competition policy, most people in rural Australia feel that it has accelerated rural decline. It has the enormous potential to cause even further problems for us. Much of this, it could be said, may have been brought about by globalisation. However, the government needs to recognise that there have been obvious effects on rural communities. The obvious effect is, again, on rural communities where I see the devastation of the removal of the single desk, without certainty for my growers. These growers have been in seven years of drought and they have constantly rallied to the cause. Their resilience is like none other. Unless you live, work and move amongst these people and understand how their lives are dictated by the climate then you could not understand just what resilience they have. But their resilience is sorely being tested by this latest blow—that is, the removal of the single desk for wheat. Till the fat lady has sung, as the old cliche goes, I will fight to have my voice heard, regardless of opposition to my voice. I will continue fighting that policy. It is not a personal vendetta against the new government, against the new minister; it is a vendetta against a policy that I see as wrong. It is a policy that is misunderstood. It is a policy that nobody should have to have imposed upon them. We saw the government in their infancy, as they came into power, remove, rightly or wrongly, Australian workplace agreements. Whether you do or do not agree with the removal of AWAs, the very fact is that the government had the right and made the choice to do that. Whether I agree or disagree, the government had that right, as the former government had the right to do many things that they did. But the problem we have at this point is this. AWAs have been removed from the general man or woman on the street, simply because they were seen to be pitting the most vulnerable, those least able to look after themselves, against the strongest and those most able to exploit that weakness in both the general community and the workplace. Yet the government have applied the same AWAs to my wheat growers, those least able to manage when dealing with grain traders of enormous power—with no watchdog; with no Fair Pay Commission; with nobody there to ensure that they have a voice or somebody to look after their interests. There is nowhere for them to go. AWAs have certainly been applied to every wheat grower across Australia. AWAs have now been given to them whereby they will have to negotiate with myriad traders with ultimate power. If they do not, they have nowhere to sell their commodity. They have to take the lowest price, because there is nowhere to go, where they can say, ‘This is not fair.’ There is no Fair Pay Commission; there is nobody to turn to. You are there standing alone—you, your wife and your children are there at the mercy of the most significant of traders, who, in the past, have proven that their interests are, most certainly, not the interests of the grain growers whom I represent. Their interests are the interests of the shareholders. What we will now have will be multiple buyers out there competing for grain with farmer against farmer, neighbour against neighbour and cousin against cousin. Those buyers are all going to be selling in a single selling system, so the price will be as low as they can go and it is not going to come out of their pockets; it is going to come out of the growers’ pockets, in particular the pockets of the growers whom I represent. So, as I look at the issues that I raised in 1998, I am happy to see how many of them have been treated. While they have not been resolved entirely, enormous treatment has been given to ensure more equity in the lives of rural Australians. But I am sad to say that competition policy, which reigned during the Keating government and reigned during the Howard government, will now reign during the Rudd government. That disturbs me in the extreme. Again, this is not an attack on the government; I am purely putting a position that I feel my growers would expect me to put on their behalf. I thank the House, and I remind it, in my address-in-reply, that rural Australians should have the same entitlements as to equity— (Time expired) 3201 16:20:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —It seems a long time since the Governor-General spoke at the opening of parliament and the parliamentary year began. I would like to begin my address-in-reply speech by acknowledging the Ngunawal people, the traditional owners of the land on which this parliament meets, and by paying my respects to the Awabakal and Worimi peoples, the traditional owners and custodians of the land that encompasses the federal seat of Newcastle. While this is my third address-in-reply to the Governor-General’s speech in the Australian parliament, this is the first time I have had the great privilege of responding from the government benches. It does feel very special. There are a significant number of firsts in this new parliament. The Indigenous welcome to country, which preceded the official opening of the 42nd Parliament of Australia, was an amazing occasion for me, considering the generosity with which that was delivered, the colourful ceremony and the opportunity to engage with people from the Torres Strait Islands and areas of Australia from which we do not often get to meet people. It was a wonderful setting of the tone for this new parliament, and I thank the Indigenous people of Australia for that generous welcome. It was responded to by the national apology to the stolen generations. There could be no more moving event for any of us than to see our parliament—in this case the House of Representatives chamber—become not just a place of advocacy and debate but a place that certainly reflected the heart and soul of the people of this nation. It was indeed a great honour and privilege. It was such a long overdue apology. I recall watching—this was when I was not a member of parliament—Kim Beazley deliver a speech on the Bringing them home report and seeing how moved he was. I thought of him during that ceremony, because it was something that he was passionate about and truly believed in. So it was a wonderful beginning and it was a watershed moment, and I was certainly proud to be there. Those events were possible because of the election of our government on 24 November 2007, an election that saw the people put their faith in a new and positive agenda put forward by the Labor team for the future. The people were ready for a change. I think that was very obvious, and having 34 new members is testimony to that. It is wonderful to see them. The people were ready to move away from a very different era of politics, an era of divisiveness in which fear, instead of reason, had been championed. It is certainly for most people a time that they will look back on with some regrets. We do see change now. It is just delightful for people like me who came to parliament after the Tampa election to now see the moves of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Evans, to put some of that right again: to see the Nauru facility closed down, to see people taken off punitive TPVs and to see some compensation for Vivian Solon and Cornelia Rau in particular. Those are wonderful moves in respect of issues that the Australian people needed to see settled. We have had over 1,000 African settlers, humanitarian settlers, come into my electorate. I saw their distress when they were used as political footballs during the election campaign. I think there is a new era, one that we need to embrace—and Australians certainly did at the election. It was also wonderful to see that people did want to move away from Iraq—perhaps the saddest day of my existence in parliament was to be in a parliament that sent its young people to war—to know that our plans to leave Iraq are underway and that there is still a commitment to protect our country, to protect democracy and to fight terrorism where it really does flourish in this world: in Afghanistan. So I think the divisiveness that was encouraged in the past has certainly been put behind us. I would also say that there was perhaps a real need for change in terms of the movement away from community participation in the delivery of services to people on behalf of the Australian government, and I hope that one of the other things that we will see now is community participation coming back into service delivery, particularly for those sensitive services like the humanitarian settlement service. We also know that the Australian public wanted to move away from Work Choices. This was a legislative arrangement which fundamentally attempted to change the face of our nation. It was a change that was never going to be accepted by the Australian people, because of their good sense, their honest belief in fairness and their absolute protection of people who are very vulnerable in the workforce. As a mother of young people who have been exploited, who have had very little protection and who have had no safety net, I was particularly proud to see our national apology and our first lot of legislation introduced on the first day of parliament removing the threat of Work Choices from the Australian people and restoring some decency to the workplace again. I would also like to congratulate the labour movement on the Your Rights at Work campaign. It was a significant grassroots campaign and one that I think was very much needed. I am always proud when the labour movement, the political wing of the Labor Party, the rank-and-file members and the people come together so well to undo some injustices that are prevailing. I congratulate the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Unions New South Wales for their role in the community campaign. I welcome, too, the member for Charlton, Greg Combet, as a new colleague in this place. I acknowledge his role in that campaign prior to his election, as well as the contribution of Jeff Lawrence, Sharan Burrow and John Robertson. Again, I think what was also rather inspiring to the Australian people was the new-look team and the new-look leadership. To have two wonderful leaders, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, support each other so admirably I think did inspire. The unity was, I think, something that inspired the Australian people. I would like to put on the record my personal thanks to both of them for their support, their counsel and their willingness to always assist the caucus members when they particularly need it. The Prime Minister’s vision is one of inclusiveness and it pursues some long-term challenges that we face. I think that was very attractive to the Australian people. We know that the 5.4 per cent swing nationally to Labor brought some wonderful new colleagues into this parliament, and I congratulate and welcome them. They will be an asset to us. It is wonderful to see their diverse backgrounds and their talents already assisting the Labor team. As for my third election campaign in the electorate of Newcastle, it had a wonderful result and many people deserve special thanks for that. A redistribution saw new areas—including Thornton, Woodberry, Beresfield, Tarro, Heatherbrae, Hexam, Tomago, Williamtown, Fullerton Cove and Fern Bay—come into the electorate of Newcastle. The people in those areas had less than 12 months to get to know me and vice versa, but they voted overwhelmingly to support Labor’s positive agenda. Winning new booths like Beresfield, Fern Bay, Tarro, Thornton, Tomago and Woodberry on primary votes was especially satisfying and I do want to thank those constituents in particular for their trust. Winning the seat of Newcastle on primary votes was also a wonderful outcome and certainly places me in a position of great responsibility. The people of Newcastle have retained their trust in federal Labor for the last 107 years and it is a trust I am ever mindful of and always willing to repay through hard work and dedicated representation. So I do thank the voters of Newcastle. Our swing from the redistributed 8.7 per cent to almost 16 per cent was a wonderful one around the nation and one that I am proud to have received, but I am also proud and passionate as a Novocastrian to represent the people of Newcastle here. Election campaigns are very much a team event and we always have many people to thank. Behind every elected member, I know there is always an extraordinary team of supporters. In my case I have, fortunately, a loving family, a close circle of friends, a great campaign team and the support of genuine rank-and-file Labor Party members. I would also thank the Newcastle trade union movement and a strong cross-section of the Newcastle community. I am grateful to them all. I want to put on the record my appreciation of the rank-and-file members of the Australian Labor Party for their trust and strong endorsement of my candidature. These people embody Labor values and principles and selflessly volunteer their time and energy to promote Labor’s agendas and ensure that Labor delivers—so they are very vocal right now as well, which is wonderful. Campaigns are tough but a strong campaign team makes all the difference. I want to particularly thank Sharon Claydon, Simonne Pengelly, Ben Farrell and John Dunn, who all played key roles in my campaign; my FEC executive—Morrie Graham, James Marshall, Shirley Schulz-Robinson, Barbara Whitcher, Noel James, Ruth Callcott, Bernie Bernard and Mark Walmsley; Lauren O’Brien and Harry Criticos for their assistance with the preparation of campaign materials; the campaign office volunteers—Cath Claydon, Victoria Phillis, Tommy Lockett, Su Cruickshank, Sue McCormack and the dozens of other people who helped out in the campaign office; the mobile corflute team, including Donovan Harris and John Sherry; and all those people who displayed posters at their home or workplace. I also thank Ross Coates for coordinating the street stall campaign and the dozens of people who helped out on stalls all around Newcastle. I thank Chris Hepple and the team of volunteers who maintained the prepoll booth rosters; Mary Callcott, James Marshall and John Ellery, who scrutineered the mobile polling booths; the 52 booth captains; and the hundreds of people who volunteered to work on polling booths across the electorate on election day. I thank Pat Martin and Irene Bennett and their able team, who helped prepare and deliver lunch and supplies to booth volunteers, and the dozens of scrutineers who stayed behind at the close of polls for the count, despite the temptation to join us and celebrate a long-awaited federal Labor victory. I also want to acknowledge the support of the Newcastle Trades Hall Council, particularly the secretary, Gary Kennedy, the Maritime Union of Australia, particularly Len Covell, and the United Mine Workers Association, in particular Ian Murray and Graheme Kelly, for their support throughout the campaign. I welcome the opportunity to work with the wider labour movement. Having not come from the labour movement, I very much appreciate being a part of that wider family. I also want to thank my federal parliamentary Labor Party colleagues who were so willing to visit Newcastle in their former roles as shadow ministers to ensure that Labor’s policy agenda took account of Newcastle’s needs and aspirations. In that lead-up period they included Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Lindsay Tanner, Nicola Roxon, Brendan O’Connor, Chris Evans, Craig Emerson, Stephen Conroy, Jan McLucas, Annette Hurley, Martin Ferguson and Kate Lundy. To have their support in that very busy year when we were all facing so many challenges was wonderful, and I do thank them very much. My final and most important thanks go to the people of Newcastle—the local residents and families, community groups, representative organisations, small businesses, manufacturers, educators, health workers, environmentalists, IT workers, scientists, creative artists, and seniors and youth alike—for their ongoing support and for entrusting federal Labor with the responsibility of creating a better and fairer future. The people of Newcastle are never backward in coming forward. My electorate office, which is a shopfront office, is extremely busy with personal calls, visits, letters, emails and community events. I greatly value the contact, feedback, suggestions, constructive criticism, policy ideas and assistance from the people of Newcastle. I also take great satisfaction in being able to provide them with help, information and advice and to put them together and achieve much more in that way. Never a week goes by in my office when someone does not make the effort to thank me or my staff for the work we do. I am told that that is quite an astounding thing—it does not always happen. The people of Newcastle always take the time to say thank you. For that I am particularly grateful. We have of course as a new government put forward a very positive agenda. The key themes—economic management and reform, work and family, the education revolution, health, climate change and water, housing, social inclusion, Indigenous policy, national security and international relations, and governance and transparency—are vital to a new direction in this new century. It is a big agenda, tackling the big issues and aiming to make our nation fair, productive and secure. At the election I think the people of Newcastle found it was an agenda that resonated with them very strongly. We have a very strong industrial and working-class background, but our city has always been in transition and is always having to be resilient. We have been tested over and over again, as recently as last year. In a week or so, it is the 12-month anniversary of the June storms that saw the Pasha Bulker washed up on shore and hundreds and hundreds of people washed out of their homes. I think people know of our history in terms of the earthquake et cetera. They know that Newcastle is a tough place. The people stick together. They believe in a fair go and that a harmonious workplace is a safe and productive workplace. Newcastle has seen too many of its people injured and lost at the workplace. Novocastrians voted for change and for some of the things they know are important to their future. We are proud of our coalmining heritage and we will never abandon the jobs of those working around that industry, but we know that we do need, and will need, to do it smarter and cleaner. So, on climate change, Newcastle sees great opportunities in the government’s agenda. From the beginning of last year, I have hosted roundtable meetings with stakeholders in the energy sector to talk about becoming a region of energy sustainability and energy solutions. I am very pleased to say that those meetings with the state government continue this week, trying to put together a proposal and submission from our region for the Clean Energy Enterprise Connect Centres announced in the new budget. I welcome the support of Minister Penny Wong, who visited my electorate just last week to see the outstanding and world-leading research being done into solar thermal, clean coal and energy efficiency technologies at CSIRO Energy Technology Newcastle. It is a wonderful facility. I was very pleased to receive a call from Geoff Garrett, the CEO of CSIRO, last week to say he had been to Newcastle and how much he had enjoyed visiting our Hunter Means Innovation Festival, how much change he had seen in the city of Newcastle over six years and how he was delighted to know the flagship was attracting some of the world’s best young scientists who wish to be part of the energy solutions for the world and were certainly very happy to come to Newcastle to be a part of that activity. Those sorts of agendas are wonderful for us. The social inclusion agenda is also terribly important for Newcastle. We are a regional capital, so we provide services for people with disabilities and mental illness. We know that homelessness affects people in our city. We know that binge drinking is one of those social problems. To have a social inclusion agenda will be very important for a regional capital like Newcastle because, in many ways, it is a magnet for people seeking support or running perhaps to bigger centres. We also know that we have been left with the burden of neglected regional infrastructure. Our port of Newcastle is of course the biggest exporter of coal in the world. The regional airport is the fastest growing regional airport in Australia. We do know that there is a need for a new approach that looks more holistically at the value of infrastructure and certainly builds some cooperative approaches with our state colleagues. Those are some of the challenges we want to be a part of. There are other challenges facing Newcastle, ones that I am very happy to pursue in this parliament. We know that a Federal Court building is earmarked for our city and we know it will support not just the city of Newcastle but a quarter of the state at least, maybe even more. We also know that the Hunter Medical Research Institute needs support from this government and the wonderful health and medical fund announced in our budget will see a way forward for those facilities.  Innovation is what we are about and certainly the HMRI is a successful innovator when it comes to health research. One of the ways we have taken to build on these wonderful agendas was the 2020 Summit. I am pleased to report that the Newcastle 2020 Summit on 5 April facilitated by me and Professor Nick Saunders, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Newcastle, was undertaken in that very great spirit of gathering ideas from over 100 local people, drawn from all sectors. One of the overwhelming themes to emerge was that our region needed to work better at establishing a dialogue across sectors, setting some clear priorities for our region which reflected a shared view. It was agreed that by doing that we could play a greater role in national policy design and its local implementation, taking charge of our destiny and leading the national agenda by local example. The local summit produced a range of great ideas that were submitted to the national 2020 Summit. I seek leave to table the Newcastle 2020 Summit communique. Leave granted. 00AMP Grierson, Sharon, MP Ms GRIERSON —Our ideas were a reflection of the strength of our community and I look forward to working with the Newcastle community to deliver on those ideas. I am proud to say that two weeks ago the federal Labor government delivered a budget that meets my election commitments to Newcastle. I will be speaking in detail about those during consideration of the budget bills, but in this address-in-reply speech I will finish by once more giving my commitment to the people of Newcastle that I will honestly and passionately represent their views to this parliament and that I will be very proud to be part of creating a more prosperous and fairer future for them. It is an honour to represent them and I will continue to be a strong voice for Newcastle in the new Rudd Labor government. (Time expired) 3206 16:41:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 0 Mr CIOBO —I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the way in which the last budget, and indeed the new Rudd Labor government’s agenda, has been one significant fraud on the Australian people. In particular I would like to note that in the lead-up to the 24 November election a couple of statements of fact were made that are worth repeating. The first is that, in many respects, the Australian economy was regarded as the ‘wonder down under’, to use the jargon that many economists around the world were using. Australia had the strongest possible economy following 15 or 16 years of continuous economic growth. Under the coalition, we saw Australia transformed as a country. When we were first elected in 1996, following an awful 13 years of Labor administration, we had a nation that was suffering under the weight of $96 billion of debt. We had an unemployment rate that was over eight per cent. We had a budget deficit that was in excess of $10 billion. That was the legacy that was left to the previous coalition government. During 11 years of sound, responsible economic management, we were able to turn that situation around and halve the unemployment rate from eight per cent to four per cent. We paid off in full the $96 billion of Labor Party debt so that, in essence, the Rudd Labor government inherited a net asset position of $60 billion, versus the $96 billion debt that the coalition government inherited when we took over after Labor. In addition to that, we turned around the Australian budgetary position so that it was no longer shackled with a $10 billion budget deficit but, rather, was enjoying budget surpluses of around 1½ per cent of GDP, approximately $12 billion to $15 billion. That was the track record in broad terms of the previous coalition government. I and all coalition members know that in the lead-up to the last federal election the Australian people had very significant concerns that they wanted addressed. These concerns were preyed upon by a populist then opposition leader, in the form of Kevin Rudd, our new Prime Minister. He marched around Australia and said that, under the Labor Party, he would make sure that two significant concerns were addressed immediately. The first promise was that a Rudd Labor government would bring down petrol prices. Day after day, the coalition was faced with questions from the Rudd Labor opposition about why it was not doing more on petrol prices. Indeed, state Labor members and Labor candidates would say to people in my electorate, ‘You know, petrol prices are very high. If the coalition really cared it would do more. Under a Rudd Labor government we will bring down petrol prices because we’ve got a bold new plan.’ That is what the Labor Party said. In addition to that, I had Labor candidates running around my electorate making claims that, under a Rudd Labor government, they would bring down grocery prices, because, according to the Australian Labor Party, we had apparently taken our eye off the ball. Labor candidates said that if they were elected they had a bold new plan to change grocery pricing so that it would be lower under the Labor Party. They were the two major promises that the Rudd Labor government took to the last election—coupled, of course, with reforms to Work Choices. I will touch on all three in more detail. At the outset, it is important to understand where Australia was when the Howard government was elected in 1996 and where Australia was left when the Howard government lost office in 2007, and to contrast that with the performance of the Rudd Labor government in the last six months. Given the government said it was very important that the budget, which was handed down recently, be a budget that would lower inflation pressure, it is interesting to have a look at what actually was achieved in the last Rudd budget. The Rudd Labor government have made a point of going about the place saying that they have inherited the highest inflation rate for 16 years. All members of the coalition concede that point. It is a matter of statistical fact. It is the highest level for 16 years—incidentally, the highest level since Labor were last in power. Inflation did get high from time to time under the coalition, but the key difference is that, each time inflation would start to creep up, the coalition was able to address it and bring it back down. That stands in stark contrast to the situation now that the Labor Party are back in power, when we see inflation sitting up higher than is comfortable for the Reserve Bank of Australia. Rather than doing as the previous coalition government did, making correct policy settings to ensure that they brought the inflation level down, the Rudd Labor government, and particularly the reckless Treasurer, Wayne Swan, have raced about Australia saying that the sky is caving in, that inflation is a crisis and that the budget needed to have some savage cuts. We heard for months that the Labor Party were going to ensure that this budget would contain significant cuts to put downward pressure on prices. We heard they wanted downward pressure on petrol prices and downward pressure on grocery prices and that they would put downward pressure on inflation as a result of this budget. But what did we actually achieve in the last budget? What was it that the Australian people saw from this new Rudd Labor government? Much to their surprise, what they saw, rather than a budget that would put downward pressure on inflation, was a budget that would put upward pressure on inflation. Rather than being a budget that would put downward pressure on petrol prices, it was a budget that would put upward pressure on petrol prices. Rather than being a budget that will, as was promised by the Labor Party, put downward pressure on grocery prices, it is a budget that does absolutely nothing to make an impact on petrol prices except to increase transport costs so that, if anything, grocery prices are likely to go up under the Rudd Labor government. So much for all the promises of 24 November! So much for the new Labor government’s record and their promises of putting downward pressure on inflation and of lower petrol and grocery prices! The exact opposite has come to pass in a relatively short period of six months under this Labor government. It brings me no joy to inform the people in my electorate of Moncrieff and the people of the Gold Coast more broadly about what this new Labor government is doing for the people of the Gold Coast, because it is almost worse than doing nothing. I would actually prefer that the Labor government did nothing for the people of the Gold Coast over what the Labor government is doing, which is taking them backwards. In particular, I would like to address one of the key concerns for all Gold Coast residents: health. The Gold Coast has been Australia’s fastest-growing city for the last 25 years and it is anticipated to be the fastest-growing city for the next 30 years. We have significant strain on our public health system. I would not have minded if the Rudd Labor government had stood by their promise that their policy solution was the rollout of GP superclinics. The coalition previously adopted the stance that one way we could help to ease the burden on the public hospital system would be to ensure that we provided additional funding for after-hours medical care, because we knew that people did not get sick only between nine and five. We rolled out a whole spate of programs to ensure that medical clinics across the Gold Coast were able to offer care outside of regular business hours, including on the weekend. I understand policy debate. The Rudd Labor government said, ‘That will not be our focus; our focus will be to deliver better health services through GP superclinics.’ So I looked forward eagerly and with some anticipation when recently the Rudd Labor government announced that there would be 31 GP superclinics. Unfortunately, not one of them is on the Gold Coast. A city of 600,000 people has been completely ignored by the Labor Party, who have failed to put a single GP superclinic on the coast. To make matters worse, they have cut funding for the GP after-hours clinics. In fact, the Labor Party have rubbed salt in the wounds of all those people on the Gold Coast, because they do not get a GP superclinic and, thanks to the insight of this Labor government, they have had after-hours medical care cut. It is a city of 600,000 people that now, thanks to this new Labor government, does not have access to after-hours medical care and does not have a GP superclinic. That is the record of the Labor Party, and it is important that all Gold Coasters know where they stand. But the triple whammy has been the decision of the Labor Party to raise the Medicare surcharge. The impact of this we already know. According to the budget papers, approximately 498,000 taxpayers will shift from being privately insured to the public system. When you multiply that across families, not just taxpayers, we know that close to one million Australians will shift from being privately insured and go to the public system. That means, in a city of 600,000 people, thousands of Gold Coasters who previously were enjoying the benefits of private medical insurance will now be lining up in the emergency ward of the public hospital, waiting for six or eight hours, as they do right now, and that problem will only get worse. And it is also going to get worse because people can no longer go after hours to a GP clinic as that funding has been cut. They cannot go to a much-vaunted GP superclinic, because we do not have one. So, thanks to the Australian Labor Party, the Gold Coast now has no superclinic and no after-hours care and thousands of people have been shoved from the private system to the public system. That is the legacy of the Labor Party when it comes to health. That is the bold new reform and the bold new plan from the Rudd Labor government. I say to the people of the Gold Coast that they should look in a very disparaging way at any Labor politician who dares to set foot on the Gold Coast and they should ask them why they are not doing something on health, because Labor’s track record is abysmal. But I am afraid that it just follows on from the record of incompetence that we see from the state Labor government when it comes to Queensland Health. Some months ago, the state health minister said that the Gold Coast would be receiving a new hospital, and I thought, ‘Great, an investment of several hundred million dollars in a new facility.’ I was pleased when they erected the sign on the block of land that said: ‘This is the site of the new Gold Coast hospital; construction will commence March 2007’. I was very excited as finally we were getting some recognition from the state Labor government. I was there in March 2007 and there was the sign and there were the trees. I went again in April 2007 and there was the sign and there were the trees. I went in May 2007; the sign was still there and the trees were still there, and I thought: ‘Construction must be going to start soon.’ I raised the point in the media, and I said, ‘Well, there’s the sign and there’s the block of land. Why haven’t they started building the new hospital?’ And I am pleased to report that the sign was taken down. The state Labor government are now engaged in further deliberation and further consultation about where in fact they will put the hospital, but there is no solution whatsoever to the very legitimate health needs of a city of 600,000 people. The Labor Party in Queensland have a big problem, the same problem that exists across virtually every state Labor government in this country: the debt monkey is on their back—$85 billion of state debt. I say to the people of my electorate of Moncrieff and of the Gold Coast more broadly: this Labor Party at a federal level will do what the Keating and the Hawke Labor governments did; it will do what the Labor Party have done in every single state with their $85 billion of debt. It will take a very strong healthy Australian economy and it will destroy it. That will be the legacy of this new Rudd Labor government. I am happy to put my prediction on the table now. We saw from the Rudd Labor budget that, despite all the promises of this budget being one that would put downward pressure on inflation, it was in fact an inflationary budget, because it was a typical old-style Labor budget—big spending and big tax increases. That is what the Labor Party brought about in the most recent budget. But, importantly, they also, unfortunately, cut spending in a whole host of areas. I have a large number of schools in my electorate which benefited from a coalition initiative called Investing in Our Schools. It was a billion-dollar program that saw all sorts of investments go into a whole range of classrooms. It was a program that I supported when the coalition was in government, because the state Labor government then was dragging its feet on critical infrastructure for schools. So the federal coalition government stepped up to the plate, and we said, ‘We’ll provide funding out of our budget surplus to help school P&Cs,’ because, frankly, if we had waited for the state Labor governments to do it we would still be waiting. I have a vast array of schools in my electorate and to cite just some: Nerang State High School received $129,000 to refurbish its hall; Nerang state primary school received $125,000 for a shade structure court, a grounds upgrade and oval irrigation; William Duncan State School, $70,000 for a shade structure; Bellevue Park State School, new ICT and computer equipment to the tune of about $20,000; Benowa State High School, $100,000 for reverse cycle air-conditioning; Keebra Park State High School, $109,000 for a sports field and a further $40,000 for air-conditioning; and we saw at Miami State High School $100,000 for a canteen. In each of these areas—and these are just some examples—we were able to see direct investment by the coalition to improve the school facilities for young Gold Coast kids, because we believe in them. But unfortunately that program has now been axed. It has been axed for the so-called education revolution that we have been hearing so much about from the Labor Party. You do not want to ask too many questions about what the education revolution is, because so far the grand total of it seems to be computers in boxes. The Labor Party like to say ‘computers in classrooms’, but it is very clear that it actually only extends as far as computers in boxes. The boxes with computers in them turn up at schools, with no extra funding to make sure they can be plugged in, no extra funding for security, no extra funding for workstations, no extra funding to make sure that there are power points to plug the computers into. This is the extent of the Labor Party’s forward thinking when it comes to their so-called education revolution. There are a range of areas where Gold Coast families and older Gold Coasters have also missed out. The coalition was very focused on and paid strong attention to these two constituencies because they are people who make such a difference to the Australian community. These are the men and women and the older Australians who are the backbone of our communities. I was always very proud to be a strong advocate for them in the coalition’s party room when we were in government. It is very clear that the Rudd Labor government has completely ignored them. It is very clear that, despite a record amount of funding in the budget surplus, the Rudd Labor government simply does not have the wherewithal or desire to service the needs of families and older Australians on the Gold Coast. An example of this is its decision to change the eligibility rules for the Commonwealth healthcare card. Previously, thousands of Gold Coasters would have been eligible for the Commonwealth health card. That is no longer the case. Thanks to changes that were announced in this most recent budget, we now see older Gold Coasters no longer eligible, despite the fact that there was no consultation, despite the fact that their very legitimate requirements were completely ignored. The other key program that had a funding cut in the budget was Regional Partnerships. This was a particularly important program for regional centres like the Gold Coast. The coalition were attempting to address key infrastructure requirements of cities like the Gold Coast, and Regional Partnerships was a crucial way of doing that. Unfortunately, the Labor Party tended to focus on Regional Partnerships and claimed that in some way it was a rort or a pork-barrelling exercise. How ironic that, despite all these unfounded attacks on the Regional Partnerships program, the Labor Party was still happy to accept several hundred thousand dollars for the ‘stump of knowledge’—or, I should say, the Tree of Knowledge—in Barcaldine. In addition to that, we have witnessed today that in government the Labor Party and in particular the member for Grayndler have altered the rules of the Noise Abatement Program so that he can provide $14 million to his local school for abatement of aircraft noise. How extraordinary that the $14 million that has been pork-barrelled into that school has been estimated, according to newspaper reports, as being twice the cost of building a new school. It is quite extraordinary that the Labor Party has the hide to be critical of an important program like Regional Partnerships when it engages in pork-barrelling to the tune of $14 million in its first six months for a school which just happens to be in the electorate of the member for Grayndler. A very proud moment for me and the member for McPherson was the launch of the Australian Technical College on the Gold Coast. This was one of a series of ATC rollouts across Australia, and it provides very real opportunities for industry to work more closely with local schools to provide the best possible training opportunities for young Gold Coast kids. We heard that, as part of the education revolution, the Rudd Labor government intends to roll out a metal arts shop, a woodwork shop or something like them in each of the high schools. So, despite the fact that we have a purpose-built specialist ATC that is providing for hundreds of Gold Coast kids a first-class education in the vocational arts, specifically tailored to meet the needs of our local community, the Labor Party is going to walk away from that ATC, not fund it in the future and instead engage in some relatively pointless exercise of duplicating all that infrastructure—allegedly—across Gold Coast schools. I say ‘allegedly’ because I will believe it when I see it. I suspect it will be a long time before Gold Coast schools have the infrastructure that has been promised to them by the Rudd Labor government. In summary, the first six months of the Rudd Labor government has been a very average six months. Despite the rhetoric that they would bring down petrol prices, it is clear that their only plan is to watch petrol prices and put no downward pressure on at all. Despite their promise to decrease grocery prices, grocery prices continue to skyrocket, with no plan at all. And, despite their promises to put downward pressure on inflation through the budget, it is clear that it is an old-time Labor big-spending, big-taxing budget. 3211 17:01:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 1 0 Ms LIVERMORE —It is a pleasure to have the opportunity today to speak from this side of the House in the address-in-reply debate. Even though it is the fourth of these speeches in my career, the fourth time I have been returned to this place, there is something special about speaking this time around as a member of the government, the Rudd Labor government. In some respects, this speech is a little bit like a first speech. Before the last election in 2007 there was a quite substantial electoral redistribution throughout Queensland, which made some significant changes to the electorate of Capricornia. The downside of such a redistribution is that Capricornia no longer includes a number of communities where I have really enjoyed working with community members on their various projects and helping them address some of the issues and problems that they have. I am thinking of communities like the great mining town of Blackwater. There are also Biloela, Moura and Theodore, among others. These are all communities south-west of the main town in Capricornia, Rockhampton, which have now been included in the new seat of Flynn, which is represented by my colleague Chris Trevor. I know that Chris is already working very hard. He has picked up the reins very quickly and is working hard with those communities and seeing some of the projects that I was working on with those communities come to fruition. I wish him all the best and I can assure those communities that they have a very good representative in this place. The redistribution gave me some great new communities. The electorate now goes north into the very southern outskirts of Mackay. It includes communities like Sarina and Clairview and communities of the Pioneer Valley like Finch Hatton, Pleystowe, Gargett, Marian and Mirani. I was delighted to see those communities come into the boundaries of Capricornia. I was born and bred in Mackay and I am very familiar with those communities from my childhood up there. It is great to be back on my old home turf and I am honoured that they have supported me to return me here as their representative. I welcome them to the electorate of Capricornia and assure them that I will do my very best to give them good representation in this place. Those communities have brought a major change to the electorate of Capricornia. People in this chamber have heard me talk many times about Capricornia’s substantial role in both the beef cattle industry and the coalmining industry. The communities to the south and west of Mackay are in one of Australia’s premier sugar-growing regions, so I am quickly finding my way around the sugar industry and I appreciate the assistance that I have had from representatives of both the growing and the milling communities. It is now six months since the election of the Rudd government, and it is a good time to look back on the commitments that were made during the course of the campaign in Capricornia and measure what progress has been made on those commitments. When we look back at the campaign—not just the five weeks of the election campaign itself but throughout the last two years leading up to the 2007 election—we see that the No. 1 issue that really motivated people in the electorate of Capricornia was Work Choices. It was quite a shock to people in Capricornia, as indeed it was right around Australia, when that was introduced by the Howard government. Of course, there was no opportunity to debate the merits or otherwise of the previous government’s industrial relations plan before the last election; it was kept under wraps until the Senate majority emerged. People reacted very strongly once they had had a look at what Work Choices meant to them: the removal of protection from unfair dismissal and the introduction of AWAs, which we saw very quickly taking away hard-won entitlements and attacking people’s take-home wages. In Capricornia people took to the streets and their workplaces and got very involved in the Your Rights at Work campaign. They worked very hard in the community, in their workplaces and, thankfully, on my campaign, to do their bit to end Work Choices and to defeat the Howard government. I want to say thank you to all those people who helped me in my campaign—I should more correctly say those who got involved at every level in the Your Rights at Work campaign. It was a tremendous effort throughout Capricornia and I really do appreciate the support that I got. I have to congratulate people for basically sticking up for their rights and for not copping what Work Choices meant to them, to their families, to their workplaces and of course to this nation and what we regard as some pretty core Australian values. Looking at our very local campaign and some of the commitments that were made at the local level in Capricornia, you cannot go past health as a very important policy area in which people were looking to the Rudd Labor team to address some critical deficiencies from the previous Howard government. One of the most important commitments that we made in Capricornia was to grant a full-time licence for an MRI machine, with that licence being attached to an MRI machine at the Rockhampton Base Hospital. Going back into the history of this matter: at the 2004 election Labor promised that we would grant a licence for a full-time MRI machine at the Rockhampton hospital. It was a priority going back to that time. We were not successful in that election. The Howard government instead granted that full-time licence to a private sector operator, but the private sector operator put the MRI machine into a mobile unit that spends its time between Rockhampton, Gladstone and Bundaberg. In effect, Rockhampton, the major health hub in Central Queensland, only has access to an MRI machine on a part-time basis, and this is completely unacceptable. Nicola Roxon joined me in making the commitment that, if elected, Labor would provide a full-time MRI licence for a machine to be located at the Rockhampton Base Hospital. The minute I made that announcement and it became public, quite a number of people, in conversation when I bumped into them at the shopping centre or down the street, told me about their own personal experiences. For example, they had been diagnosed with something or they were concerned about a particular health condition and the doctor had suggested that they get an MRI scan to make a correct diagnosis, and there they were, sitting around waiting for one week, two weeks or whatever it might be while this MRI machine made its way back up from Bundaberg or Gladstone. Meanwhile, they were sitting with a lump or something that they could not get identified. It was a very anxious time for people, and it is something that Labor has addressed. Discussions are underway already with Queensland Health about the implementation of this promise, and I am assured by the Commonwealth health department that we are very much ready to go with the issuing of that licence and our commitment to picking up the bill for the MRI services that will be provided when Queensland Health is in a position to get that machine up and going. The other health initiative was one put forward by the Capricornia Division of General Practice. It is a very innovative project named the Capricornia Primary Health Advanced Community Care initiative. It is very much designed to avoid the need for people to go into hospital. The idea is that someone going to their GP who would otherwise be admitted to hospital as a last resort will be able to contact this organisation, which will be run by the division of GPs. It will involve a database of services that are available out in the community to support those people who would otherwise have no option but to be admitted to hospital. This is really about harnessing the resources that are already in the community to take some of the pressure off our public hospital system. Again, this is already underway. Meetings have been held between the Commonwealth and state health departments and the other stakeholders in this and I am confident that that local initiative for people to avoid going into hospital and to get the care they need in their own homes will get underway soon. The other big issue that has been a mainstay of my speeches in this place for pretty much the whole time I have been here is of course roads. Anyone in a regional electorate would spend a fair bit of time talking about roads and lobbying for funding for roads. I can see that you endorse my words, Deputy Speaker Sidebottom. Some are more successful than others with funding, you would have to say. Nonetheless, I did welcome the $2.2 billion that was announced for the Bruce Highway in Queensland. Yes, funding does go to places other than Tasmania at times. This $2.2 billion for the Bruce Highway includes a significant proportion for the Central Queensland section between Childers and Sarina. It means things like an extra 40 overtaking lanes between Childers and Sarina, which will be very welcome, and a great deal of widening and strengthening work to increase the safety and efficiency of the road. There are three main projects that I will be pushing very hard to be given some priority. One is a significant upgrade of the main street of Sarina. The Bruce Highway actually goes right through the main part of the town and there was $10 million announced to straighten up that road and make that southern approach to Sarina a bit safer and for it to work better as a main street. Another important one, which I think work is already underway on to implement, is the duplication of the road between Bakers Creek, just south of Mackay, and Farrelly’s Lane, which is the entrance to the fast-growing industrial area at Paget. That is going to be a really important one because the traffic on that road between Sarina and Mackay and out to the mining towns is growing exponentially. The other important one is a $5 million commitment to fund a major scoping study looking at how you take road and rail traffic over the Yeppen flood plain at the southern entrance to Rockhampton. That is something that has really needed to be looked at for many years, and the increased activity in the mining towns to the west of Rockhampton and right through the Central Queensland region has meant that it is becoming even more pressing. I was very pleased to get those commitments. Some other local promises picked up in the budget last week were for three sporting facilities: two in Rockhampton and one in the mining town of Dysart. One of those commitments is for the redevelopment of the Hegvold Stadium, which is the home of basketball in Rockhampton. The stadium has already been given great support by the state government and also by Rockhampton Basketball, and the federal government will be kicking in to help that project on its way. Similarly, we will be providing some funding for an upgrade of the Kele Park softball facility in Rockhampton. The other great project is a multipurpose sport and recreation centre in the mining town of Dysart. This is a great project, bringing together support from the state and federal governments and also from BMA, which is the main mining company operating out at Dysart. That facility is seen as a really important part of increasing the attractiveness of Dysart as a place for people to live. The mining companies, like everyone, are finding it harder and harder to fill their workforce needs. The things that help attract and retain staff in communities like Dysart are very important. Speaking of coal, one of the other things that was announced during the election by the Labor side was the $500 million Clean Coal Fund. I notice the former Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources sitting in the chamber. I know he joins me in being a very keen supporter of the coal industry as a representative of a major proportion of the coal industry in Queensland. Of course, the future of that industry is very near and dear to my heart and to the people of Capricornia, who understand the importance of its contribution to our economic base in Central Queensland. Labor’s $500 million Clean Coal Fund is very much about securing the future of the industry. The aim of the fund is also to leverage funds from industry as we look towards developing and implementing technologies that will allow us to continue using coal for our energy needs in a carbon constrained future. Finally, I want to talk about Labor’s commitment to building a national broadband network. Apart from Work Choices, I would say the next most commonly raised issue in my electorate over the last couple of years has been the question of people’s access to broadband and its affordability. It is not something that is confined to rural communities. In fact, the issue was most prevalent in fast-growing urban areas of my electorate like Rockhampton and the Capricorn Coast—more so even than in the rural and more remote parts of the electorate. I am very pleased to know that with the election of the Rudd Labor government there is a commitment to the rollout of a national broadband network so that people can have that access, particularly in the areas of education and its applications in health and in business. This issue is something that has held us back. Australia has a dreadful record if you look at international comparisons on speed of broadband and access to broadband, so this is an important step in overcoming that shortfall. As I said, I went to the election with those quite specific local promises and I was very pleased to see in the budget two weeks ago that those commitments have been honoured. I can go back to my electorate and assure people that the things that we said we would do—the abolition of AWAs, the abolition of Work Choices, the MRI machine, the primary healthcare initiative and the sporting facilities I mentioned—are all there in the budget and that we are delivering on our promises for the people of Central Queensland and Capricornia. In conclusion, I want to again say thank you to the people who have once again given me their support. I will be working hard to represent them and will be enjoying my time in government after all these years in opposition. I intend to make that work for the people who put me here. 3215 17:20:00 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP 0 0 Mr IAN MACFARLANE —I, like the member for Capricornia, joined this parliament in 1988 and it is certainly a delight to again be part of this parliament and to represent the electorate of Groom for a fourth term. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the many hardworking supporters and volunteers for their commitment during last year’s election campaign in Groom, which saw a very good outcome, if I may say so—certainly the right choice by the good voters of that electorate. In particular, I would like to thank my campaign manager, Phillip Blain, and the treasurer of my campaign, Dallas Kelly, both of whom put in an inordinate amount of effort and time. I guess no-one does this job alone and I would also take the opportunity to thank my staff, both ministerial and electorate, who have supported me not only in the last term but in some cases for my whole time in parliament, and of course my family, who are the only ones who really know the sacrifices that people make—and they did make sacrifices. I thank my wife, Karen, and my two daughters, Kate and Laura, for their support over the nine years I have been a member of this House. It is the dedication, through their time and energy, of both my family and my supporters that has helped return me to this place to continue my role representing the people of Toowoomba and the Darling Downs. To all the people in my electorate, regardless of their voting preferences, I give my word that I will continue to be a determined and unrelenting advocate as to the needs of our region and will represent all voters in my electorate, not just those who voted for me. I note that that was a pledge that the Prime Minister made but, having seen the budget that has been handed down for regional Australia, I start to wonder if he is as committed to that as he says he is. In March in my electorate the political landscape underwent a fundamental change. Along with the rest of Queensland, people in Toowoomba voted for a new local government representative body, a body that encompasses eight local government authorities, and the Toowoomba Regional Council has been formed in a process forced upon the region by the state government and resisted by many people in the region to no avail. We should not underestimate the challenges ahead for this new group in ensuring fair representation for residents of regional Queensland. As a local member, I have always sought to be accessible to the local shire councils in my region and, despite the significant transformation, that will not change. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate former Jondaryan mayor Peter Taylor, who has been overwhelmingly elected. Peter is a man of great capability. I think he will make an enormous contribution with his council of 10, whom I also congratulate. I look forward to working with the newly elected representatives of my region to ensure that the Toowoomba Regional Council, which covers all of my electorate—in fact, it covers an area almost twice the size of my electorate—achieves the things that it sets out to achieve. It has been a privilege to be the federal member for Groom during a time that has seen the electorate consolidate its position as one of the most vibrant inland regions in Australia. Toowoomba plays an integral role for people right across Australia, as it is at the heart of one of the country’s busiest and biggest freight corridors. However, the people in my electorate have had to pay a high price for their position in this vital supply chain, sharing their city with a steady stream of heavy transport 24 hours a day, or around the clock. For many years, the people of Toowoomba and the Darling Downs have been working hard to make their case for a Toowoomba bypass, a second range crossing, a road around a city of 100,000 people in which we currently see trucks traversing the main street of Toowoomba, carrying livestock and every imaginable good. I was determined to join their fight. Dating back to my maiden speech in this place, I made it clear that delivering this road was a priority. There are several reasons why this alternative road would be so important to the Toowoomba and Darling Downs region. The first is that it would take heavy vehicles out of the city, off the same streets that school children cross every morning and afternoon on their way to and from school. No longer would drivers in Toowoomba’s busiest streets have to share the road with B-double trucks and other assorted vehicles. Along with enhancing the safety of and amenity for local residents, this would also eliminate the associated concerns of pollution and rapidly deteriorating roads. Equally as important, the Toowoomba Bypass would enhance the safety of families, business people, holiday-makers and, most importantly, truck drivers who travel up and down the current range crossing each day. The people in this region did see our hard work come to fruition, when the previous coalition government announced that the road would be built. An initial allocation of $700 million to begin construction was made, with more funding guaranteed to follow. So you can imagine the crushing disappointment of the hardworking men and women, and families of my community who feel they have been brushed aside by the Prime Minister, the member for Grayndler and the Labor cabinet. In fact, I wrote to both the Prime Minister and the member for Grayndler in December last year calling on them to let the people of Groom know whether Labor intends to complete the road. But the government’s only response has been to dismiss the need for a new bypass. And guess what we are getting instead—to add to that list of already 100 reviews, another review. Another review, on top of all those other reviews to see whether we need a Toowoomba range crossing. The Prime Minister does not need a review to decide the future of a second range crossing. It is obvious that this road needs to be built. That response is simply not good enough for the people living in one of the fastest-growing inland cities in Australia. I have invited the member for Grayndler to come to regional Queensland—in fact, to my electorate—to have the courtesy of visiting the people whom he has so disadvantaged and to explain the justice of the argument: if they want access to the best quality national highway under a Rudd Labor government, they will have to pack up and move to a bigger city. Luckily, that does not apply in Tasmania, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom. The residents of Toowoomba and the Darling Downs deserve better than a Labor government which make themselves invisible. At a time when excuses are running out, I urge the Rudd Labor government to take action on this important infrastructure item for my electorate. On the area of health, Toowoomba not only stands as one of the largest inland cities in Australia but has matured in its role as a central health hub for the people of south-west Queensland. One of the great successes, and I believe an example for other communities—and I have raised this matter with the current Minister for Health and Ageing—is the project which I was honoured to be part of and which I officially opened last year: the St Andrews Cancer Care Centre. This is a world-standard facility, providing lifesaving cancer treatment that serves not only Toowoomba but places as far afield as Tenterfield, Goondiwindi, St George, Roma, Kingaroy, Gatton and the Lockyer Valley. After the Darling Downs was identified as an area in need of radiation oncology services in 2003, St Andrews was awarded the tender in 2005 and, in 2007, a world-standard facility was opened. To add credence to that claim of world-standard, that cancer centre has in fact, in recent weeks, announced that it is currently leading Australia, if not the world, in a new form of prostate radiation treatment, which shows that things that happen in regional Queensland can be the best in the world. We want to show more than ever that this is an outstanding example of cooperation between the former Commonwealth government and a local service provider to deliver in a vital area the level of care required. We want to continue to ensure that people of regional and rural Australia do not have to sacrifice access to the highest standard of health care simply because of their postcode. It is an obligation for the new Labor government to ensure the health needs of regional and rural Australia are met. Toowoomba is a city with a proud education pedigree. Once again, it proves to be a focal point for surrounding rural areas. But many of the schools in my electorate have fallen victim to the Rudd Labor government’s budget committee, which has axed the immensely popular Investing in Our Schools Program to pay for its promises to give students in years 9 to 12 a laptop computer. What a shame they did not give any money to actually install them—let alone run them or provide the people to train the students on how to use them. Primary schools in Toowoomba and across the Darling Downs will be worse off because of this decision. In my electorate, more than $8 million was provided for projects that local schools and parent communities decided were a priority and the state Labor government refused to fund. I was able to witness firsthand how these diverse projects were being put to use in local schools ranging from an all-access playground designed especially for children in wheelchairs with disabilities all the way to sports courts and air conditioning for small schools. Some of these items are basic comfort for school students, while others clearly enhance the learning and social experience. I ask on behalf of my electorate why these students would be forced to go without because of Labor’s poorly thought out laptop policy that is being conducted under a veil of secrecy. Primary schools have every right to feel they have been doubly done over, with the Labor promise taking on more cracks on a daily basis. Schools now find their promise to receive computers greatly cheapened by revelations that there is a list of schools that have been chosen to receive the first computers but that that list is being kept under lock and key. We also have learned that school communities and parents will have to foot the bill for the extra costs associated with the Prime Minister’s policies such as power costs, teacher training, buildings, insurance, power points et cetera required for these extra computers. Not once did the Prime Minister give any indication to local parents that his education revolution would mean scrapping the Investing in Our Schools Program. As a member of parliament whose electorate is based around one of Australia’s largest regional cities and extends to one of Queensland’s rural heartlands, I certainly know the value of communication services to people in regional Australia. As someone who as little as 15 years ago had a phone number which was 7H and that was the lot, which required a long-short-long ring to alert you to the need of it, I can assure you we have seen regional communications come a long way in a short space of time. The Labor government should be warned that the people of regional and rural Australia also know well the value of communication services and will not have the wool pulled over their eyes by Mr Rudd’s smoke and mirrors policy agenda. Unfortunately, there is good reason to be concerned about the impact of the Rudd government’s broadband policy—and I heard the member for Capricornia talking about it. Shame we are not seeing anything delivered. Shame the project mooted by the federal government prior to this government is not being put in place because it would be delivering broadband communications now. I think—and I could be corrected—we are having another review on that, and so the list of reviews grows. Labor’s broadband policy runs a very real risk of isolating some of the more remote parts of my rural electorate. Not only will it slug Australian families more than $100 and will not be switched on until 2013 but one in four Australians will not even be able to access it. Labor’s broadband policy will work only if you live within 1.5 kilometres of the local exchange or node. It may shock some on the other side, but there are people who in fact live 10, 100, perhaps even 1,000 times that distance from their local exchange. This contrasts with the coalition’s election commitment to deliver a new, high-speed broadband network that would deliver affordable, fast broadband to 99 per cent of all Australians. Not content with leaving rural and regional Australia out in the cold by ignoring crucial road projects and slashing school funding, the government now wants to further exaggerate the digital divide. Why should the people of Toowoomba or Pittsworth be forced to live with a second-class communications system compared to those in Brisbane, Sydney or, indeed, the Prime Minister’s electorate of Griffith or the Treasurer’s electorate of Lilley, where I am sure they have good broadband services? As the shadow minister for trade, I also have the opportunity to work in an area which is of great significance to the people in my electorate. Toowoomba and the Darling Downs boast their fair share of exporters, and not only in agricultural products. It would surprise many here to learn that in fact manufacturing is the most significant earner of domestic product in my area. Some good examples of that are Russell Mineral Equipment and Wagner’s Fibre Composite Technologies, both of which export product, and, Russell Mineral Equipment in particular, lead the world in technology in mill relining machines. The experiences of these businesses are the story, reflected across the country in cities smaller and larger than Toowoomba, of hardworking and enterprising men and women who have found new opportunities abroad. Our exporters add more than $210 billion to Australia’s economy each year and that begs the question of why the trade minister and Prime Minister are continuing to be so erratic in their approach to trade policy. In my next speech, on the EMDG Scheme, I will highlight that position further. But suffice it to say that they ebb and flow between a desire to have FTAs—free trade agreements—and the multilateral Doha Round conclusion, with complete confusion being sown amongst the exporters in Australia. At the same time they have cut a huge amount of resources out of Australia’s ability both to attract investment here and to earn export dollars. I must say that, with some reason, the exporters of this country are really asking where the Rudd Labor government is going, heightened by the fact that a pledge to local exporters about the EMDG Scheme funding again seems to fall well short of what is being proposed. The people who populate the electorate of Groom are some of the most wonderful people in Australia. I would assume that that would attract an argument from all members of parliament, who are obviously intensely proud of their own regions. Having lived in regional Australia all my life and having seen the ebb and flow of climate and the ebb and flow of different governments, I can say that overall my community looks forward to the decade ahead. We look forward to playing our part in contributing to the economy of Australia. We are a region blessed with natural assets. We are a region, thanks to the last government, which has an unemployment figure of 2.8 per cent. We are a region which, if the Rudd government gives us any attention at all, will do very well in the time ahead. I look forward to representing my constituents. I look forward to seeing some common-sense decisions handed down by the Rudd government. I still await the opportunity to see one, but I am looking forward to it happening and I certainly look forward to a change of heart in regard to the building of the Toowoomba range crossing. Debate adjourned. 3219 Bills R1310 3219 Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Crean: That this bill be now read a second time. 3219 17:39:00 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP 0 0 Mr IAN MACFARLANE —I speak in support of the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2008 as it is amongst the first very scant evidence for exporters as to what exactly they can expect from this government. Like exporters and investors, I listened avidly to the member for Hotham’s proclamations about trade—and he does make many of them. It is not that I am thrilled by the rhetoric of the Minister for Trade; rather, it pays to scrutinise closely every comment that is made on this topic by the Rudd government, as a daily assessment seems to be the only way to detect the prevailing mood of trade policy. Over the past six months we have seen U-turns, roundabouts and backflips with the government’s approach to trade. It seemingly changes on a whim—or according to the weather or perhaps which country they are in at the time. The latest postulations of the trade ministers relate to the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. The member for Hotham is indeed correct when he recognises the central role this program plays for Australian exporters. Of course, given the ever-growing appetite of the black hole that is Labor’s trade policy, exporters will be forgiven for wondering how committed the current government are to the changes they are proposing. The trade minister described his government’s convoluted strategy as a ‘down payment’ on ensuring sustainability for Australia’s trade policy. But no doubt exporters will shudder at the thought that what is to come will be just more of the same, because all this government has offered them so far when it comes to trade is an inconsistent message and an uncertain footing, all contingent on an ever expanding raft of—you guessed it—more reviews. Nonetheless, the changes to the EMDG Scheme are worth supporting. In fact, they are in keeping with the example laid down by the previous coalition government. The Howard government had a strong record on trade. It provided a stable environment for traders and investors and a consistent message for global markets and was responsive to the changing needs of exporters and the EMDG Scheme. The member for Hotham would have us believe that under the previous government trade policy came to a standstill, but that is simply an attempt by him and his government to rewrite history. A simple review of the facts shows that it is simply not the case. Let us put some truths on the record. Over the full term of the previous coalition government, the value of Australian exports more than doubled to $216 billion. Exports grew in all major categories in 2006-07. While our resources exports continued to grow in 2006, manufacturers, services and rural exports reached all-time highs. The value of Australian resources exports more than doubled in real terms since 1996 and we achieved these record exports despite the worst drought in 100 years hurting our rural exporters, along with the high value of the Australian dollar, which appreciated 45 per cent against the US dollar in the five years to 2007. Assistance for exporters also grew steadily through Austrade. In 2006-07 alone Austrade helped achieve export deals worth more than $22 billion, and the number of businesses obtaining export success through Austrade assistance consistently grew. In 2006, around 40 per cent of Australian made passenger motor vehicles were exported compared to five per cent in the late eighties, while international education has supported more than 50,000 jobs. Services exports already account for 21 per cent of Australia’s total exports and have been growing at an annual rate of 4.5 per cent over the past five years. During the coalition’s time in office, trade policy helped open up new opportunities for Australians and created new jobs. Over the past decade, Australia’s export industries have created more than 400,000 jobs, and real wages grew by 20 per cent, which is in stark contrast to the previous Labor government, under which real wages actually fell. Along with a rise in real wages, we saw unemployment fall to just over four per cent. Exports from regional Australia grew three times faster than exports from cities and equated to around a quarter of Australia’s regional income. Of course, this is a fact that may have escaped the trade minister—not surprisingly, given the Labor government’s tendency so far to treat the needs of regional Australia with absolute contempt. Let me assure the trade minister that regional Australia does exist. It contributes substantially to Australia’s exports, and at least one in four jobs in regional Australia is linked to exports. Not only did the previous government appreciate this fact; it also implemented an entire suite of policies to assist Australian exporters and investors, no matter where in Australia they were based, and the EMDG Scheme is indeed one of the most important. The previous government worked to be in tune with the needs of exporters and, instead of throwing the entire industry into confusion as this government has, it actually governed and made decisions—not reviews. In 2006-07 the EMDG Scheme provided 3,548 grants, totalling $145 million, to Australian businesses. This scheme has been particularly relevant to small and emerging exporters, with around 80 per cent of recipients reporting annual income of $5 million or less. Nearly one-quarter of all grants were awarded to recipients from rural and regional Australia. Under the coalition government, this program was adapted to ensure it remained relevant to the prevailing conditions for exporters. It encouraged them to seek new opportunities and to build on Australia’s successes abroad. So, while I applaud the trade minister for following the lead of his coalition predecessors, the fact of the matter is that Labor’s tinkering with the EMDG Scheme simply does not go far enough. The trade minister is attempting to wash his hands of what is happening in the real world and, in putting off any real decision making to some fanciful day in the future, he is refusing to address the issues that are facing exporters right now. I have been contacted by a range of Australian exporters who stand to pay a high price because this government has refused to address the current shortfall in the EMDG Scheme, which has become oversubscribed. These are hardworking Australian businesses that built up their operations in good faith in the belief that they would be reimbursed for their efforts. They are now facing the prospect of not receiving substantial amounts of money, as the Rudd Labor government watches on in freeze-frame review mode. It is simply not good enough to pass the buck and refuse to operate in real time. Prior to the last election, the coalition made a clear commitment to continue the EMDG Scheme. While the scheme was undersubscribed in previous years, it was always our intention to seek extra funds from cabinet should the scheme, which is demand driven, become oversubscribed. This is the cut and thrust of actually governing, as opposed to setting up committees and reviews. But the trade minister seems to forget he is now one of those responsible for government. The Labor Party have acknowledged the popularity of the program under the coalition government but have refused to allocate any additional funding for the EMDG program not only for this year, 2007-08, but—surprise, surprise!—for 2008-09. I stand to be corrected, but the minister has not shown why he has failed to deliver anything but a one-off. There will be no extra funding in 2010-11 and 2011-12. So much for his waxing lyrical and his rhetoric, as he travelled around the country, about what he was going to do. His promise to exporters that he would increase the EMDG Scheme by $50 million to $200 million is in fact a furphy. He has delivered that only in one year. On the basis of that, he misled the export industries he now represents into thinking that if Labor were elected there would be an extra $50 million in the four years of the forward estimates. That is simply not the case. It is another example of the Labor Party, in terms of what they offer, what they say they are going to do and what they actually do, failing to deliver and attempting to deceive. It is not enough for the trade minister to throw a one-off cash injection at exporters in two years time and claim he has provided them with sound policy. Along with ignoring the day-to-day reality for exporters, the proposed changes in this bill come with a substantial caveat that everything to do with the EMDG program, as with everything else to do with trade and just about everything under this government, is—guess what?—under review. We will see uncertainty continue. Australian exporters need and deserve a government that will deliver a comprehensive and comprehensible trade policy now, not just another review. They need a government that gives proper attention to free trade agreements as a crucial component of Australia’s trade policy, not an item that is, as we have seen, supported or shunned on a whim. The previous government was always committed to a comprehensive trade policy that offered assistance on our shores in the form of programs such as the EMDG, but it also built assuredly on Australia’s relationship with major trading partners. This comprehensive approach included both bilateral free trade agreements and multilateral negotiations such as Doha in the World Trade Organisation talks. Despite what the trade minister claims, the previous government laid extensive groundwork for the Doha Round of the WTO talks. The hard work went on behind the scenes—yet another concept perhaps foreign to this government, who seem to be obsessed with media releases and photo opportunities. Alongside this is the coalition’s success in negotiating and completing free trade agreements and its continual search for new opportunities to serve the interests of exporters. Along with successful negotiations on the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, which is delivering new markets, new opportunities and a real benefit to exporters, the coalition continued to move forward, laying the foundation for FTAs such as those with Korea, China and Japan. If this government does not get its act together on the Korean free trade agreement and devote some resources and commitment to that area then Australian exporters, particularly in the beef industry, will be severely disadvantaged with the coming into being of an FTA between Korea and the US. It will be our exporters and our jobs that again will be forced to pay the price for a government that seems to be unable to do anything without a review. We will see the FTAs we concluded pursuing areas which cover more than 60 per cent of Australia’s total trade and up to seven of our top 10 markets. This was, under the previous government, a robust, pragmatic and reliable approach and it was exactly the approach that best serves Australia’s interests in terms of both exporters and investors. We need to see this trade minister and his government get out of being stalled and get on with a program which has some momentum. We have seen in recent weeks recognition of the enormous value of bilateral free trade agreements via the independent study that places a value on the Australian-South Korea FTA of almost $23 billion. It is figures like these that give us all a precise indication of what is at stake when Labor cannot decide where it stands. Under a government with no clear direction on trade, Australian exporters run the risk of being left behind, and there is no better example of that than the Korean FTA. What is more, not only is this government leaving investors and exporters out in the cold but it is also sending conflicting messages to international markets and trading partners. The Rudd government has failed miserably to construct a coherent message on trade policy. In February the trade minister announced that bilateral agreements were a low priority. In March, he announced that they were back in the mix. In 2006 the current Prime Minister described Doha as ‘dead as a dodo’, but in Europe last month he told the world he had changed his mind and Doha was now doable and the way forward. But then he changed his tune again, just days later and on a different continent, and said his focus was back on an FTA with China and India. Labor must be honest and consistent with Australia’s exporters if it wants to be taken seriously in negotiating free trade agreements with China and India. It must approach negotiations with more than just the sharp edge of a razor to cut budgets and negotiating positions. The biggest hurdle for the successful completion of free trade agreements is Labor’s ever changing attitude towards bilateral relationships and its increasingly mixed message on trade. In taking this erratic approach, the trade minister and his government risk undercutting the interests of Australian exporters and jeopardising access to key markets. The government has powerful tools at its disposal and need only embrace the ambitious trade agenda laid down by the Howard government to deliver maximum benefits to exporters. A valuable place to start would be to bring an end to the uncertainty that has plagued exporters and investors since this government buried their business under a cloud of reviews. The trade minister pledges that further reforms will follow his review of trade policies and programs. This, of course, is slated to occur on some unspecified day well into the future. While the Rudd Labor government may like to ponder this hypothetical day when all problems will be magically resolved without any actual governance or the need for real decisions, looking to the future is a luxury denied to Australian traders, whose daily business and livelihoods depend on knowing what is ahead right now. So far the signs have been less than inspiring. The trade minister talks about looking forward but in the next breath proclaims that his search has started with trade policy from the eighties and nineties. Does the trade minister really expect to find the answers for the future by mulling over trade policy that is decades old? The member for Hotham may be shocked to discover that the international market has changed since the 1980s, along with Australia’s role in it, and that exporters and investors can no longer wait for the member for Hotham to catch up. Labor claims to be listening to what exporters want. I would like to know where the trade minister is turning his ears other than to the vacuum of Labor’s trade policy. If the trade minister were truly listening then perhaps he would hear exporters and investors saying that they want a clear and stable framework in which to operate. They do not want to put their businesses on hold while Labor waits for reports and recommends something that will remain, at the very least, three months away. By the time the Labor government receives its trade policy report, it will have been in government for almost a year. That is a year in which exporters will have had no certainty, no direction and no clear indication of what their futures will hold under this government. The trade minister claims he is making changes to the EMDG Scheme with the objective of providing a sustainable footing for exporters, but he is also conceding that it may be swept away as the EMDG Scheme is thrown into the mix of reviews. What guarantee can the trade minister give that what he promises today will not become meaningless once he receives this report? The bottom line for exporters is that, despite what the trade minister may want them to believe, under this Rudd government nothing is certain. The government can no longer cower from its real responsibilities and flounder for policy ideas under the cover of bureaucracy and more reviews. It is time the trade minister and his government stopped offering token gestures and hollow promises. Until then, the words of this government should be taken for what they are: scant guidance for Australia’s exporters and traders, who are crying out for certainty in the wreckage of Labor’s confusing and convoluted approach to trade. 3224 17:58:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade 1 0 Mr MURPHY —With great respect to the member for Groom, my friend and political opponent, I condemn the obfuscation and sophistry that he has just delivered in this chamber in relation to the Howard government’s position on the EMDG Scheme. I also condemn his misrepresentation of the Minister for Trade, Simon Crean, in relation to his position on the EMDG Scheme and on the other trade issues that the member for Groom alluded to in the disgraceful contribution he just made in this chamber. I will go into the reasons for that with some sobering information on the appalling performance by the Howard government in relation to trade in Australia. For the last six years there has been a trade deficit every month, and the Howard government did absolutely nothing about it. As a government, they stand condemned. Instead of capitalising on the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of the resources boom, the then government went belly up in relation to trade. In the last six years, total export revenues grew at an average annual rate of only 5.8 per cent, compared with 10.7 per cent in the 18 years following the float of the dollar by the Hawke government in 1983. Services exports grew at around one-third of their long-term average, despite being a major component of the domestic economy. Goods exports grew at an average annual rate of 6.4 per cent, compared with an average annual growth of 10.3 per cent since 1983. The manufacturing sector collapsed under the Howard government. One could charitably describe these trade performance indicators as disappointing. The truth is that Australia’s trade performance over the past decade has been appalling. The Howard government has bequeathed the Rudd government 72 consecutive monthly trade deficits. The trade deficit for the September quarter 2007—listen to this—was a record $6.9 billion. The member for Groom should be here to listen to that. For a government that would so often and so arrogantly spruik its economic credentials, these figures are indeed damning. A government seeking to ensure or secure Australia’s future economic position beyond the resources boom must offer more than the mere rhetoric that we have just listened to from the member for Groom. It must engage in areas of opportunity. The need to renew our focus on trade performance takes on a heightened sense of importance in the light of the fact that, over the past five years, world trade has grown at twice the rate of world output. Australia must do better on the trade front. Australia must take advantage of the global opportunities presented to it. Clearly, the Howard government failed to see the opportunities, failed to take advantage of the opportunities and dropped the ball on trade. Far from being responsible managers of the economy, the Howard government presided over an environment where net exports made a positive contribution to economic growth in only two of the 12 years that they were in power, despite world trade growing at twice the rate of world output. The failure of the previous government to integrate trade and economic policy has contributed to one of Australia’s worst trade performances in history and they cannot run away from that. So it goes without saying that fresh ideas and a new direction in trade policy are long overdue; hence the Mortimer review. Australia has to get back to a position where net exports are making a positive contribution to economic growth. It will not be easy, but the Rudd government will not be content with leaving its head in the sand like the previous government. Rather than belatedly reacting to challenges, the Rudd government is committed to proactive reform. There are serious problems that deserve a serious commitment to find solutions. The introduction of the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2008 is a down payment on the government’s commitment to find solutions to the soaring trade deficit. The commitment does not end there. Simon Crean has hit the ground running on a range of policy responses, and it would be prudent to outline some of those for the benefit of the member for Groom in order to put this bill into context. The Minister for Trade has already recalibrated Australia’s approach to trade negotiations by boldly trying to breathe life into the Doha Round. He is right to say that trade opportunities would be endless if the Doha Round were actually concluded, particularly given that world trade has already doubled the rate of world output, even without a successful Doha outcome. So, rather than having an unflinching obsession with free trade agreements that undermine rather than strengthen multilateral outcomes, as we saw under the Howard government, the Rudd government recognises that the best opportunities are presented through the Doha Round. Bilateral agreements should no longer be seen in isolation but must be compatible with and enhance and support the multilateral decision making. However, there is little point pursuing improved market access globally if Australian companies are not productive or competitive enough to take up new opportunities. Australia has lacked a whole-of-government approach to increasing export levels and has failed dismally to invest in the drivers of economic growth, such as skills, innovation, information technology and infrastructure. It has only been months since the election of the Labor government but, as we have seen in the budget, the Rudd government is proactively addressing some of the productivity reasons underpinning Australia’s poor export performance. That is why we have committed to Infrastructure Australia, to a national broadband network, to an education revolution, to skilling Australia and to a $200 million Enterprise Connect innovation and research system. In clear contrast to the previous government, the Rudd government will take a twin-pillar approach to trade policy for sustainable economic growth. Multilateral trade liberalisation will be pursued at the border, while economic trade and structural reform will take place behind the border. The minister has put great emphasis on getting Australia’s trade strategy right in the future, commissioning the Mortimer review to examine all current trade policies and programs. That is appropriate, in view of the legacy left by the Howard government. One of the programs under review is the subject of this bill. Given the sick state of the scheme—unrelated to how it was portrayed by the member for Groom—following 12 years of Howard government neglect, the Rudd government is not waiting for the Mortimer review to be completed before acting in relation to the EMDG Scheme. Like other economic policies and programs designed to assist Australia’s exports, the EMDG Scheme is yet another abandoned under the Howard government’s watch. Since its inception by a Labor government, the EMDG Scheme has been an important component in getting businesses export ready and helping them to access new markets. Notwithstanding the significant support of the scheme by businesses, particularly mum-and-dad exporters, the scheme has been cut in half in real terms since 1995 and 1996—and that is the truth. It was cut in half by the Howard government in real terms, despite studies demonstrating that the EMDG Scheme returned an additional $12 of exports for every $1 outlaid by the government. The scheme was cut in half by the Howard government in real terms despite the significant assistance provided to thousands of small businesses across Australia. Of 4,200 applicants under the scheme, 75 per cent employ fewer than 20 people and 81 per cent have a turnover of $5 million or less. About a third of these businesses are new to exporting. It is not hard to see why small businesses are so dependent on the scheme. They are often businesses that do not have an export culture, need to be mentored to become export ready and need the contacts in overseas markets. Whenever there is a case of the former Howard government’s neglect of small business, I am reminded of the document published in 2004 entitled Committed to small business. In that document, the former Prime Minister extolled the virtues of small businesses and their importance to the Australian economy. He said inter alia: The Government’s commitment to small business is undiminished. That is why we remain attuned to their needs and why we continue to respond to their concerns with practical measures. It would seem that one practical measure was former Trade Minister Mark Vaile’s ‘ambitious goal of doubling the number of exporters’. Remarkably, the former government felt it could ‘remain attuned to small business’ needs and ‘double the number of exporters’ in Australia by halving a scheme that helped small business export. It is little wonder that the vast majority of Australians viewed the Howard government as having lost touch and it is thus not surprising that the previous government failed to meet its target of doubling exporters by almost 50 per cent. Surely, a scheme that encourages firms to spend their own money to seek out and develop overseas markets, as well as facilitates access to these markets, is worth supporting. Surely, firms that have the desire and capacity to export are firms that are worth investing in. Research has shown that firms that export pay higher wages, provide stronger growth in employment and are more profitable. The EMDG Scheme is clearly an investment in our future. It is an investment for the future that the Rudd government is willing to make, and this bill, as I said earlier, is a down payment on that investment. The bill increases the maximum grant under the EMDG Scheme by $50,000 to $200,000, increasing the amount of reimbursement that exporters may claim. What did the member for Groom say about that? It is an explicit acknowledgement that exporters face increased marketing costs in international markets. The bill also lifts the maximum turnover limit from $30 million to $50 million. To date, medium sized businesses have been punished for continuing to take advantage of new export opportunities and developing those export markets. We should be rewarding businesses that are making a real contribution to our balance of payments, not punishing them. This amendment will help to ensure that government support is not being cut off just as businesses start to develop sustainable export markets. As well as addressing the legitimate needs of medium sized exporters, it is important to be mindful of the importance of this scheme to small businesses and the concerns those businesses have. In the time I have been Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade, I have had the privilege of visiting many Austrade offices around Australia and of meeting many small businesses that have benefited from the EMDG Scheme and are doing all they can to lift our export performance. One common comment has been about the onerous expenditure threshold that must be met by some businesses before they can receive a grant from the government. The current act provides for a $15,000 threshold. I have conveyed those concerns to the minister and the minister has listened to those businesses. This bill reduces the minimum expenditure threshold by $5,000 to $10,000, allowing new exporters early access to critical Austrade support when taking their first steps towards exporting. Australia’s export revenues remain biased towards a few major companies, with the top 10 per cent of exporters earning 90 per cent of export revenues. Small businesses earn only 0.9 per cent of export revenues, so early access to critical Austrade support cannot come soon enough for many small businesses. Greater Austrade support cannot come soon enough for the services sector either. As I have mentioned, the current growth rate for services exports is only one-third of the long-term average. With services making up 80 per cent of the economy, we have to do more to make the most of our competitive advantages globally. This bill is a step in the right direction. This bill will make the EMDG Scheme more accessible for service exporters. It will replace the current list of eligible internal and external services with a new non-tourism services category that makes all services supplied to foreign residents eligible for funding unless specified in the EMDG Act regulations. Simply, this bill will replace a narrow, positive list of eligible services with a negative list, making all services eligible for assistance unless otherwise specified. This sensible change will help ensure large parts of the services sector no longer have difficulty meeting eligibility criteria originally designed for exporters of goods. It is time for Australia’s new economy to take to the world stage, with assistance from an improved EMDG Scheme. As with any good scheme, good governance measures are essential. So it is essential to ensure that this scheme does not become a pot of gold for those who are unwilling—or unable, for that matter—to put in the effort to become successful exporters. Taxpayers, quite rightly, expect a return on their investment. Exporters will remain accountable to taxpayers by having to meet a new ‘net benefit to Australia’ test. Applicants claiming their third and later EMDG Scheme grants will be required to pass this test. The test is fair, balanced and provides new exporters with ample time to answer the question of whether, after a number of grants, they have in fact begun to export. An enhanced EMDG Scheme, coupled with good accountability measures, will deliver good outcomes for Australia. I have no doubt that the amendments in this bill will deliver. Before concluding, it is worth observing that the changes contained within the bill are fully funded. This is in stark contrast to the changes made to the EMDG Scheme by the previous government two years ago, changes which were not referred to by the member for Groom. The previous coalition government had the temerity to respond to concerns about the scheme by tinkering with some legislative changes and without adding one single cent to the budget to ensure EMDG recipients could actually benefit from those changes. A press release dated 21 April 2008 from the shadow minister for trade makes for fascinating reading. In it, the shadow minister states: The coalition government was committed to ensuring the EMDG scheme delivered on its maximum potential and was responsive to the changing needs of exporters, making alterations to the program as needed. The previous government made alterations all right. What they will not tell you is that they did not drop an extra cent into the scheme to ensure those alterations were worth more than the paper they were written on. The member for Groom made nothing of the fact that there was a $50 million shortfall in the funding for the scheme. I quote again from the shadow minister’s press release— GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —Your minister did 27. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —I say it is about 25. I quote: ... it was always the intention of the Coalition to seek extra funds from Cabinet should the scheme, which is demand-driven, become oversubscribed. It is marvellous how revisionism takes place after an election. It is easy to be this disingenuous when you are no longer in government. Quite frankly, I am not going to allow this from the member for Groom, despite the fact he is a friend of mine. He is a political opponent and he is wrong. The previous government, in my view, was never a friend of the EMDG Scheme, nor was it ever a friend of Austrade. It would not have expanded the criteria for the scheme if it did not commit to the funding. It is a nonsense, after the election, to start engaging in this revisionism. The previous coalition always knew that its changes two years ago would leave exporters short-changed this year. They knew this. How did they know this? In a newspaper recently the shadow minister and the Leader of the Nationals said they were hammering the previous government to put more funds into the scheme. The previous government always knew more funds were needed. Two of its senior ministers have admitted this, yet the Howard government never delivered. The calls for more funding to meet the shortfall fell on deaf ears. With respect, the shadow minister’s excuses are dishonest and disingenuous. Unlike the former government, we will fund the changes that we make to the scheme. The changes in this bill will be worth more than the paper they are written on. The EMDG Scheme will have a $50 million increase in funding in 2009-10 and, unlike the previous government’s amendments, we will actually back our amendments with money. Those on the other side would do well to take note of this salient fact. I would love to stay and listen to the next speaker, who knows a lot about trade. Sadly, I have to rush to get a plane, because I have to be in Japan tomorrow. I wish you well. I will read your contribution in Hansard tomorrow in Yokohama, because I might want to reply. Cheers. 3228 18:15:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —I wish the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade a safe trip to Japan. While he is there, he might like to explain why Australia has cut back its budget for the negotiations on the Australia-Japan free trade agreement. Bearing in mind that this is the most important export market for our country, this government, in its first round of budget cuts, has actually slashed the amount of money available to complete that agreement. I will say a little bit more about that later on. I do not think that the member for Lowe had his heart in what he said. He is an honourable man, and it is quite clear he was worried more about getting his passport and tickets in order than about ensuring that the House had the benefit of an informed and intelligent contribution to the debate on the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2008. I felt some of his language had been written by his minister, because it sounded rather familiar to me—a lot of empty criticism and blind rhetoric. His criticism of the previous government’s record in trade is extraordinary and of course differs enormously from the facts. The reality is that under the previous government Australian exports reached record levels. Every year was better than the year before, and exports crossed $200 billion for the first time. We expanded substantially markets like China, Korea, India and Indonesia, markets that in some instances had never been considered to be important to Australia in years gone by. We also maintained our longstanding traditional associations with New Zealand and Europe and expanded the trading opportunities. Since the parliamentary secretary is off to Japan, it is probably worth noting that at a ceremony in Cairns last year we marked the 50th anniversary of the economic cooperation agreement between Australia and Japan, one of the world’s truly remarkable trade agreements. On the Australian side it was negotiated by John McEwen, just a few years after the end of World War II. It must have been an extraordinarily brave thing to do in that era. But, within about 10 years of that agreement being signed, Japan had become our No. 1 export market and it is still in that position today. It has been a remarkably successful agreement but after 50 years it needs to be modernised, and so the previous government commenced discussions to bring it into the current mode of free trade agreements around the world and ensure that the trade between Australia and Japan extended to new dimensions. It is disappointing that that priority project has been treated so abysmally in the government’s budget. Can I also add that it is particularly disappointing that the Prime Minister has obviously given such a low priority to our relationship with Japan, not even bothering to call the Japanese Prime Minister on the phone until goaded into doing so when he was subject to widespread international criticism. He has frequent trips to China, but our most important export market is completely ignored by this Prime Minister. He has got some mending to do. It would be a tragedy if the importance of this market were to slip as a result of the attitude of the incoming government towards an important customer like Japan. The bill before us deals with the Export Market Development Grants Scheme and introduces a range of new measures that the government announced during the campaign to make the scheme more generous. The bill essentially broadens the eligibility criteria, increases the maximum grant size, cuts the minimum threshold of expenditure and reintroduces a performance measure for grant recipients. As the parliamentary secretary, the Minister for Trade and the member for Groom rightly said, the EMDG Scheme has played a key role in encouraging exports from Australia. It has been particularly important in providing the incentive and support for new and emerging exporters to take on the quite challenging and difficult task of selling Australian products in what are often corrupt and confused markets around the world. The oft quoted figure of $12 of exports for every $1 of expenditure suggests that this scheme has indeed made a worthwhile contribution. However, the member for Lowe was wrong to say that the previous government had done nothing about the scheme in 12 years. The reality is that it was subject to at least three major reviews. The last one, which he referred to, just a couple of years ago led to some significant expansion in the eligibility criteria for the scheme. It was for that reason that  the quantity of grants applications was expanded in 2006-07 and that, therefore, the number of grants applied for was greater than the amount of money that had been allocated. For years under the previous government the full amount of every claim had been paid—100 per cent. Indeed, there was always money left over. The amount of money provided in the budget was in excess of what was required for the applicants. So, in 2006-07, with an expanded scheme but with a programmed reduction in funding, for the first time the applications were greater than the amount of money provided. Prior to the election the coalition government was aware that this was likely. We had made a bigger scheme and there was less money provided in the budget. It was always intended that we would honour the full commitments to the funding, as we had done in the past—the record was there. The coalition government had always paid the full amount of the claims and we would have done so again. It is true that Finance and Treasury were reluctant to provide that money in advance, and their reason was that the scheme had never used the allocated funds in the past. So they were not convinced that, even with the more generous scheme, there would have been enough applications to use up all of the available money. Treasury and Finance were wrong. The new scheme was more generous, there were more applicants and for that reason the funds available were oversubscribed. That money would have been provided, and 100 per cent of grants would have been paid to those who applied. It is in this context, then, that the new government has introduced this legislation, which increases the maximum grants, cuts the minimum threshold, allows grants to be paid more often to companies, introduces a new range of eligible internal and external services and a new non-tourism services category, provides access to the scheme for non-profit export development bodies and increases the size of the companies which can apply for the scheme. In other words, a lot more companies are going to be eligible. On the surface of it, that sounds like good news, and there are many people out there who will be pleased that they can gain access to the scheme for the first time. But what the minister has seemingly not yet even acknowledged is the fact that there will actually be more losers than winners as a result of this legislation. There will be more people missing out on getting a fair share of the grants than actually winning grants. That is because this is a capped scheme. There is only a certain amount of money available. The government has said there will be $200 million available for this new scheme. That is only $23 million more than will be required for the 2006-07 scheme. So there is no way in the world that the available money and the extra money provided by this government will meet all of these new eligibility criteria. What will actually happen is that the claims, whether they be $300 million or $400 million under the new scheme, will all be paid on a pro rata basis, so all the applicants will only get a part of their entitlement. That is the way the legislation is drafted. That is the way the scheme has always worked—it is just that in the past the previous government ensured that there was always sufficient money there to meet all the claims. So this government is pulling a bit of a confidence trick. It is telling companies that it has a more generous scheme; the only problem is that it does not intend to pay all the bills. It is only going to pay a part of the bills. It should be up-front and honest with exporters who go out there and spend money trying to sell Australian products around the world. It should tell them up-front and honestly that not all of their claims, even their legitimate claims, their approved claims, will actually be paid. All they are going to get is a pro rata share. In fact, the small companies are going to lose some of their claims because bigger companies are now going to be eligible. The ones who can perhaps afford it more are going to be eligible and they will get the money that might otherwise have been directed to some of the smaller companies. The key challenge for Labor with its new program is not just to introduce a more generous scheme but to make sure it is funded. The reality is that it is not funded; it will be well short of the requirements of those who are now entitled to apply. While I am dealing with this issue of funding, I note that it is also important for the government to state urgently whether it intends to provide the $27 million which the minister has indicated is above the current budgeted funding for the 2006-07 EMDG Scheme. These people expected that their claims would be paid; they have always been paid in the past. It is up to this government to meet the obligation under the old scheme and to make sure those funds are paid. This bill is hypocritical in the extreme if it is going to leave past applicants for the EMDG Scheme with their bills unpaid. If the government wants to adopt some high moral ground on the EMDG program, it must urgently address the shortfall in the previous program. I would like to comment briefly on a couple of the other new measures. There is the proposal now to reintroduce a performance measure where applicants claiming their third and subsequent grants must show they meet performance requirements. There were provisions like this in the scheme in the past, but there were always concerns that that kind of provision might well be illegal in terms of the WTO, that it might be challenged in the World Trade Organisation. I have no doubt that this government would have received the advice from its advisers that including this clause in the bill makes the whole scheme subject to WTO challenge. I am not especially concerned about that because there are not too many countries around the world that can legitimately cast the first stone, but what they have done is expose the whole scheme to the risk of challenge. Finally, there is a new and quite complicated initiative which will allow expenses associated with granting, registering or extending rights under foreign laws in relation to intellectual property, as well as the expenses of obtaining insurance against costs likely to be incurred to protect the rights, to be eligible for funding under the scheme. Unless those measures are carefully crafted, they may well not lead to any new exports and in fact may well lead to the payment of legal expenses and other such matters, administration issues, which I am not sure ought to be a part of this scheme. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that the scheme does provide a wider range of benefits to a large number of new people. The sad thing is that there are many existing users of the scheme who will be paid less. The other point that I want to take up, one that was raised by the member for Groom, is that the $50 million that the government is providing for this scheme is only for one year. It is only for one year, so there will be no confidence available to exporters that this scheme will be ongoing. Do you go and undertake some expenditure overseas, knowing full well that market programs involve many trips of continuing activity year after year, if you have only got an assurance that you are going to be funded for one year? I think that is going to be a major deterrent to companies that might be considering an involvement in the export market. The other obvious point that needs to be made is this: why is the government undertaking the review of the EMDG Scheme after it has made the changes in the legislation? Surely you would wait for the Mortimer report, which, we are told, is only two or three months away, before making these sorts of legislative changes. There has been criticism that the scheme has been changed too often in the past. It was changed last year, it is being changed this year and, after the Mortimer review, presumably it will be changed again next year. This does indeed provide an unnecessary level of uncertainty for the industry. Whilst I know this government is inquiry mad and every single scheme has to be inquired into or reviewed, it does seem to be a particularly stupid piece of timing to make the changes before the review is even brought into the parliament. Trade is very important to Australia, and our agreements underpinning our trade relationships are vital to the future confidence of our exporters. I have been quite alarmed by some of the comments made by the Minister for Trade and by his approach to trade negotiations. We have had all this confusion about whether we should have multilateral agreements or bilateral agreements. I say we should have both. Multilateral agreements are important in underpinning and delivering a freer and fairer trading regime around the world, but our specific agreements with our trading partners drive trade between those partners and go beyond what is in a multilateral agreement. You would not have bilateral agreements at all if they were not going beyond what countries have already committed to under the WTO or a wider multilateral agreement. The new Minister for Trade has made it clear that he despises bilateral discussions and that all of the effort should be put into multilateral discussions. The government demonstrated their commitment to that view, as I mentioned earlier, by cutting the budgets for not only the Australia-Japan free trade agreement but also the Australia-China free trade agreement. The minister also said that he would revitalise the Cairns Group and that he would make sure that the Cairns Group played a leading role in the WTO discussions, in particular the Doha Round. The committee may be interested to know that since the Labor government was elected the Cairns Group has not met once. In six months, they have not had a single meeting. This is the way in which the new minister is going to revitalise the Cairns Group! It is quite clear that the discussions in relation to the Doha Round have increasingly excluded the views of the Cairns Group membership. I am particularly concerned that this minister is so desperate to do a deal in the Doha Round on his watch that he is joining the race to a very poor quality outcome from the Doha Round. A poor deal is a bad deal and it should not be done. If there are not real gains for Australian exporters in the Doha Round then we should not be a party to it. We should not do a deal just to get the minister’s picture on the wall or the minister’s signature on a deal. There are some very tough issues that have to be resolved in Doha. I was particularly alarmed to see reports that the Prime Minister, when in Europe, was welcoming a commitment by the Europeans to cut their farm tariffs by 65 per cent. The Prime Minister apparently thought that was a good offer. The reality is that a cut of 65 per cent will deliver nothing to Australian exporters to Europe. It will not get us a single extra kilo of lamb or sugar or beef into the European market. It would be worthless. The cuts have to be 75 to 80 per cent on those particular lines to have any effect. Perhaps the Prime Minister did not know that there is a difference between the bound rate, which is a theoretical maximum tariff rate, and the applied rate, which is what is actually paid. If the Prime Minister is prepared to sign off on something with such a low ambition as a 65 per cent reduction in the tariffs in Europe then we will end up with a very poor Doha Round deal altogether. We must also resist suggestions that the US farm subsidies would be quarantined in any way. The last US farm legislation to pass through Congress is a disgrace. It is perhaps the worst yet. It increases subsidies in an environment where their trade negotiators are talking about reducing them. In addition to that, it does it at a time when world prices are high and the subsidies simply unnecessary. If our trade minister is prepared to do a deal that countenances that kind of protectionism then Doha will be wasted. The opportunities will be wasted. I am also disappointed that he seems prepared to go back on some of the agreements that were made in the Hong Kong round and to renegotiate them to a lower level that would further disadvantage Australia. If the trade minister is not prepared to do things in relation to the sensitive product area which will mean real cuts and real access to Australian products, then the deal will be useless. An earlier Labor government gave us the Uruguay Round. The Uruguay Round sold out Australian farmers. It delivered nothing for the Australian farm sector, but it provided some benefits for the manufacturing industry. The farmers of Australia were promised that their concerns would be addressed in the next round—the Doha Round. That is the round we are having now. We have another Labor minister and I am concerned that he is going to sell out the Australian farm sector in the same way his predecessor did at Uruguay. The opportunities for the Doha Round are enormous, but I am not satisfied that this government has the necessary level of commitment to bring about a deal that is good for Australia. If it is not good for Australia, we should not be in it. (Time expired) 3233 18:36:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —The Leader of the National Party talks about a sell-out. The only sell-out that we had in terms of trade was under the National Party. Trade has always been within the bailiwick of the National Party. I was pleased to hear the member say that trade was important, because it did not seem to be so important when they were in government. It was always in their bailiwick. It is amazing; he used the phrase that it was somehow amazing or remarkable and it was, because for the last five or six years there was a trade deficit. Under the coalition government, and under the National Party directly, there were 69 consecutive months of goods and services trade deficits—and a lot more, which I will turn to later in my contribution. In speaking to support the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill, I want to say that it does a number of things. Structurally, it amends the Australian Trade Commission Act and the Export Market Development Grants Act and substantively it does two things: it enhances the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, which I will address in some detail, and it goes some way towards addressing the Rudd government’s election commitment—a major one, I add—to improve Australia’s trade performance, which was abysmal under the previous government. I will first turn to the proposed changes to the grants scheme, then cover the commitment to improve the performance and conclude with more general comments. The maximum grant will increase from $150,000 to $200,000, and $250,000 in some cases. Two claimable expense categories will be added to the range of eligible expenses—an important change. Also, importantly, it expands the range of bodies able to access the scheme and significantly some of the tourism bodies and some of the regional bodies that were not able to access it before. It lifts the maximum turnover limit to $50 million. It reduces the minimum threshold of expenditure to $10,000 from $15,000. That is more realistic in terms of the costs that a business has to outlay. It extends the limit on the number of annual grants from seven to eight—again, more realistic, and an extra one really helps the businesses a lot. It removes the distinction between internal and external services to provide that all non-tourism services are eligible products. The tourism industry has widely endorsed this. It introduces a good governance requirement by way of a performance measure for applicants claiming their third and subsequent grants. I note that the Leader of the National Party talked about the performance measure and he mentioned that it had not been done because people were concerned about the WTO. The fact is that there can always be advice about what the WTO might or might not raise, what might be challenged, but the fact is that it makes sense. When we are giving our public money to bodies, particularly the third or subsequent grant, it makes sense that we have a performance measure. We do that in all areas of public life, but perhaps the National Party want it to be along the lines of Regional Partnerships, where money was given out helter-skelter, willy-nilly, without any performance measures. 10000 Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr AJ Schultz)—Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192. The debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will be an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Page will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 3234 Statements by Members 3234 3234 18:40:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 0 Mr RANDALL —Last week I met with Ron Trigwell, Secretary of the Western Australian Pilots and Escort Drivers Association, where I was made aware of a number of issues confronting that industry. There are around 800 pilot drivers in Western Australia and an average of 600 in each state and territory in this country. Each driver travels an average of 180,000 kilometres a year, escorting oversized loads along the national highways in built-up areas for the safety of other motorists and the general public. These drivers are self-employed and many of them are retirees. They provide a great community service and, should they not exist, escorts would have to come from the already underresourced police departments of states and territories. Pilot drivers are not entitled to fuel rebates. While heavy vehicle owners and drivers receive a rebate, the people who are escorting these vehicles on exactly the same journey, for exactly the same time, receive no rebate or incentive, whilst providing a public safety service. They are ineligible for the rebate because their vehicles weigh less than 4½ tonnes. Additionally, pilot drivers are exempt from the rebates for conversion to LPG, as their vehicles are being used for commercial purposes. With the cost of fuel at record highs, that is an expensive operation. It becomes even more difficult if the driver travels, for instance, from Perth to Brisbane and there is no return job, because they have to pay for the journey at their own expense. The inconsistency in laws regulating the industry throughout the states and territories is another hurdle that needs to be overcome. (Time expired) 3234 3234 18:42:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 0 Ms JACKSON —I rise tonight to congratulate the year 7 students at Edney Primary School. Last week I was delighted to be invited to address three classes of year 7 students in the library. I spoke about my role as a federal member of parliament and also about the parliament itself and how it operates. I understand that those classes will today be visiting the state parliament of Western Australia to see how that system operates. I was grilled by these year 7 students asking lively and intelligent questions—questions that were more difficult to respond to than some I have had put to me by journalists. They were on my ambitions as a member of parliament; the qualifications necessary to be an MP; my views on the republic; petrol prices; climate change; the behaviour of politicians; the most important part of parliament; the time that we take to get to parliament, particularly from the west; how my family felt about this time away from home; how much I was paid; where I lived; and the question ‘What is the one thing I would do if I were fortunate enough to become PM for the day?’ I want to thank those students for what was a terrific time, and their teachers for inviting me. I know our future is in safe hands. 3235 3235 18:43:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I would like to acknowledge and congratulate the town of Walpole, 420 kilometres south of Perth, with a population of just 500 people. The Walpole Tidy Towns Committee has been awarded the Protection of the Environment Award in the Australia’s Tidy Towns awards. The Tidy Towns award is part of the Keep Australia Beautiful network of Sustainable Communities Awards. The Protection of the Environment Award was awarded to the town partly due to the Walpole Primary School’s commitment to various environmental projects which involved extensive recycling and resource-recovery initiatives, such as weed removal projects within the township, together with numerous environmental protection and nature conservation activities, particularly in partnership with the Shire of Manjimup. Alliances between the community and the shire, as well as government agencies, ensure that the appeal of Walpole’s unique identity and charm is retained, protected and enhanced. The town’s ongoing improvement and rehabilitation projects demonstrate the tremendous commitment to conserving and improving the natural heritage in and around Walpole. Walpole local Michael Philby, an active community and Walpole Tidy Towns Committee member, was recognised for his dedication and efforts and presented with the Dame Phyllis Frost individual award. It is a fantastic achievement for the town of Walpole. It provides national recognition and acknowledges the very hard work the community has done in appreciating their hometown and working together for a sustainable future. I congratulate all Walpole residents. (Time expired) 3235 3235 18:45:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —In parliament today I want to commend the Rudd Labor government for inserting $10 million into the Ipswich CBD revitalisation. This is the first major commitment by a federal government to the city of Ipswich for its CBD since Gough Whitlam’s day, when the Ipswich Civic Centre was first built. I also want to mention the Ipswich City Council and the Queensland state government, who are working together with me and the people of Ipswich to develop an Ipswich regional centre strategy. This was endorsed by the Ipswich Centre Task Force on 15 February 2008. There are a number of milestones that have been achieved: 17 priority projects, 31 key strategies and 158 actions. Eight key revitalisation areas within the CBD have been identified, including the existing transit centre, the railway station and the Bell Street interchange, all of which will be upgraded. I commend Mayor Paul Pisasale, state member Rachel Nolan, the Deputy Premier and the Premier of Queensland for their commitment to Ipswich. I reaffirm my commitment to the people of Ipswich that I will work together with them to achieve this great outcome for the Ipswich centre, the traders and the people therein. 3236 3236 18:46:00 Coulton, Mark, MP HWN Parkes NATS 0 0 Mr COULTON —I would like to highlight the importance of the aged-care industry. The aged-care industry is one of the largest industries in my electorate. With the exception of local government, it would be the largest employer in most of the major centres in the Parkes electorate. Aged care is a highly specialised and professional career. I have been fortunate enough to have the opportunity to visit most of the aged-care centres in my electorate. I have seen firsthand the incredible level of care given to residents in these facilities and also the very high standards set by management and staff. It is evident that the number of people requiring aged care is increasing, but this increase in numbers has not led to a decrease in services. In fact, I would say it is the opposite. I have witnessed the professionalism of aged-care providers throughout my electorate over the last six months and can honestly say that the services provided are of the highest quality. Therefore, I was appalled by the comments made in relation to aged care in the House on 13 March this year by the Minister for Ageing, Justine Elliot. The minister’s comments were demeaning to the entire aged-care industry and, as the shadow parliamentary secretary for ageing, I have had many aged-care providers tell me how disappointed they were that the minister made such callous remarks. All the nursing homes in my electorate have contented residents who are well cared for. These facilities should be applauded, not belittled by the minister. On 13 March the minister referred to her previous experience as a police officer. She needs to understand that her role as a minister is not purely an investigative one. She also needs to show leadership and give support to the tens of thousands of people employed in the aged-care industry. (Time expired) 3236 3236 18:48:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —Yesterday two significant events took place in Page. I got to visit one—the annual all breeds show of the Casino Poultry Club Inc. at the Casino Showgrounds. Regretfully, I had to give my apologies to the Italian community’s Italian feast held last night at the Lismore City Bowling and Recreation Club, as I was travelling here. As patron of the Casino Poultry Club, I informed the secretary, Eric Rosolen, that I was delighted to look at and learn about all of the poultry, all of the fowl—Saxony bantam ducks and drakes, hard- and soft-feather Muscovy and Australian Langshans. The poultry really were truly beautiful fowl that were well cared for. The wonderful Italian feast I missed was to aid the erection of a monument in recognition of the long presence of the Italian community in Lismore. The Northern Rivers Echo of 15 May 2008 states: When Ellie Gava— a key person from the Italian community in Lismore— saw an ABC documentary on the history of Italians in Lismore, the words of the presenter stuck in her mind: “Italians have lived in Lismore for most of this century. Today, there is no evidence of their presence.” I pledge support to both of these projects. (Time expired) 3236 3236 18:49:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 0 0 Dr JENSEN —I wish to speak on behalf of all the pensioners, and especially seniors, who have contacted my office in the past few months to explain that they are finding it increasingly hard to cope financially and asking for help. Many of these Tangney residents are also caring for husbands or wives and, in a few cases, frail parents. We should be rewarding these carers instead of expecting the love of family to effectively subsidise the federal government’s provision of aged care and other associated services to the tune of about $30 billion per annum. Thanks to the enormous pressure applied to the government by the opposition and by the public, savage cuts to the carers bonus were stopped. As a justly indignant Carers Australia said after this year’s budget, ‘Carers are not the cause of inflation—they are the victims of it.’ The huge increases in rents for those pensioners who do not own their home has been exacerbated by the Western Australian state Labor government, which has contrived a remarkable shortage of residential land. The cost of fuel has impacted on the price of everything from petrol at the bowser to all goods transported by road. My constituents, like others around the country, need relief from these sudden increases. They should get it, especially from a government awash with money, having inherited a budget surplus instead of a $96 billion debt. (Time expired) 3237 3237 18:51:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —This week is Macular Degeneration Awareness Week. The aim of the Macular Degeneration Foundation campaign this year is to highlight the importance of having your eyes checked and, in particular, to ensure that your macula is checked. The macula is the central part of the retina that processes all the visual images and is responsible for your ability to read, recognise faces, drive, see colours clearly et cetera. Macular degeneration is now the leading cause of blindness and severe vision loss in Australia. It affects one in seven people over the age of 50 in some way, and the instances of it increase with age. Macular degeneration is thought to be caused through genetic and environmental factors. People over the age of 50 who smoke or have a family history of macular degeneration are at much greater risk of developing this disease. Early detection of macular degeneration is critical because the earlier you seek treatment, the more likely you will have a better outcome compared to those who wait. Available treatment options are dependent on the stage at which the disease is detected, but sadly there is no cure. Vision impairment is an important issue facing the present and future generations of older Australians. It can affect a person’s quality of life and level of independence, including their physical, emotional, economic and social wellbeing. Macular degeneration costs Australia about $2.6 billion a year. That is estimated to grow to about $6.5 billion by 2025. I would like to express my appreciation for the Macular Degeneration Foundation for their continued— (Time expired) 3237 3237 18:52:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to express my outrage at the axing of the Commercial Ready program by this financially and small-business illiterate government. The program was originally instituted by the Howard government, with $707 million over four years and up to $200 million per year, to provide grants to small companies to assist them to bring new and innovative products to the market. Commercial Ready was a competitive, merit based organisation, supporting innovation and its commercialisation. It offered a single point to competitive grants for early-stage commercialisation activities, research and development of products with high commercial potential and proof-of-concept activities. For companies finding funds hard to come by, and where venture capital firms would not take the risk, Commercial Ready filled the void. Prior to the election, the current Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Carr, promised only to shave Commercial Ready. However, in an act of what can only be seen as downright and utter dishonesty, he went forward to absolutely abolish it. In Fadden, my electorate, the fastest growing electorate in the nation, the Family Fair Fruit Salad has put in months of effort and time in good faith and spent thousands and thousands of dollars with consultants to help it navigate a bureaucratic process that was fair and rigorous although time consuming. Now, with its application ready to be assessed, the program has been completely wiped out by this Labor government. If this Labor government were even half serious about supporting industry and innovation, it would not have removed this program. (Time expired) 10000 Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr AJ Schultz)—It being approximately 6.55 pm, in accordance with standing order 192A the time for members’ statements has concluded. 3238 Private Members' Business 3238 Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Gibbons: That the House: notes the need for Australian businesses to be globally competitive in order to sustain economic prosperity after the current resources boom; notes the alarming decline in Australia’s productivity and export performance over the last five years; notes research findings that less than one in five Australian businesses is currently “world class”; notes the Government’s election commitments and subsequent policy announcements about measures to improve national productivity including public investment in education, skills training and national infrastructure; notes research findings that people management practices are the predominant factor affecting company productivity and performance; notes research findings that indicate Australian managers are paying insufficient attention to workplace practices and employee satisfaction; and supports the establishment of a National Commission for Workplace Innovation and Excellence that will, in conjunction with the business community, trade union movement, professional associations and education providers: identify workplace factors that positively impact on workplace innovation, excellence and productivity including human resource management practices and organisational culture; develop policies that promote workplace innovation, excellence and productivity including best practice models, codes of practice, awareness programs, business exchanges and awards; and support research, management education and training in conjunction with higher education providers and professional associations. (Notice given 12 March 2008. Time allowed—30 minutes.) 10000 Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr AJ Schultz)—The question is that the motion be agreed to. 3239 18:54:00 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 1 0 Mr GIBBONS —Globalisation and growth in the economic capacity of low-labour-cost countries are leading challenges for Australian businesses and their employees. Import competition for Australian products and services is increasing. According to the Productivity Commission, import penetration of domestic markets increased from 25 per cent to 36 per cent between 1989 and 2000. The number of local jobs targeted for outsourcing overseas, or offshoring, is also increasing. The Australian Industry Group believes that by 2008 our manufacturing sector may have lost 60,000 jobs overseas. A 2005 OECD report identified that up to 19 per cent of the Australian workforce were employed in occupations potentially affected by offshoring. Our future prosperity depends upon Australia meeting the challenges of globalisation. This requires local businesses of all sizes to become world class in order to compete in international markets and retain domestic market share. Australian and international experts agree that Australian workplaces can do much more to improve our competitive advantage and increase productivity. There is a well-documented business case for leading and managing our workplaces better than we currently do. The reality is that just because something is fashionable or is based on conventional wisdom or established practice does not mean it is the best way or that it is in line with evidence based management practice. There is well-researched and well-documented evidence that a range of leadership and management practices associated with changes in organisational culture and climate can lead to significant improvements in productivity and standards. They are associated with what are commonly termed high-performance or higher involvement work practices and can result in increased competitiveness, profitability and improved workplace environments. Numerous authors have studied and provided a considerable body of evidence about the factors which distinguish superior organisational performances and the relationship between organisational performance and outcomes. A draft research paper listing the names of several recognised experts is available on my website at www.stevegibbonsmp.com. Go to ‘Innovative Workplaces’ on the menu bar. The findings were that the most successful organisations had the following things in common: a strong culture underpinned by deeply held, shared common values which convey the behaviours expected by all staff; inclusiveness, where people feel strongly they are part of a team; an understanding of the culture and behaviours necessary to execute strategies at different levels of the organisation; a strong sense of vision and values, with leadership who recognise the need to strengthen and align them on a daily basis; and a focus on their people. In essence, ‘an organisation is nothing more than the collective capacity of its people’. Edgar Schein, acknowledged as one of the world’s leading organisational psychologists, having studied and published work on organisational culture for 30 years, believes that ‘individual and organisational performance cannot be understood unless one takes into account the organisational culture’ and that ‘productivity is a cultural phenomenon, par excellence, both at the small work group level and at the total organisational level’. The debate about the cost-benefits of managing people well has historically been dismissed by senior managers in both the public and private sectors as being based on ‘soft’ data. But there is substantial evidence, with the same sophisticated methodology, that provides a strong connection between how an organisation manages its people and the economic and productivity results achieved. Such evidence exists from a diverse range of industries and appears to be consistent across numerous countries. Professor Jeffery Pfeffer, Professor of Organisational Behaviour at the Stanford Graduate School of Management, has published several books devoted to examining the research evidence linking the financial success of organisations to their people management practices, particularly the management practices used to create ‘high-performance/high-commitment’ organisations. For example, Pfeffer cites evidence from a five-year detailed study of companies from a diverse range of industries which indicates consistent productivity gains in the order of 40 per cent by implementing high-performance management practices. The research evidence shows that people work harder because of the increased involvement and commitment that comes from having more control over and say in their work; people work smarter because high-performance work practices encourage the building of skills and competencies and, just as importantly, facilitate the efforts of people in actually applying their wisdom and energy to enhance organisational performances; and high-commitment management practices, by placing more responsibility in the hands of people further down the organisation, save administrative overheads and other costs associated with having an alienated workforce in an adversarial relationship with management. This private member’s motion calls for the establishment of a centre specifically for workplace innovation, concentrating on human resource management in our workplaces in both the private and government sectors. (Time expired) 3240 19:00:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 0 Mr LINDSAY —I am sure that the member for Bendigo has moved this motion responsibly, but I do not understand how he can defend what he has put in relation to the policies of the current government. Look at the first point in this motion: (1) notes the need for Australian businesses to be globally competitive ... Of course we need to have Australian businesses globally competitive, but how can you do that with Labor’s dismantling of workplace reforms and ripping up of Australian workplace agreements? That has placed the economy at a much greater risk and made it much less competitive in relation to the world than what it would otherwise have been. It certainly does not serve to secure Australia’s prosperity after the current resources boom. The government’s budget and policies are directly threatening jobs. Ripping up AWAs and reducing workplace flexibility actually threatens the source of so much prosperity in North Queensland, in my home city of Townsville and elsewhere in Australia. In earlier decades, Australia was held back by high numbers of strikes. We all remember the nineties. In 1996, 131.5 working days per 1,000 employees were lost to industrial action. In 2006, after a decade of the Howard government, just 14.6 days were lost for the same number of employees. That is a wonderful result and a testament to the effectiveness of the Howard government’s workplace relations policies. A flexible industrial relations system has been the core factor in the increase in resources industry investment. Without the right economic conditions in Australia, resource companies will look to invest in projects elsewhere, and North Queensland and the rest of Australia will lose out. This motion has been long on rhetoric but has ignored the key fact that business confidence is suffering at the hands of the new Labor government. A survey released earlier this year indicated employers were becoming nervous and losing the confidence to employ staff. Figures from Sensis show that support among small businesses for government policies plummeted 34 percentage points to a net balance of negative five per cent in February 2008, which is the biggest fall recorded in the history of the business index since 1993. That is the result of the current government. The Olivier Job Index, which records the number of jobs advertised, fell for the first time in three years. Trades and services were among the hardest hit, falling 14.5 per cent, while hospitality, tourism and travel were down 7.5 per cent last month alone. That is not a very good CV for the current government. ANZ Job Advertisement Series figures show that the total number of jobs advertised in major metropolitan newspapers and on the internet declined by two per cent in February. These figures are a clear reflection of the damage an inexperienced Labor government can have on local businesses and, of course, on our world competitiveness. There is a real possibility that unemployment will rise under Labor. In fact, it was forecast in the budget. How many hundreds of thousands of people are going to be tossed out of work? We talk about working families; we will be talking about unemployed families in the not too distant future. I also want to draw attention to the fourth point: (4) notes the Government’s election commitments and subsequent policy announcements about measures to improve national productivity including public investment in education, skills training and national infrastructure; Do you know what the current government have done in my electorate in relation to skills training? Do you know what they have done? They have got hold of the best-performing Australian technical college in Australia—there are 300 kids there doing their skills training—and they took away the funding for next year. It is gone. It is finished. The best-performing skills training centre that we have ever had in North Queensland has been told, ‘Sorry, there is no more money.’ The North Queensland Australian Technical College now has to try to convince the state government to fund it. Our NQATC has of course been industry based. It has done a far better job than the technical colleges that exist in the north. We have had a huge retention rate of 85 per cent, compared to an overall retention rate in Queensland of 78.5 per cent. Ninety-seven per cent of retained students signed onto Australian School-based Apprenticeships at a certificate III level, and demand for apprentices from the college was very high. This year over 150 local businesses and community organisations are directly involved with the college. It is a magnificent result. The kids and their parents are just doing so well. We are training in the core skills areas that are needed, and this government stands condemned for taking away their funding. 3241 19:05:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 1 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —It is possible that the Australian skills college in the member for Herbert’s electorate may be the best-performing college in the country, given that the rest of them have been an abysmal failure and an extreme waste of taxpayers’ money—misdirected public funds. I start by congratulating the member for Bendigo on what is an important motion, one that goes to the very heart of the many challenges we face as a nation when it comes to securing Australia’s long-term economic prosperity. These challenges include lifting Australia’s flagging productivity growth rate, reinvigorating Australia’s manufacturing and industry sectors by introducing new government initiatives aimed at fostering a greater emphasis on innovation, tackling Australia’s skills crisis by investing in the education and training that are crucial in today’s knowledge economy and reinvigorating workplace relations and workplace practices to better achieve these ends. As this motion argues, equal weight needs to be given to each of these areas. My own electorate of Calwell is home to a large manufacturing base. As anyone with any involvement in the sector knows, the news has not been good for Australian manufacturing and industry over the last decade. The reasons for this are many and varied and involve both domestic and external factors. On the one hand, we live in an increasingly competitive global environment, where the competition for resources, skills and technical expertise, as well as access to both emerging and established markets, has become more and more pronounced. On the other hand, a downturn in some of Australia’s key economic indicators, like productivity growth, export growth and our diminished skills base, reveals the extent of the former Howard government’s failure to plan for Australia’s future by investing in the drivers of economic growth—in skills, education and training, innovation, technology and infrastructure. In the last years of the Howard government, productivity growth rates fell from an average of 3.3 per cent a year in the five years leading up to 1998-99 to just 1.1 per cent. The same story is repeated when you look at the figures for Australia’s export industry. Australian manufacturing has fared particularly badly, managing only a three per cent increase in export growth compared with an average growth rate of 13 per cent since 1983—and this is despite the fact that world trade has grown at twice the rate of world output over the last five years. The net result was, of course, 70 consecutive months of trade deficits under the former Howard government and a current account deficit that has reached record levels. Simply blaming today’s competitive global environment ignores the important role we can and must play in this place when it comes to showing leadership and getting the policy settings right, especially in areas like industry and trade. That is why the Rudd Labor government has adopted a coordinated approach to tackling the economic challenges Australia faces both now and in the future, significantly boosting government investment in education through our education revolution initiatives, committing $4.7 billion to build Australia’s first national broadband network, introducing new industry policies like the government’s Green Car Partnership Program and establishing Infrastructure Australia, charged with providing a strategic blueprint for Australia’s current and future infrastructure needs. In concert with these efforts, this motion draws attention to the additional productivity gains on offer when Australian companies adopt best practice models in creating working environments that foster creativity, innovation and strong working relationships amongst employees. Research shows that companies that encourage creativity and independent thinking among their employees clearly outperform those companies which do not. Building a strong corporate culture that values innovation, creativity and respect between employees and employers promises to pay enormous dividends for Australian companies in increased productivity, faster revenue growth and higher rates of job creation. This, of course, is an alternative route to the one taken by the former Howard government with its unfair Work Choices laws. The logic behind Work Choices was very simple: it sought to tackle today’s economic challenges by targeting the wages and conditions of working Australians and by robbing them of their basic rights. Under Work Choices, working families alone were being asked to carry the burden of these challenges. This is not the answer. Rather, the answer lies in investing in our own people, in skilling our workforce and in encouraging a culture of innovation in our workplaces. It includes tackling infrastructure bottlenecks that place enormous constraints on our economy and encouraging best practice models when it comes to building Australian workplace environments conducive to these and other efforts. I am, therefore, happy to support this motion and to again commend the member for Bendigo. (Time expired) 3243 19:10:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise not to lend my support to this absolute nonsense of a motion to, as per the Notice Paper, ‘support the establishment of a national commission for workplace innovation and excellence that will, in conjunction with the business community, trade union movement, professional associations and education providers’ achieve a whole range of things. When I looked at the history of this motion, I thought I would go to Google just to see how many times the Labor Party had looked at this. You can imagine my surprise when in the history of the planet I only found one hit on Google, which actually came from the member for Bendigo’s address-in-reply on 15 May 2008. No-one has spoken about this from either side of politics. The Labor Party did not speak about it. It was not part of their pre-election requirements or commitments. No member has spoken about it. In fact, the only person to raise the idea of a national commission for workplace innovation and excellence—and hundreds of national commissions have already been announced under the Labor government—is the member for Bendigo, once. So this is now the second time in the House that this has been put forward and it certainly does not deserve our support. If we look a little bit harder, we will start to see the crux of the matter. ‘To establish a national commission for workplace innovation and excellence that will, in conjunction with the business community, the trade union movement, professional association and education providers’—this reeks of an underhanded effort to set up one more commission for the trade unions to get their hands into in an attempt to once again control the economy. It is no wonder when I look at the member for Bendigo’s history. He was a union official from 1990 to 1994 and a research adviser to the Victorian state Leader of the Opposition, Mr Brumby MLA, from 1996 to 1998, before he entered parliament—just one more union hack pushing the union line. But I take offence at ‘notes the alarming decline in Australia’s productivity and export performance’. I can only assume, when the member for Bendigo speaks about productivity, that he is referring to labour productivity. If I look at labour productivity, in the 13 years of the previous Labor government, it grew by an average of 2.2 per cent. In the 11 years of the Howard government it grew by 2.4 per cent—far from a rapid decline. The last five years have seen labour productivity grow by 2.8 per cent, whereas in the last five years of the Hawke-Keating government labour productivity grew by only 2.3 per cent. Whatever view or whatever slice and dice of the numbers you want to take with respect to productivity, the Howard government outstripped the previous Hawke-Keating government. I notice the member for Calwell chose the years 1995-96 through to 1999 to look at what productivity used to be, without actually looking at the fact that in the year 1999-2000—the GST implementation, of course—productivity was zero. This nonsense of a motion goes further to note the ‘alarming decline’ in export performance. I again can only assume the member for Bendigo is speaking about international trade in goods and services. In the 13 years of the previous Labor government, under Hawke and Keating, trade increased by $71 billion. Yet in the 11 years of the Howard government trade increased by a whopping $109 billion. In fact, between 2006-07 and the previous year, trade increased by nine per cent. In the previous year, export trade increased by 15 per cent. So in the years from 2004-05 to 2006-07 trade increased by 24 per cent, yet this farcical motion notes the ‘alarming decline in export performance over the last five years’. One really has to question the motion. I look at organisations in my electorate of Fadden, companies like Digga, the largest exporter of gearboxes in the southern hemisphere; VIP Petfoods; and Shower Power, which has a huge percentage of the UK domestic market. What Australia does not need is some farcical national commission for workplace innovation and excellence. It needs flexible workplaces that Labor has just stripped away. It needs 134,000 jobs back which Labor has just stripped away. It needs lower taxes; it needs innovation, not nonsense. 3244 19:15:00 Butler, Mark, MP HWK Port Adelaide ALP 1 0 Mr BUTLER —I rise to support the motion tabled by the member for Bendigo because it deals with very serious issues impacting on our economy in macro terms and on Australian businesses and households in micro terms. In particular the honourable member’s motion deals with the major economic legacy left to Australia by the previous government, namely overheated demand compared to capacity, declining productivity—in the last year not the average—and stifled innovation. Our poor performance as a nation on innovation can be traced back to the decision by the new Howard-Costello government in their first budget to slash the research and development tax concession. Since then spending on R&D has lagged terribly. Through the neglect of R&D practised by the previous government, we see our spending on research and development stuck at about one per cent of GDP. In spite of recent growth in our spending, particularly in the mining sector, we remain at about 15th in the table of OECD nations on R&D spending—a shameful position given our positive economic environment. In contrast to our one per cent spend in Australia, the OECD averages about 1.5 per cent or 50 per cent more than Australian expenditure. Key trailblazers in the OECD do even better. The US, for example, spends about two per cent of their GDP on R&D, Germany spends 1.75 per cent and countries such as Finland spend 2.5 per cent. Innovation and productivity have been further stifled by the previous government’s neglect of key supply-side elements of the economy. The previous government had no strategy to deal with the nation’s infrastructure bottlenecks other than to point the finger at state governments. As a result, Australia lagged at 20th out of 25 OECD nations in terms of our infrastructure investment. This was at a time of terms of trade better than any in 50 years, record company profits and employment levels giving a huge boost to Commonwealth tax revenues, but there was no investment in infrastructure at the other end. The Rudd government by contrast has a very clear strategy, one built around Infrastructure Australia and the Building Australia Fund. Through Infrastructure Australia’s audit of the national infrastructure needs, COAG will be able to develop a list of priorities for the Building Australia Fund. Another key supply-side deficit is in the area of skills and labour shortages. The previous government’s response to this was to pick a fight with the states over whether vocational training should be delivered in TAFE colleges or Australian technical colleges—as if the building mattered. By contrast our budget invests $1.9 billion in skills delivering up to 630,000 additional training places over the next five years. We have lifted the skilled migration intake by 31,000 in the next financial year. These are 31,000 skilled people who want to make Australia their home, raise a family and contribute their vocational skills to our economy. These are long-term structural responses to serious supply-side constraints in our economy that were ignored by the previous government. Such a package is critical in turning around the previous government’s poor performance on productivity. Other responses include the funding of innovation centres—including one in my electorate at Mawson Lakes, I am very pleased to say—to support businesses wanting to compete on the world stage. The value added to this debate by the member for Bendigo’s motion, though, is that it gets to the heart of what drives productivity and innovation at a workplace level—a microeconomic response. The microeconomic strategy of the previous government, as was pointed out by the member for Calwell, had a simple name: Work Choices. It was a complete disaster. The coalition has always held to the 18th century notion that you get more from your workforce through managerial prerogative rather than consultation and consensus—the ‘treat them mean and keep them keen’ approach to the workplace. By contrast, the member for Bendigo’s proposal is detailed and thoughtful. It deserves serious consideration by this parliament, including the Main Committee, and the new government. For that reason, I am happy to indicate my support for it. 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Wood: 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 29 and 30 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. 3246 19:20:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 0 0 Mr WOOD —I move this motion to urge the Australian government to send the appropriate minister and appropriate shadow minister to lead an Australian delegation to the Asia-Pacific Regional Microcredit Summit in Bali in July 2008. I have spoken previously in this place about the importance of microcredit. In 2006 I spoke in support of a matter of public importance raised by the member for Kingsford Smith calling for the Australian government to set the goal of 175 million people receiving microcredit by 2015 and increase microcredit funding to 1.25 per cent of the Australian aid budget. Last month I was approached by RESULTS Australia to keep the issue of microcredit moving. I thank and congratulate them for their advocacy on such an important cause and their persistence in keeping it a regular part of the national debate. Specifically I would like to mention the RESULTS Australia staff, including national manager Maree Nutt, research coordinator Mark Wright, president Ian Sampson and my local RESULTS members, Emmanuelle Emile-Blake and Anne Herbert, who visited me with photographer Damien Schumann, who is from South Africa. Microcredit is the provision of low-interest loans and other financial services such as savings and insurance to impoverished people unable to borrow through ordinary channels. These loans enable borrowers in poverty to expand or establish small businesses like waste recycling and animal husbandry. Evidence from many microfinance programs around the world indicates that borrowers can profoundly improve the quality of their lives and futures of their children. Extra money earned is used to obtain better food, housing and education. Microcredit projects supported by the Australian government through AusAID have helped tens of thousands of poor households in countries like Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines and Vietnam. It has also been an extremely effective strategy elsewhere. The Microcredit Summit Campaign launched in 1997 had the original goal of ensuring that 100 million of the world’s poorest families, especially the women of those families, had access to credit and other financial services by the end of 2005. By December 2006, the campaign had just fallen short of this goal: 93 million of the poorest families had access to credit at this time, which is still a fantastic effort. Nevertheless, the number of the poorest families with access to credit has increased twelve-fold, or 32 per cent per year, from 1997 to 2006—a tremendous effort. Each year the civil society driven Microcredit Summit Campaign has tracked its own progress. This year reports found that in 2006 alone 133 million families received a microloan and 93 million of those families were among the world’s poorest people—people like Joyce Wairimu and Wilson Maina from Nairobi, Kenya. Eight years ago Joyce was a beggar in one of the world’s slums in Nairobi. Her climb out of poverty started with the loan of less than $30. She used the loan to start a small business to earn an income. Today she has six businesses and 62 employees. Wilson Maina was one of the most wanted criminals in the same Nairobi slum as Joyce. He has borrowed 17 times from a microfinance organisation known as Jamii Bora, meaning ‘Good Families’. Since his first loan of $25, he now has four businesses and has convinced hundreds of young men not to get involved in crime. These are but two of the stories from microfinance organisations. Jamii Bora’s work was highlighted in the recent report from the Microcredit Summit Campaign, a project of the US based RESULTS Educational Fund. In 2006 the campaign adopted phase 2, involving additional goals to ensure that the expansion of microfinance leads to significant reductions in poverty. The first new goal is to further expand the number of very poor borrowers to 175 million by 2015. The second goal aims to ensure an additional 100 million families, which were among the poorest in 1990, have moved to above US$1 per day by 2015. This goal will make a significant contribution to achieving the first of the Millennium Development Goals, to reduce absolute poverty by half by 2015. I believe it is vitally important that the new Labor government support the achievement of these goals going forward. The focus of the Microcredit Summit Campaign is on ensuring that the growth of microfinance both targets the poorest people and includes regular monitoring of how many borrowers are moving above the poverty line. Already 15 microfinance organisations and networks, mostly in Asia, have committed to measuring accurately the number of their borrowers moving above the poverty line in the period to 2015. It is important for countries providing aid to microfinance, such as Australia, to increase funding to enable the expansion of newer microfinance organisations and the accurate measurement of how many borrowers are moving out of poverty. 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. 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. 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, who founded the microlending institution Grameen Bank, will be attending the Bali summit, as will leaders and innovators in the field of microfinance including those from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Samoa, Vietnam and Indonesia. Moreover, there are speakers from the World Bank and the commercial banking sector. It is therefore very important that the Australian government is represented at this forum to engage actively in the lively debate about microcredit, which is bringing poor people across the world renewed hope and is gathering momentum in its fight against global poverty. The Nobel Peace Prize highlighted that financial services for the poor are an important part of the tool kit for enabling poor people to improve their lives. These services include affordable and collateral-free credit, safe and flexible deposit taking and microinsurances against illness, death and natural disasters. There is no question that microfinance has captured the interest of philanthropists and financial institutions. Bill and Melinda Gates, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and—closer to home—banks like ANZ, NAB and Westpac have made considerable investments in this area. But, as financial services to the poor become good corporate business for some, the Microcredit Summit Campaign has continued to urge microfinance and mainstream institutions to also reach down to poorer clients. These are clients whose families are on less than US$1 a day and whose children are likely to be the faces behind the daily statistics of almost 30,000 of them dying from poverty related causes, which is an absolute tragedy and involves sadness we in this country just could not imagine. It remains to be seen if the Rudd government will facilitate the long-called-for expansion of microfinance in our overseas aid budget programs and take up the additional challenge, as the US has in its aid program, of also reaching down to the poorest families. As stated in this year’s Microcredit Summit Campaign report, it remains to be seen if new World Bank President Robert Zoellick will heed the recent request from the US Congress to increase World Bank spending on microfinance and ensure that half of this funding reaches those living on less than US$1 a day. Over 1,000 parliamentarians across seven countries, including Australia, had the same request ignored by both of Mr Zoellick’s predecessors. Critics of microfinance for the very poor cannot argue with the outcomes from Jamii Bora—from 50 beggars in 1999 to 170,000 savers and 60,000 borrowers in just eight years. If countries like Australia participate in the promotion of microcredit, the end of extreme poverty in our lifetime may well be within our sights. Once again I urge the Australian government to send the appropriate minister and appropriate shadow minister to lead an Australian delegation to the Asia-Pacific Regional Microcredit Summit in Bali in 2008. Again I thank all the other members who will be speaking on such an important motion today. 3248 19:30:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —In seconding this motion by the honourable member for La Trobe, I would like to explain to the House why I believe microcredit is such an important tool in our aid program and why it is so important that the Australian parliament is represented at the forthcoming Asia-Pacific Regional Microcredit Summit in Bali. I am sure many members of the House will have some knowledge of microfinance programs and of their small low-income component, commonly referred to as microcredit. Members may also be aware that Australia supports various microfinance programs through its overseas aid budget in places like Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu. Microcredit has proven itself to be one of the most effective tools available to break the cycle of absolute poverty that exists in so many countries of the world. Its value has been recognised by the numerous international financial institutions referred to by the honourable member, including the World Bank, which has introduced microcredit as part of its lending program. The effectiveness of microcredit and its contribution to mankind have been recognised through one of its earliest pioneers, Professor Muhammad Yunus of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, being awarded the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. Australia has partly funded a very successful microcredit project in Vanuatu. The project started in 1996 and goes by the acronym VANWADS. It serves over 3,000 women and is currently expanding its services to the outer islands of Vanuatu. It now earns enough income to cover its operational expenses and no longer needs to rely on donors to continue funding its services—and that, ultimately, is the very aim of the microcredit system. Its effectiveness, and the effectiveness of microcredit, is probably best illustrated by a group of five of its female borrowers. The women borrowed small amounts of money over a three-year period to start and develop various small enterprises, including a retail business, a sewing business, a kava store, a DVD rental business and a minibus. Their businesses allow them to now generate a sufficient income to meet their families’ basic needs. However, the women believe that the greatest impact of microcredit has been the opportunities it has helped create in their lives. Their confidence and belief in themselves grew beyond that which they thought possible. In the words of one of them: ‘Now I am strong. I am really, really confident.’ These examples of success which have been achieved through the microcredit programs are not isolated reports. Rather, they are the rule in well-run projects in many countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia and parts of Europe. Microcredit enables the cycle of poverty to be broken, because the family income increases to the point where the children are educated, fed more nutritious food and provided with basic health care, things we take for granted. It is more likely that the children in those families will go on to earn an income that will in turn enable them to better provide for their families and make a greater contribution to the social and economic welfare of their communities. Microcredit has a strong connection with the United Nations Millennium Development Goals that were agreed to in September 2000 by all members of the United Nations, including Australia. There are eight development goals that respond to the world’s main development challenges through a set of targets for growth, poverty reduction and sustainable development. Microcredit is an important part of that great jigsaw puzzle. The Treasurer’s recent budget indicated a considerable increase in support for the Millennium Development Goals, and I congratulate him for that. I think we should recognise that, as Parliamentary Secretary Bob McMullan pointed out on 23 May in his speech to the University of Adelaide, our budget of 2008-09 increases support to $3.7 billion, or 0.32 per cent of GNI. I know that is not enough, and he recognised it. In fact, our contribution—not just the contribution of this government, but our history of contribution—is quite disgraceful. Frankly, I think we all recognise that. We are a wealthy country and we can do a lot more. I think we would all acknowledge that still more needs to be done if the targets associated with the goals are to be genuinely met, and certainly the parliamentary secretary made that clear. It is especially relevant for Australia to focus on the Millennium Development Goals as they relate to the Asia-Pacific region in particular. This region contains about 64 per cent of the world’s population who live in absolute poverty on less than $1 a day. The region has a large, unmet need for credit and other financial services as well as numerous organisations that have a strong track record in providing the poorest people with access to credit. One of those institutions is the Grameen Bank, which is one of the world’s leading microcredit providers. Whatever people may say about this system—and I have heard financiers and other banks talking about needing to broaden it and so forth—it is a significant contribution to the lives of individual people. A concrete way that we can show the world and our Asia-Pacific neighbours in particular that the Australian parliament is serious about achieving the millennium goals is to promote a greater understanding of microcredit and its adoption in poor communities of the region, notwithstanding critiques of this particular system that exist. Whilst there is consensus on the importance of increasing the poor’s access to financial services, achieving this at scale and on a sustainable basis requires a broad focus on the financial sector, including but not limited to—and we understand this—support for microfinance. The Australian government’s aid program has supported microfinance, including microcredit, and there are differentials in that, as one way of reducing poverty and promoting broad based economic growth. The Australian aid program—not just under us but under the former government—has committed an average of $10 million a year in direct support for microfinance initiatives over the last eight years. AusAID is currently exploring programming options to increase the number of poor people accessing financial services and to provide more choice in products and providers. No predetermined funding target has been committed to for such activities. The Asia-Pacific microcredit summit in Bali on 29 July to 30 July this year offers a concrete means to help foster microfinance in the developing world. The microcredit summit goal is for 175 million of the world’s poorest to be receiving microcredit by 2015. If that goal were met then a large proportion of the Millennium Development Goals target to halve the number of people living on less than $1 a day would be achieved. But that is only half, which is extraordinary. When you listen to yourself talk about this you realise it is quite disgraceful. We have an important opportunity before us right now to realise a major global achievement in relation to poverty eradication. Now is the time for us to push hard on those means that will enable us to achieve it, like microcredit. That is why I am very pleased to second the member for La Trobe’s motion. I thank him for it, and I also thank RESULTS Australia, particularly Ian Sansom, who resides in my electorate and happens to be president. They are very dedicated to this and they will not rest—and I thank them for it. By sending the relevant government minister and his counterpart from the opposition to the microcredit summit in Bali, we indicate our strong and united support for the Millennium Development Goals—they are so crucial—and for the wider use of microcredit as a significant means of achieving the poverty eradication targets. I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance that the Australian government is likely to be represented at the conference, which is great; it is terrific. No doubt they are working on the other side to make sure the relevant person or persons go—and hopefully the member for La Trobe will be attending as well—and our government will give consideration to the appropriate level of representation closer to the summit. I truly do hope we have strong representation there. Be not confused about this: the Australian government is dedicated to improving the proportion of development aid from our national income—and so we should be. I thank the member for moving the motion. 3250 19:40:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —I want to firstly congratulate the member for La Trobe and indeed all members who are supporting this fine motion. Since the United Nations 2005 International Year of Microcredit, the microfinance program has become one of the most significant global economic programs in alleviating poverty. The public awareness that was created from this international year was followed by Bangladesh economist Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank winning the Nobel Prize for pioneering the use of microcredit. As many members have now noted, Muhammad Yunus will be one of the experts who attends the summit in July. Although the Rudd government recently increased the Australian aid budget to $3.7 billion, if we are serious about eradicating poverty globally we need to invest more time and greater resources in promoting economic programs such as microfinance. The causes of poverty in our world today are vast and well known. They include corruption, trade barriers, poorly developed legal systems and property rights, appalling infrastructure, coupled with malnutrition, disease, lack of sanitation and drinking water, and illiteracy. Many of these problems are not addressed by traditional programs to alleviate poverty. Indeed, if you want to achieve an end, you must consider the means. If you want to achieve a goal, you have to know how you are going to get there. Microfinance answers some of those significant questions about how we are going to alleviate poverty. It is particularly the most disadvantaged people in non-industrial economies who benefit the most from microfinance programs. International Finance Corporation figures for 2007 report that women represent 47 per cent of borrowers, which is extraordinary in the context of the countries that we are considering. These programs represent the long-term good, enhancing the traditional models of charity. They do not create welfare dependency. They give pride of ownership in an enterprise and skills to serve in future successes and future failures. One of the important aspects of microfinance is that it is cost-effective, it is self-regulating and indeed it builds a sense of community. Experience has shown that there is pressure from friends and neighbours to pay back the loans so that other people themselves can then obtain those microfinance loans. Experience tells us that it is one of the most effective measures available to us today. This measure is also very important to our region. As noted previously by some members, we live in a region where there is enormous poverty. Indonesia has 20 million people living below the poverty line—one person for every Australian citizen. Case studies on microfinance in Indonesia showed that borrowers increased their incomes by 12.9 per cent, whilst a control group showed growth of only three per cent. These programs work, again, addressing the important question: how do you achieve the ends that you are seeking? With respect to Indonesian microfinance loans to people on the island of Lombok, for instance, it was reported that clients increased their incomes by 122 per cent, and nine out of 10 recipients moved out of poverty. That is absolutely amazing empirical data on the success of these programs. An eight-year study in Bangladesh showed that, amongst the poorest in the country, only four per cent were able to rise out of poverty without any assistance. Figures obtained from the Grameen Bank show that microfinance borrowers were escaping poverty at a rate of 48 per cent. On 29 June 2007, the International Finance Corporation invested $3 million in microfinance programs for Papua New Guinea, piloting what will be important microfinance initiatives in that country. This is a regional leadership question and Australia needs to be at the front. There is no doubt that further study and consultation needs to take place in order to ensure a reliable distribution system is developed and that systems are put in place to ensure that products created by the microfinance program actually reach the market. This is one reason why it is so important that we do participate in Bali in July and that we give serious consideration to our delegation representation. Microfinance also provides a big opportunity to improve our Indigenous communities. Our governments must consider that one of the major problems facing Aboriginal communities participating in the economy is access to capital. Any program that can be shown to demonstrate an improved access to capital and which can alleviate poverty must be considered in improving the lot of Indigenous Australians. As the government of the leading economic nation of the South Pacific, the Australian government does need to take the initiative in this area, and attendance at the Asia-Pacific Region Microcredit Summit in Bali will be a significant step in this process. The conference will be attended by many of the leaders, some spoken of here and many not mentioned. But, if we are seeking a goal—and we are all seeking the same goal—to alleviate poverty and pull people out of poverty, we have to consider the means and how best we can achieve that. Microfinance has been demonstrated to be one of the most effective economic programs in the world today and there is every reason why we should be participating in the summit in July. 3251 19:45:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 1 0 Mr ADAMS —The issue that the member for La Trobe raises is an interesting one and it has been around for some time; however, my interest is in its application in Australia. Already we have some development of microcredit in Indigenous communities, as can be seen in Siobhan McDonnell’s Giving credit where it’s due. In her discussion on the operation of microcredit models in Indigenous Australian communities, she states: Micro-credit is one model which may enable Indigenous people, and in particular women, gain access to credit. It is the extension of small loans of amounts of less than $25,000 to entrepreneurs too poor to qualify for commercial lending. The aim of micro-credit lending is to provide credit to entrepreneurs who do not have access to credit from other private or government sources. By targeting women, immigrants, welfare recipients, Indigenous people and low-income earners, micro-credit loans serve a client base that has been rejected by the formal banking sector. She explains: The term micro-credit is used in two different contexts. First, as the process of lending small, short-term loans to individual borrowers for self-employment projects. Second, as a program which also incorporates a ‘peer-group lending model’. In the peer group lending model, borrowers form groups of approximately five borrowers. Each borrower is held accountable, as a guarantor, for each of the other borrower’s loans. If one borrower defaults the group as a whole must repay the loan. The process of borrowers forming groups by choosing their group members has been found to reduce the credit risks associated with lending and provides a mechanism for ensuring that loans are repaid such that it is financially viable (ie the micro-credit fund records a high repayment rate on loans). In 1997, James Evans from First Business Finance Australia wrote: Microcredit has international currency. European and North American countries regularly use the term, both in government policy formulation, and in their approach to lending. It is also successfully established in developing countries, most notably in Bangladesh where last year the Grameen Bank alone lent US$380 million; average loan size $100, and a repayment rate in excess of 98%. There have been examples of microcredit schemes in communities around Australia. Small credit unions, revolving community loan funds and similar mechanisms have come and gone over the years. Indeed, the creation of the first Australian Credit Unions fifty years ago were in part a response to the needs of “modest farmers and small business folk”. So far there has been one over-riding problem with these commercial microcredit initiatives. They have been local and small. In an informal survey of twenty microcredit providers around Australia in 1994, the author found that not one had disbursed more than five business loans in the previous year. So it is all well and good to support the microcredit movement overseas. I know that many in Australia feel this is a good way of supporting developing nations, helping them to help themselves in simple ways. But why aren’t we doing it here? In one sense, the NEIS allowed many people to use their unemployment benefits to start up, and there have been schemes like Young Aussie, where young people are able to start their own business under the umbrella of the Young Aussie scheme until they are ready to go it alone. Now we need some method of loaning small amounts to people who want to start up in a very small way. Banks are not equipped to do this sort of thing. As Evans says: There is little dispute about the most common reasons for the difficulties that very small, often young, businesses have finding suitable debt finance— (Time expired) 3252 19:50:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —I rise to join the chorus of support for this motion and I commend the member for La Trobe and the other speakers for their support of it. Global poverty is the true moral crisis of our age. We have the resources to fix it. The question is: will we? We must deal with the gap in world aid funding and live up to our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals to deliver 0.7 per cent of our gross national income by 2015. I note the comments by the member for Braddon and I agree that we need to do a lot more, but I commend the government for that one item in the budget. We must continue our program for the relief of developing world debt. We must definitely take major strides towards overcoming the crippling impact of corruption that is stealing the future of developing countries. This must have a far higher priority than it currently does in global institutions. We must understand that making poverty history is not just about turning up to rock concerts, wearing armbands and complaining about our governments. We must accept personal responsibility for the more than one billion people who live on less than $1 a day. We can all give. We must provide those in developing countries with the tools to take ownership of their future. That is where microcredit has such a significant role to play, as we have heard. As the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said: With access to microfinance … people can take real strides towards breaking the vicious cycle of poverty and vulnerability. The Asia-Pacific Regional Microcredit Summit in Bali is part of the Microcredit Summit Campaign that is working to ensure some valuable goals in this area. This is a worthy initiative that deserves our support through participation. Australia has a proud history in the development of microcredit and of microenterprise development more broadly. In 1974, following Cyclone Tracy, David Bussau took a volunteer construction team to Darwin to help rebuild the city. In 1976 David was called upon again to help a small rural village in Indonesia devastated by an earthquake. David took his family to live with the villagers and help rebuild their lives. As he applied traditional solutions—re-establishing water supplies, repairing bridges and roads and rebuilding schools—he gradually realised that sustainable development needed more than just infrastructure. This traditional approach still left poor families trapped in poverty. David’s solution was microfinance and enterprise development. A struggling Indonesian farmer received the first loan from David. That loan of $50 enabled him to buy a sewing machine and start his own tailoring business. Today he runs an import-export business and owns a fleet of taxis, providing a wide range of employment for his local community. David provided finance to a further 20 people, achieving dramatic results. These flourishing small businesses not only provided for the basic needs of poor families; they also gave the entrepreneurs confidence, dignity and self-respect. David was inspired. He sold his businesses and established the Maranatha Trust to provide small amounts of capital to poor people so they could become entrepreneurs in their own environment. In 1979 David Bussau joined forces with the late Al Whittaker, who had been piloting the Trust Bank group lending methodology in South America. In 1992 they began to test the Trust Bank program in the Philippines. In 1998 they linked together with partners to form the Opportunity International network. With more than 200,000 clients in 2000, Opportunity International began to establish formal financial institutions which take the form of commercial banks, development banks or credit unions. David Bussau is Australia’s Senior Australian of the Year this year. Today, the Opportunity International network has support partners in five countries and 44 implementing partners in 27 developing countries. Opportunity International has over a million active clients globally and a loan portfolio of $539 million with an average loan value of just $245. Women account for 84 per cent of its clients, and there is an average repayment rate of 97 per cent. At present, the key focus of Opportunity International in Australia is in India, the Philippines and West Timor in Indonesia. At this time I would also like to acknowledge the work of the recently retired CEO of Opportunity International in Australia, Paul Peters. During his 4½ years as CEO, Paul built a strong team, expanded the group’s strategic partnerships and raised over $60 million. Paul demonstrated a real heart for the poor and took the organisation to yet another high level. Yet microcredit does just not present opportunities we have already heard about in overseas countries; we can apply these models right here in Australia and there has been plenty of work done on that project. I would like to draw attention to the work of Leigh Coleman, who, as one of David Bussau’s early pioneer directors and field leaders for Opportunity International, is now working in micro-enterprise development in Aboriginal communities with the support of Mission Australia. David Bussau’s work, Leigh Coleman’s work, the work of Opportunity International, displays a proud heritage for microcredit in this country and, as a result, I think together we have a lot to contribute to that conference in Bali. Together with the previous speakers, I commend the motion. 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 3254 Debate resumed, on motion byMs Owens: That the House notes: that Ovarian Cancer Awareness Week will be held from 24 February to 2 March 2008; that ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cause of cancer death in women, with nearly 1,200 Australian diagnoses each year and nearly 800 Australian deaths from it each year; that when ovarian cancer is diagnosed at an early stage, the outlook is very good—as many as 90 per cent of women diagnosed early are cured. However, 75 per cent of women are diagnosed at the advanced stage when it is very difficult to treat; that it is a devastating disease that is difficult to diagnose early and treat at an advanced stage. A woman dies every 10 hours largely because of the lack of early detection tests and poor knowledge of the disease throughout the community; that a recent Senate Community Affairs inquiry into gynaecological cancer in Australia (tabled 27 February 2007) identified a need for increased awareness amongst the broader community about gynaecological cancers and symptoms and better educational support for general practitioners; that a survey commissioned by the National Breast Cancer Centre has revealed that half of all Australian women believe incorrectly that a pap smear will detect ovarian cancer and that 56 per cent of women are unable to correctly name any signs or symptoms of the disease; and the need for greater focus on education and additional research funding to help Australian scientists to find early detection markers and more effective treatments of this insidious disease. 3254 19:55:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 0 Ms OWENS —It is a pleasure to move the motion as it appears on the Notice Paper in my name. Every 10 hours ovarian cancer claims another victim. That is roughly the time we will be sitting in this chamber today. It is the sixth most common cause of cancer death in Australia. Ovarian cancer falls under the greater heading of gynaecological cancers and affects over 1,200 new women and their families each year. While great leaps have been made in recent years tackling other cancers, such as breast and cervical cancer, there has been little movement in the trends and rates of ovarian cancer. Perhaps this is because it is hard to detect in its early stages when it can be treated and it is far easier, unfortunately, to detect when it has advanced too far. Some women are lucky, but most are not. For women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1982 and 1986, the five-year survival rate was 70.9 per cent and that has increased by over 15 per cent to a five-year survival rate of 86.6 per cent for women diagnosed between 1998 and 2002. That is a substantial improvement in the survival rate. But when it comes to ovarian cancer, the figures are not so encouraging. The five-year survival rate for women diagnosed between 1982 and 1986 was only 34.3 per cent, less than half that of women with breast cancer. That survival rate has increased but only to 42 per cent, still well under half of that for women with breast cancer. The 10-year survival rate is even less encouraging. With the most recent figures available for women diagnosed with breast cancer it is 73.6 per cent, up from 57.5 per cent; for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer, the 10-year survival rate is only 32.2 per cent, up from 29.6 per cent. This represents only a 2.6 per cent improvement since the early 1980s. Between 1991 and 2001, there was a 23 per cent increase in new cases of ovarian cancer being diagnosed; during the same period of time there was a 33 per cent decrease in the number of new cervical cancer cases. Fifty-seven per cent of all deaths from gynaecological cancers are from ovarian cancer and that is up from 52 per cent in 1991. Something needs to be done. There needs to be more research devoted to this cancer, more education. I am pleased that in this budget there is a $5.1 million allocation for the National Centre for Gynaecological Cancers over the next three years. But it can only be a first step though, a down payment, as we will need a much greater effort backed by greater resources into the future. The journey will be long to reduce the mortality rates for ovarian cancer and to develop early detection tests but also to teach women what symptoms to look for. In a survey conducted by the National Breast Cancer Centre, half of all Australian women believed incorrectly that a pap smear would detect ovarian cancer and 56 per cent of women were unable to correctly name any signs or symptoms. Ovarian Cancer Awareness Week ran from 24 February to 2 March. I am grateful for that because, prior to reading the information sent to me for ovarian cancer week, I was one of the 56 per cent of women who are largely ignorant of this disease—even though as a woman I am quite meticulous about my health and I have all the recommended tests on time and keep good medical records. So if I do not know about it, I think it is not surprising that there are so many other women who also do not. Ovarian cancer is often a silent disease in the early stages, which means many women have no symptoms. If symptoms do appear, they are usually vague and may include swelling, discomfort and pain in the abdomen, gastrointestinal symptoms such as heartburn, nausea and bloating, changes in bowel habits such as constipation and diarrhoea, tiredness and appetite loss, unexplained weight loss or weight gain, changes in menstrual pattern or post-menopausal bleeding. These symptoms are of course common to many illnesses and any women experiencing some of these could assign them to a range of different conditions—and most women with these symptoms will not have ovarian cancer. Only tests can confirm the diagnosis. We would do well as a nation to devote more effort and resources into fighting this deadly cancer. 3256 20:00:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I thank the member for Parramatta for presenting her motion on ovarian cancer, calling for greater focus on education and additional research funding for early detection and more effective treatments. Although we still do not know what causes ovarian cancer, what we do know is that approximately 90 per cent of ovarian cancers start on the outer covering of the ovary, and this is known as epithelial ovarian cancer. Although a relatively uncommon disease, it claims the lives of 800 Australian women each year, with 1,200 women being diagnosed each year. The symptoms of ovarian cancer are often unclear and mirror those of other disorders, which of course makes it difficult to diagnose in its early stages. I agree with the member for Parramatta when she calls for better educational support for general practitioners to provide more early detection tests and for women to have an increased awareness and knowledge about gynaecological cancers and symptoms. Therefore, medical research into this cancer must continue and must be adequately funded. The previous coalition government’s history of funding research into ovarian cancer included $3.3 million in 2004 for research delivered by the National Health and Medical Research Council, from which the council released guidelines for the management of women with epithelial ovarian cancer. In 2005-06, the NHMRC provided more than $44 million for research into gynaecological cancers. The Australian ovarian cancer study is also funded by a grant from the NHMRC. In 2005, the AOCS secured funding through to 2011 for ongoing collection of clinical data follow-up, allowing the collection of a minimum five-year clinical follow-up on all cases. In addition, the AOCS also obtained funding to manage and maintain its core facilities through to 2010. In 2007, the former government provided seed funding of $1 million for the establishment of the National Centre for Gynaecological Cancers to combat ovarian cancer. The centre, under the auspices of Cancer Australia, provides education and awareness services relating to ovarian cancer. The National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre is an independent national authority and information source on breast and ovarian cancer, funded by the Australian government to work in partnership with health professionals, cancer organisations and researchers to improve outcomes in breast and ovarian cancer. In September 2001 the federal government established the national Ovarian Cancer Program to improve the health outcomes for women with ovarian cancer. I commend the work of the Ovarian Cancer Program, which covers all aspects of this disease from risk factors, symptoms and diagnosis to the multidisciplinary treatment of women with ovarian cancer, to raise awareness and improve outcomes. I am concerned that the government’s budget allocation for its national cancer plan to support the Centre for Gynaecological Cancers will fall well short of what is required to not only get the awareness message out to Australian women but also adequately fund much needed continued medical research into the disease to improve early detection, tests, treatment and outcomes. The coalition established an ongoing commitment to the national health priority initiative as a collaborative approach to dealing with a range of conditions that account for a high financial and human burden, including cancer, and had an ongoing commitment to fund more radical research. The change expected in the large number of people dropping their private health insurance due to federal Labor increasing the threshold for the Medicare levy will put more strain on the public hospital system. It therefore poses a threat to the health dollar, which may well see more funds having to be poured into the states and territories to prop up their underfunded hospitals. But these are the very funds that should be invested in increasing medical research and education campaigns on important issues such as ovarian cancers. I am concerned that the government will fall short on funding the National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre and limit its ability to deliver educational awareness campaigns as well as early detection markers to provide more effective treatments for this insidious disease. More funding is required for the National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre and this important research must continue. Such investment is necessary to ensure Australia continues to be a world leader in health and medical research. 3257 20:04:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I would like to congratulate the member for Parramatta for bringing this important motion to the parliament. I must put on record my disappointment at the previous member trying to politicise such an important debate, one that all women and all members of this House should be behind. There is no cancer that is as hard or as difficult to detect as ovarian cancer, which affects so many women without the chance of recovery being so great. Some 1,200 women in Australia are diagnosed each year with ovarian cancer, 800 die of it and over 70 per cent—although some figures say 80 per cent—of women diagnosed with the cancer do not live past the five-year mark. Where the cancer has spread, it is very difficult to treat. Because it is so hard to detect, invariably the cancer has already spread. The most common symptoms are abdominal bloating, feeling full, appetite loss, unexplained weight gains, constipation, heartburn, back pain, urinary frequency, fatigue and abdominal or pelvic pain. I recently lost a very dear friend to ovarian cancer. She was diagnosed on 29 September 2003 at Belmont Hospital. She was operated on within a couple of days at John Hunter Hospital. She died on 15 April this year. Her name was Vera Dybell, a wonderful woman and a very brave woman who never complained and fought right to the very end. She had had no symptoms whatsoever. She was a healthy woman and she lived each day actively but she suddenly became ill. She could not stop vomiting. It was only because she struck a very good obstetrician at Belmont Hospital that the ovarian cancer was diagnosed as quickly as it was. Unfortunately, the doctors knew after she had her first operation that it had not been successful. They had removed all the cancer that they could see but they knew some cancer was left behind. So she had three bouts of chemotherapy and she lost her hair on two occasions, yet she stoically stood up and fought her battle against cancer. She then had a blockage of the bowel caused by the ovarian cancer spreading to the bowel. She was operated on, and I think that was probably at Christmas two years ago. She was very sick at that stage but she recovered and came back until very recently, when she had another blockage and, unfortunately, they were unable to treat her. Jeannie Ferris, a former member of the Senate, also died of ovarian cancer. The victims are women who are very aware, know their own bodies, look after themselves and have regular health checks. They are probably women who would never have thought that they would develop ovarian cancer. I know that in Vera’s case her stomach became very swollen. Her husband told me it swelled up like a balloon, which is another one of the signs. Apart from getting very ill very quickly, Vera had no other sign. It is an insidious disease. Women cannot discover they have it through having a pap test. They can discover it only by having a vaginal CT scan. There are blood tests—there is the CA125 blood test, but it on its own is not conclusive. The only conclusive test to prove that a person has ovarian cancer is the taking of a biopsy. I think that shows there is a real need for all members of parliament to get behind this motion to support further research into the cause and treatment of ovarian cancer and to see what we can do to deal with this, the sixth biggest killer of women in Australia as far as cancer is concerned. We do need to deal with it. We need to get in place proper programs and research. (Time expired) 3258 20:09:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —Let me just say that rarely do I agree with the honourable member for Shortland, but I agree with everything that she just said other than her criticism of the honourable member for Forrest. The major point that I want to make is that it is vital for all women, regardless of their age, to make sure that they have regular medical checks for ovarian cancer. It is as simple as that. Ignore regular check-ups at your peril. The member for Shortland highlighted the difficulty of diagnosis of this disease, and I support what she said as far as additional research is concerned because it will hopefully bring forward a simpler test which will enable people to work out whether in fact this disease is present. I also urge the government to consider launching a new advertising and awareness campaign to help educate all women of the specifics of this cancer and to highlight very strongly indeed the need for women to discuss this regularly with their general practitioners. Research is important and we need to find a cost-effective test for the condition. Interestingly enough, today breast cancer is publicly discussed without fear or embarrassment. That was not always the situation, and that openness has saved lives. I spoke in this House some time ago about the need for prostate cancer to also be discussed as openly as we discuss breast cancer, and I believe that is increasingly occurring. Today I repeat the suggestion that lives will be saved if we can have discussion about forms of cancer, including ovarian cancer. It is not something to be hidden; it is something that should come out into the open. If we can talk about it and the need for research into it then there is a higher likelihood that we will discover a test which will easily determine whether women have this insidious condition. The latest figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare show there were 884 deaths from ovarian cancer in 2005. This equates to something like one death every 10 hours from this condition in Australia. The proportion of all cancer deaths attributed to ovarian cancer today is 5.2 per cent, down from 6.1 per cent in 1968, but this figure has remained fairly constant over the last 40 years. This cancer, much like prostate cancer, has the unenviable distinction of most often having no symptoms until it is very much advanced. That is a concern because it can often be present for a considerable period before symptoms manifest themselves clearly, if any do at all. The member for Shortland highlighted this fact quite articulately. Unfortunately, it is common in the majority of cases that, by the time it has been diagnosed, the cancer has already spread to other areas, beginning to grow before the original cancer has even been identified. Ovarian cancer is one of those cancers which women must be particularly vigilant about and aware of and must be proactive in giving themselves every opportunity to catch it very quickly and as soon as possible when and if it appears. It is a sobering and unacceptable fact that more than half of those women diagnosed with ovarian cancer are not diagnosed until the cancer is in the advanced stages, and this fact ensures that the outcomes are not always favourable. Given the absence of noticeable symptoms, coupled with the absence of a standard, cost-effective medical test, the survival rate of those who are diagnosed is often relatively low. Sadly, it is around 35 per cent. Those who are diagnosed at the early stages have a very good prognosis. Nine out of 10 women are cured and go on to live normal lives. Having said that, I add that it really is important to have research to assist with the discovery of this condition at a stage when women can be cured. Sadly, the complexity of the condition and the fact that so many people are not discovered to have the condition until it is too late mean that so many people who suffer a diagnosis of ovarian cancer have a very poor prognosis. I think this is one of the issues that should unite both sides of the parliament. It is not a political issue; it is an issue of health. It is an issue, I think, of allocating community resources to achieve positive outcomes. We need a very simple test that will assist women in knowing whether they are at risk and whether they indeed have ovarian cancer. Money is needed and I ask the government to allocate it. (Time expired) 3259 20:15:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —Firstly, I begin by congratulating the member for Parramatta for bringing this important motion before the House. The motion notes that Ovarian Cancer Awareness Week was held from 24 February to 2 March this year. To raise awareness during that special week, a DVD warning women of the symptoms of ovarian cancer was launched. The DVD featured our former colleague Senator Jeannie Ferris, who recorded her part of the DVD before, very sadly, she died last April after a long fight with ovarian cancer. If this DVD helps to save even one life, then it is certainly a significant addition to Senator Ferris’s legacy. Too many women, though, still die of ovarian cancer, which is often referred to as the silent cancer. Across Australia it is the sixth most common cause of cancer death in women. In the Hunter-New England region, which includes my electorate of Newcastle, the latest available figures show that 259 women were diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 2000 and 2004. In that same period, 171 women died of ovarian cancer—66 per cent of those diagnosed. The reason for that, as we know, is that women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer far too late. Regrettably, seven out of 10 women are diagnosed when the cancer is advanced and very difficult to treat. One of the reasons why we diagnose it too late is that, as my colleague the member for Parramatta mentioned, many women simply do not know the symptoms. A recent study found that more than half of women cannot correctly name any symptom of the disease. We need to turn that around. The good news, though, is that through early detection about 90 per cent can survive and be assisted, as the member for Fisher mentioned. We need to make sure that women know what the symptoms of ovarian cancer are so that they have access to early treatment. That is why, I think, we all stand here today: to encourage women to be aware of this risk to their health. To do that, in Newcastle there is the annual Relay for Life, which raises both awareness of and funds for cancer. I have been privileged to walk in that relay several times alongside my very good friend and ovarian cancer survivor Victoria Phillis. I have also been proud to see the wonderful work of another good friend, Barbara Whitcher, who leads the Newcastle Relay for Life committee in organising that event each year. Last year, the relay was in November, smack in the middle of the election campaign—but what a wonderful reminder of why we put ourselves forward and who we are serving. To walk with cancer survivors and their families was a very special reminder that we do this job to serve the people who need it most. In all of our electorates we share that responsibility. We are in a position to raise these issues here in the House, as we are doing tonight, and to push for the direction of even more government resources towards these important issues. That is the bipartisan spirit that needs to be brought to this debate. I am pleased to share with the House the news that recently the collaborative study between Hunter Medical Research Institute scientists in my electorate of Newcastle and their colleagues in Germany and Poland has identified four genes which were associated with a woman’s likelihood of developing breast or ovarian cancer. I also note earlier research at HMRI, generously funded by Newcastle’s Greater Building Society, that was successful in using a common cold virus to attack ovarian cancer cells in the test tube and in mice. I am pleased that this research is happening—and, of course, particularly proud that it is happening in my electorate of Newcastle. It is the kind of research we need to keep supporting if we are to make the advances needed in the prevention and treatment of ovarian cancer. That is the way to avoid so many deaths. In my electorate of Newcastle cancer funding was given a big boost of an additional $1.5 million to upgrade PET scanning facilities. There are not many PET scanners in the country, but they are a vital technology in the detection of cancer—early detection and making sure you have got it right—and in judging the stages of cancer so that the right treatments can be utilised. It is important that all of us support the advance of cancer research and treatment and always champion raising awareness for the people we serve. I thank the member Parramatta, I congratulate the member for Fisher and commend the member for Shortland for contributing to this very important debate. I commend this private member’s motion to the House. 3260 20:20:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —It is with great pleasure that I rise to support this motion in relation to ovarian cancer, and I commend the member for Parramatta for the motion. I wish to begin by remembering a friend of mine from secondary school. Her name was Mandy Mitchell. She was a beautiful, lively, vivacious young woman who had her whole life ahead of her. Not long after leaving secondary school she was struck down by ovarian cancer, and her life was lost at a very early age, within a few short years of leaving school. She was a wonderful woman and she was full of the joy of existence until her final day. That is why this, in particular, is a very important issue for me. I want to deal with the issue of ovarian cancer in three short stages—the facts, the challenge of responding to it and the steps forward that we can take. The facts are quite confronting. We know that about 1,200 Australian women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year. About 800 Australian women die of ovarian cancer each year. In many situations ovarian cancer is known as the ‘silent killer’, because its symptoms are vague and can be attributed to other conditions, and we might not assume they are associated with such a sinister and dangerous condition. Symptoms can include abdominal bloating, back pain, appetite loss, changes in toileting habits, unexplained weight gain or loss, indigestion or heartburn, and fatigue, all and any of which could be assumed to be other, much milder, less dangerous conditions. Against that background, ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer diagnosed in Australian women. It is the sixth most common cause of cancer death in Australian women. It is something which takes mothers and daughters and sisters and wives from those within our midst. Against that set of facts, one of the great challenges we have in relation to ovarian cancer is that a very high number of Australian women, one in five, cannot name a single symptom. That is not a point of criticism; it is a point of deep concern. Over 60 per cent of Australian women believe a pap test, which is designed to detect cervical cancer, will detect ovarian cancer. I am advised there is currently no effective method of screening women for the early signs of ovarian cancer. However, the outlook is good for those women in whom the disease is caught early. However, three-quarters of women—and this is critical—are diagnosed at an advanced stage when it is difficult to treat. This brings me to the question of how we proceed. The most important issue here is research. Where possible, education for women is needed to assist them in the search for and early diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Research is critical for providing the knowledge and the education to give people the best chance of catching this condition at the earliest possible stage. The National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre was established in 1995, and I am pleased that in 1999 the previous government provided funding to expand the centre’s work to include ovarian cancer. It was an important step forward. It was not the end of the road; in many ways it was the beginning of a long and important journey, which will help Australia’s women and young girls. The centre works with many people to improve outcomes for women affected by these cancers. Importantly, the report of a Senate inquiry into gynaecological cancers tabled in February last year identified a need for increased awareness of the symptoms and better education for general practitioners. General practitioners do a great job, but the more education we have for women and general practitioners the better. For males, being aware of the symptoms and in a position to tell partners to take note of them and to seek the best advice possible means we have an extremely important role. Ultimately, the role of research and education for the awareness of both women and men is critical. I commend the motion and I remember my friend Mandy Mitchell. 10000 Vale, Danna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DS Vale)—The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 41. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 3261 Grievance Debate Question proposed: That grievances be noted. 3261 3261 20:25:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —My congratulations to my friend and colleague the member for Flinders and others who have just spoken on the very important area of ovarian cancer. It is an interesting segue into what I would like to grieve about tonight on behalf of my local community which is to do with health services in the greater Frankston and Mornington Peninsula area. We, as a community, have much pride in and much support for our hospital and health services on the peninsula. Just a week and a half ago there was a wonderful tribute to the many hundreds of volunteers who work in partnership with our health and hospital services to ensure that they support the needs of our community. It was an honour to be there and to see so many committed people giving selflessly of their time. I only wish that level of selflessness and commitment which volunteers display to our health and hospital system was matched by support from state government. I stand here tonight having shaken my head on reading the Herald Sun report of the findings from the state government’s health system assessment. It gives an account of how our hospital system is travelling in Victoria. In the Herald Sun of 14 May, Grant McArthur wrote the headline ‘Patients needing treatment being forced to wait longer’. If that is not enough concern for Victorians in general, the more troubling feature of that article was the very clear message it conveyed about Frankston Hospital. I am a great admirer of Frankston Hospital and the very many dedicated professionals at work in that facility and within the Peninsula Health service generally. The thing that is letting them down though is the lack of resources and this is borne out very clearly in this state government report, which interestingly the journalist pointed out was let loose just at the same time all the news of the federal budget was being circulated. I know even at a local level, people reported on how interesting it was that the timing of that report coincided with the budget news. Frankston Hospital was featured in the Herald Sun. The article said: Frankston hospital patients suffered most: two out of five category two and three emergency cases endured prolonged waits. The article went on to talk about extended waiting times for elective surgery. This was a theme that was picked up in the local papers as well with a very succinct and crisp article from Mike Morris describing our hospital as being on the critical list. He went through the Victorian government’s Your hospitals report—July 2007 to December 2007 and highlighted the increasing number of people waiting for elective surgery and the impact of high levels of demand on an underresourced emergency department at the Frankston Hospital. The issues are quite compelling; they have been with us some time. For those that are not familiar with the greater Frankston and Mornington Peninsula area we can only head largely in a northerly direction, so whereas other communities in the greater Melbourne metropolitan area might have other alternatives we are a peninsula and much of our region is surrounded by the bays and Bass Strait. So we do not have too many other options, we have to go towards the north and the north east to secure the services that we want. It is an area of growing population. This is reflected in the number of people seeking assistance through our hospital facilities. It is reflected in the decision to open an accident and emergency facility in my friend and colleague the member for Flinders electorate at Rosebud. The growth there is about 15 per cent a year, I understand, on top of the enormous growth through Frankston as a regional centre providing for the health needs of hundreds of thousands of Victorians. The thing that is most troubling is that despite those known demands on the hospital, increasing demands, increasing patient throughput, and an increasing number of people waiting for elective surgeries, the Rudd government is actually adding to those current challenges that stretch the very committed and talented doctors, nurses and health administrators with even more challenges. Increasingly, privately insured patients are seen as attractive to public hospitals, as a way of bringing more resources into those hospitals. Notwithstanding the fact it displaces a public patient on a waiting list, it is a drive to bring in those additional private health insurance resources. We have seen that private health insurance framework being undermined by the Rudd government with its decision on the Medicare levy surcharge for people who are in a position to consider private health. The reduction in the number of people in private health will have price impacts on those who remain in it. And, more particularly, it will simply displace demand out of the private health system onto the already stretched public hospital system. The Howard government recognised that a strong health system in Australia needed a good balance between public and private health and the early signs of the Rudd government in undermining that balance and putting ever-increasing demands on the public hospital system are very troubling. My local community is troubled by the outer metropolitan doctors initiatives. Increasingly, medical practice representatives are coming to me and saying, ‘Bruce, when your crowd was in government we could make our case for a desire to bring a doctor to our area to cope with the growing demands.’ Now, with some chagrin, they are pointing out that this is becoming increasingly difficult and they are not at all optimistic that the gains we made in doctor-to-patient ratios under those Howard government initiatives will continue into the future. The Howard government also put funding into the after-hours GP medicentre that operates in collaboration with the accident and emergency area, again, trying to relieve the pressure on that accident and emergency area. We are uncertain about what will happen with those incentives that have seen bulk-billing numbers increase. Thankfully, the MRI technology, with Medicare funded treatment on referral from a specialist—another initiative of the Howard government—is helping quite significantly. We have seen the private health industry supplement our resources with outstanding facilities, such as the Bays Hospital, the Beleura Private Hospital, the Peninsula Private and, more recently, Frankston Private Hospital offering an outstanding range of oncology services. The member for Flinders has previously outlined how the state government’s inability, along with the Rudd government’s inability, to address the closure of Warley Hospital on Phillip Island will put an even greater strain on those health resources. These are troubling times. We have increasing demand; all the statistics show that. I have been impressed by the way the Frankston Hospital team have adapted to demanding challenges. Just recently I was briefed on the way in which the triage system in the accident and emergency area is providing a more constant and regular level of clinical observation so that the assessments on clinical need and priority can be updated by an experienced professional in the waiting room, observing the health status of people who are there. Many people in my community remember back to August 2006 when, in the face of these extra challenges, a photo of the state health minister, Bronwyn Pike, appeared in our local papers, in which she was claiming great credit for expanding the waiting rooms. That is fine and it is nice that there is more comfort in the waiting room, but the issue is getting people through so that they get the medical treatment that they deserve. These challenges amount to the perfect storm of health challenges for our community—growing demand, and government policy at a state and federal level not recognising that these actions individually may not seem much but they are coming together to place even greater demand on the health system and services in our region. I looked to the state Labor members of parliament to do something, to say something but, as so often is the case, particularly with the member for Frankston, who presents himself as the Labor state member for Frankston, never a truer word has been said. He is certainly not there representing Frankston; he is certainly there representing the Labor Party. He needs to find his voice. We have this perfect storm coming and Dr Alistair Harkness represents the silence before the storm. He really needs to be heard so that we can attract some of these additional resources to our community. It is too important just to sit back and do bits and pieces, such as extend the waiting room, and to get encouraging news in the recent state government budget about extra paramedic support and ambulance support. All of that is terrific, but those critical health professionals need to have a destination where they can provide for the health care of the people whom they are sent out to collect. This is really the challenge that we face. The Howard government, before the last election, had some terrific ideas about health. I thought the local management of hospitals was an exceptionally good one for our case. Our health services needed a very strong voice. Our local hospitals needed to be able to make the case on behalf of our hospital and demand the resources that are needed to respond to the increasing challenges and demands being placed on it, not be sort of cajoled, squashed and turned into a licorice allsort through some Spring Street bureaucracy who might have some idea of what they would like to see happen but are not sufficiently moved and motivated by what actually is happening. We need some help in our community to support those outstanding doctors, nurses, health professionals and health administrators who, I think, are having a really red-hot go, making the best of the resources that are available to them. The key is that there are not enough resources. Our population continues to grow, the demands on our hospitals continue to grow and the Rudd government is implementing policies that will make that demand so much more critical and demanding. (Time expired) 3264 3264 20:35:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 0 Ms JACKSON —I rise tonight to talk about the development of a brickworks on Perth airport land. It is interesting because this is probably an issue on which I and the former Liberal member for Hasluck, Stuart Henry, had many views in common. A decision was made by the former Howard government in August 2006 to approve the development of a brickworks on Perth airport land. At the outset I want to indicate and reiterate my complete opposition to the establishment of the brickworks on Perth airport land adjacent, as it is, to substantial residential areas in my electorate. I believe that the decision to approve the development by the coalition government was wrong and, more, that the conditions the coalition government placed on the approval were inadequate. It was an example, if you like, of just how out of touch with the electors of Hasluck the Howard government actually were. The brickworks were strenuously opposed by the state government, by local government authorities near and surrounding the Perth airport and, more particularly, by local residents. Indeed, other than the proponents of the airport and Westralia Airports Corporation, the proponents being BGC, it was difficult to find anybody in the state of Western Australia who supported the establishment of such an industry on Perth airport land. I rise here today because I have had the opportunity since the election to meet with the Hon. Anthony Albanese, the now Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, regarding development issues at Perth airport and I look forward to working closely with him in the future. But I will say for the purposes of today’s grievance that I do support a further investigation of the process leading to the former coalition government’s approval of this particular development, especially as the brickworks were so obviously contrary to the public interest. Since the election, I have had the opportunity to consult with a number of stakeholders, including community groups who were opposed to the original proposal for the brickworks, the relevant local government authorities, Westralia Airports Corporation and BGC. This consultation was about the brickworks development at Perth airport generally, reflecting many of the concerns raised with me as the local member and including, amongst those issues, the role of the BGC consultative committee. I can say that I have met with the chairperson and an ordinary member of the committee on occasions prior to the 2007 federal election and the chairperson has broadly explained the role of the committee to me and the constraints under which they work. And of course I have been able to assist that committee previously or prior to the election to arrange meetings with the state government on a number of issues of concern—two in particular: the increased heavy vehicle traffic associated with the brickworks development on Kalamunda Road and the adequacy of ambient air quality monitoring proposals for the brickworks emissions. I might say there are a number of road issues, not least of which is the question of safety for other users of the road and for local residents. It is clear that inadequate thought and planning was put into the question of how vehicles would exit and enter the brickworks off such a heavily used road as Kalamunda Road. Whilst I am concerned that we have to constantly try to retrospectively fix issues that, frankly, if a proper planning process had been observed when the brickworks development was first proposed would not have become issues, we do now need to look at ways of retrospectively fixing the problems of the damage and the lack of safety on Kalamunda Road. However, I want to make it clear that I do not think it is appropriate to use, and I would oppose any use of, Western Australian taxpayers’ money in having to find a solution to the problem. It seems to me that that is an issue for the proponents of the brickworks and for the Westralia Airports Corporation itself. It is also very sad to me that just down the road from the brickworks entry is a new lifestyle village which is the chosen retirement home for many local residents in High Wycombe. I am very much concerned about the impact that the brickworks is having on their lives and the amenity of their retirement village. The issue of ambient air quality is critical. The toxic emissions associated with brickworks are well known, and in the Swan Valley we have four or five brickworks which are now the subject of a fairly strenuous monitoring process by the Western Australian government and attempts to ensure that that industry cleans itself up. I particularly congratulate Midland Brick, one of my local brick manufacturers, for the steps they have taken in recent months and years to better consult and involve the community in the monitoring of their brickworks. Indeed, I raised this issue with BGC when I met with them, and I am pleased that they have now reached an agreement with the Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation to deal with ambient air quality monitoring around the new brickworks on Perth airport land. What I am yet to discover and what I look forward to is being able to reassure local parents that they can be confident that their children are safe. I want to be able to reassure my constituents with respiratory ailments that they are also safe. I referred to the BGC Brickworks Community Consultative Committee. It was established in December 2006 following the decision of the Howard government to approve the establishment of the brickworks and largely as a result of the attempt by the former member for Hasluck to salvage something for a bitterly disappointed constituency of Hasluck out of this appalling decision. It has no legal standing or authority, and it was not part of the conditions of approval laid down by the former Howard government. Whilst I support an ongoing role for the BGC Brickworks Community Consultative Committee, there are some aspects of its operations that I believe could be improved to assist it to do a more appropriate job in keeping the community informed and advised of developments associated with the brickworks, as well as many of the local authorities and other community associations directly concerned and interested in the outcomes of the development. I have to say that there remains considerable community disquiet about the lack of regular ongoing information on the development and the progress, if any, towards resolving some of the community’s outstanding concerns for their safety and for their environment arising from the development. I have raised this issue with the minister as well as with the brickworks proponents. I reiterate that I do not believe these concerns were adequately addressed in the conditions of approval for the brickworks—for example, the loss of vegetation and the impact on local flora and fauna. I have only recently received correspondence from the Nature Reserves Preservation Group of Kalamunda, concerned about the potential for the spread of dieback as a result of some of the traffic movements in and out of the brickworks site, a site that was completely free of dieback disease prior to the commencement of construction. It is one of the reasons why, as a candidate, I called upon the then government to look at ways in which we could better ensure that residents had a genuine, strong voice in the issue of airport development and why, in particular, I campaigned on the need not only to improve the community consultation requirements under the Airports Act but also to ensure that the community had an avenue to voice their concerns when they believed that something was amiss—that they had an independent authority with whom they could lodge those complaints. I reiterate my call today for the creation of an airport development ombudsman with the power to investigate residents’ concerns fairly and impartially, because I want the residents of Hasluck to have a genuinely strong voice in developments in their area. I will say in closing that I am pleased at the recent efforts of the Westralian Airports Corporation to begin to address a number of concerns with Perth airport and its development—long overdue, as any of you who have recently visited Perth would know. I also share the concerns with the BGC consultative committee about the expertise and ability of the department in monitoring compliance with the conditions of approval, inadequate as they are, and regulating the brickworks into the future. It is not good enough for us to trust that everything is being looked after. As I indicated to the minister, these issues are important to my constituents and I will continue to pursue them in my capacity as their local member. 3266 3266 20:45:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 0 0 Mr SECKER —I rise today to raise an issue which is very important in the electorate of Barker, which I have the honour to represent. Many people across this nation of ours but especially those in the electorate of Barker are affected by the flow-on effect of drought and water shortages to small businesses, most particularly in the Riverland and Murraylands regions. Drought is something we cannot control, yet its devastating economic effects are felt more and more each day. To put it into perspective, my electorate of Barker, covering 64,000 square kilometres, is 10 per cent larger than Tasmania. One hundred per cent of Barker is either in drought or not far off it. So in my electorate alone an area larger than Tasmania is struggling due to drought. While heavy rains last year heralded the end of the drought in much of the eastern states, South Australia remains in the grip of one of the worst droughts on record. The Riverland and Murraylands areas of my electorate are facing an unprecedented economic crisis as the lack of water in the River Murray system leads to a dramatic contraction in business. While drought directly affects farmers, it also has a flow-on effect to the businesses that rely on servicing farmers. Shop owners across the Riverland tell me that their towns are feeling the impact of the downturn in the irrigation industries. At least 19 shops in Renmark alone have shut since last June or are expected to close by the end of this year. Operators say businesses in Berri, Barmera, Loxton and Waikerie also have closed or are closing. Takings at the Renmark Country Club and the Renmark Hotel Motel, for example, have plummeted by 30 per cent. The hardware chain of stores in Berri, Barmera, Renmark and Loxton report business downturn of 10 per cent and in many cases much more. A major tractor and implements sales dealer estimates his sales to be down by up to 40 per cent on the same time last year and even last year was down on the previous years. So we are really seeing a contraction in the local area. Even the local newsagency reports the impact as quite severe. In short, the crisis in the Riverland’s once-mighty irrigation industries and small businesses is taking a horrific toll. More and more Riverland families are struggling to put food on the table as spending tightens. Many growers have their properties on the market, but there are few, if any, buyers, which is very understandable. Throughout the Riverland, a growing number of workers have also been made redundant. Employment has declined dramatically, welfare problems are rapidly worsening and a greater number of people are forced to seek work outside the region. Conditions in the Riverland are now worse than they were during the recession we had to have in the early 1990s. Increasing numbers of schoolchildren are on the school card, with the Renmark High principal estimating a 20 per cent increase in applications for assistance this year. The economic downturn is very tough in the Riverland and the Murraylands and it is even tougher around the Lower Lakes area around Meningie, Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert. But, although the crisis is hitting the region hard, worse is yet to come as irrigators were told just last week that they will not get more water this year from the River Murray system and in fact they will be starting with zero allocations. Many growers have survived the past year—just—by borrowing and using their superannuation and life savings, but, with their reserves exhausted, they face a very difficult and bleak future. Even the wine growers are being squeezed—and I beg them to excuse this terrible pun. As I move through my electorate, I talk to a lot of growers who are at the end of their tether. Bankers will no longer finance many growers to buy water this year, and this will lead to people walking away from their properties—the sorts of things that we saw in the Great Depression. Many growers are telling me they are considering whether they can actually continue this next season. It might have rained heavily in the catchment areas in parts of the eastern states, but the drought has not gone away in my electorate. The continuation of the drought is having a devastating impact in the Riverland and Murraylands and it is all too obvious that the region will struggle to survive until the River Murray system recovers and produces normal irrigation allocations. As the drought sends small businesses to the wall, there is a corresponding increase in the number of people accessing counselling and mental health services. Families have to deal with the increasing stress of family members who are suffering depression but whose economic circumstances mean they have difficulty in affording mental health care and medications. It was the coalition government which introduced drought assistance measures, but it remains the fact that the Rann state Labor government must do more to secure the future of the Riverland and Murraylands areas. Current South Australian state government measures are inadequate. Basically, they form a committee, write a report and tell us all our problems—as if we did not know. We are seeing a loss of skilled workers, social upheaval and environmental degradation, which always happens when you do not have the resources to spend on improving the environment. Unfortunately, the Rudd Labor government’s first budget did not offer any hope for rural and regional South Australians, slashing over $1 billion in funding to rural and regional projects. The Prime Minister has to understand that the world does not end in the eastern states. As a local member in the Riverland, I am heartened by the ingenuity and determination of Riverland residents in the face of this horrible adversity. Recently a group of Riverland businesses and community groups banded together with the intention of creating a Riverland arts trail. Similar to the Riverland Wine and Food Trail, the arts trail aims to bring the work of local artists to the attention of both locals and tourists alike. The concept of tourists coming into the area in pursuit of art and staying the weekend has merit and potential. Regrettably, the Prime Minister does not share this vision, with Labor’s budget slashing funding to Regional Arts Australia and imposing taxes on the tourism industry and tourists, which will keep them away. Nor did Labor’s budget show any sign of the $1.5 billion structural adjustment package set aside by the coalition government as part of John Howard’s $10 billion plan. That was set aside to help rural communities recover from the loss of productive capacity because of water entitlement cutbacks. Irrigation is a huge economic driver in the Riverland and Murraylands—as the member for Braddon would know. He visited the Riverland as part of the agricultural standing committee inquiring into water resources and he would realise, if he went there again, how things have changed quite drastically. There are many businesses reliant on the irrigation industry and, as the drought has demonstrated, without water these businesses are doing it very tough indeed. Minister Wong cannot ignore the worsening economic impact that the buying of $3.1 billion worth of water entitlements will have on small businesses along the river. These communities really need to survive. If the water is bought, taken away and not replaced with better infrastructure and improvements so that we get better use of the available water, you will see rural communities die. I do not think any government should feel proud of that. Minister Wong makes much of the allocation of $953 million over the next two years to fund irrigation infrastructure projects, but the reality is that small businesses in the Riverland and the Murraylands do not have two years. They do not have the five years or so that it will take for the benefits of infrastructure spending to come their way as increased water flows. They cannot wait that long. As the member for Barker, honoured to represent the Riverland and the Murraylands, I fear for the plight of small businesses and working families so integrally dependent on the Murray-Darling system. I bring the plight of small businesses in the Riverland and the Murraylands desperately suffering the economic impacts of drought and reduced water flows to the attention of this House. 3269 3269 20:55:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I sympathise with the member for Barker. Indeed, I did visit his electorate a number of years ago and I know he cares very deeply about his community. Tonight I want to talk about our future—our young people. My attention was recently drawn to Mission Australia’s 2007 annual survey of young people entitled In their own words: insights into the concerns of young Australians. While some of the findings are shocking and all are bound to make some of us worry about the future, I am happy to report that in my own electorate of Braddon talented people and groups are doing their bit to help address these issues. This is something I am sure you will find is happening across Australia, and it gives us some hope that together we can ensure a better future for those young people and for future generations. It might surprise members to learn that the No. 1 concern of young people aged between 11 and 24 was not drugs, alcohol or crime but body image. Body image is a concern to 32.3 per cent of the young people surveyed last year by Mission Australia. This was no small sample from just a tiny slice of one of our major cities. The survey involved almost 29,000 young people from communities across Australia, with direct comments from 700 young people. It may be a reflection of modern society, and I am sure that some will be quick to point the finger at certain sections of the media, but surely we all have a role to play when one in three young people is unhappy with their own body. The media certainly has its role to play, but any positive change will only happen with grassroots pressure to alter what has become the norm. It is edifying to read some of the comments of young people on body image. It is pretty scary, actually. One group working to tackle the issue of body image in my electorate of Braddon is Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, part of the state government’s Department of Health and Human Services, and in particular social worker Katrina Alford, working out of their Burnie office. Katrina has herself developed the Goddess program, which is about to enter its second year and made a positive impact on half-a-dozen young lives last year. That might not sound a lot, but it is half-a-dozen young people who now have a positive image of themselves. Goddess is a group program which targets young women aged between 13 and 17 who have been identified as having body image issues or low self-esteem. Katrina says that definite results were hard to quantify, but each of the participants in the trial showed better results on a body shape questionnaire at the end of their time with the group. She says that, given the small communities in the region, young people are often reluctant to participate in groups like Goddess. This means that the wider community needs to do more to help address this serious problem. Katrina Alford says that the influence of the media is becoming more pervasive and that we must start earlier and earlier to pass on positive messages to young people about body image. She says that young people—even the very young—need to become more media literate and more critical of what they see. They need to be able to critically evaluate the messages in what they see, which can then help them to become less susceptible to the consequences of poor body image such as eating disorders. She says research is also starting to show that broad-based intervention, particularly at school level, can do its part to help. This includes programs promoting healthy eating and lifestyles. Katrina Alford says that if these types of messages can be incorporated into classes, even at a primary school level, they can help to establish a strong base for the future. Another crucial part of helping young people cope and develop a strong and positive body image is family support and encouragement. This starts with giving young children positive messages and examples. Family support is also vital for young people who are at risk of, or are experiencing problems with, eating disorders and low self-esteem. Ultimately, it is a community responsibility and we all must play our part in making it a better environment for our young people. But body image was not the only topic playing on the minds of the young people of our nation. Second on the list of concerns was family conflict. Every child deserves to have a family where they can feel safe, secure and loved, but almost 30 per cent of young people responding to the Mission Australia survey were worried about family conflict. One young lady told the survey, ‘When the closest relationships to us are unhealthy, everything else is set off balance.’ Another, much younger and on a more sombre note, said that family conflict could lead to self-harm or even suicide. With an estimated 1.3 million Australian children aged from zero to 17 living in one-parent, step or blended families, dealing with conflict is always going to be an issue. Again, the people of Braddon are responding and doing everything possible to help keep families together and happy or, for those that are apart, to remain in positive contact. Centacare plays many roles in the community but family counselling and mediation is an important one in Tasmania’s north-west. Just recently I met with Centacare team leader Cassandra Dowling and some of her staff and colleagues from other groups as they were on hand to help people with questions surrounding the changes to the child support system in Australia. While dealing with families as a whole is an important part of their day-to-day work, they have seven fully trained child consultants dealing with family separation issues alone. School is one of the areas that often suffer when families are in conflict, and this has led to a joint project between Tasmania’s education and youth justice departments. The pilot deals with young men who have missed more than 100 days at school. That is a high criterion, isn’t it—100 days off school? The group, aged about the 14-year-old mark, have been working together for about two months and are seeing a number of positives already. Another Centacare program is quite aptly known as CHILD, the Children and Homelessness, Intervention and Learning Development program. It involves working through crisis accommodation providers to help overcome the traumas around homelessness. The focus is on the children and can be as simple as encouraging a parent or parents to play with their children even though a regular home structure is not available at the time—to have a play, to have some contact, to have a relationship where you might laugh together and share something as simple but as important as play. To me, these are great examples of a community doing its bit to deal with family conflict and its consequences, but let us not miss the opportunity to do more. Another major concern to our young people identified in the youth survey, and one that rocks the soul of our nation, is suicide. It is ranked as the fifth biggest concern to the young people surveyed and comes alongside the shocking statistic that, in 2004, 272 young Australians aged between 12 and 24 committed suicide. Responses to the survey were deeply personal and highlighted the significant level of concern some young people have regarding these issues. Many of you would be all too aware that suicide is a major problem in rural areas like my own of Braddon, and it is great to see a community response in an attempt to deal with it. I speak of the Community Response to Eliminate Suicide, or CORES, program which has been developed by the Kentish Regional Clinic, which falls in my colleague the member for Lyon’s electorate but is also being delivered in other communities in my electorate of Braddon. While not specifically targeting young people, I believe CORES’s attempts to prevent and intervene from a community level are one way we can respond to the problem of suicide and I would like to recognise their work. CORES educates members of the local community on how to intervene when somebody in the community is suicidal. It then equips them to act as trainers and to pass on the vital skills to others. Through this approach, the community becomes responsible for its own training and networks and is able to help itself. While I am sure there are many other very worthy approaches to tackling issues like suicide, I feel that a grassroots approach such as this must be of great value. This has already been recognised in awards for CORES at both national and state levels. There was also recognition on ABC television’s Landline program in 2006. In the time still available to me I would like to share with you the Mission Australia table of issues affecting young people. The table is headed ‘Issues of concern to young people, 2007’. They range from body image, at about 32 per cent, through to sexuality, at about nine per cent. The table includes family conflict, about 29 per cent, and then lists these: coping with stress, school or study problems, suicide, the environment, bullying/emotional abuse, physical and sexual abuse, alcohol, drugs, depression, self-harm, discrimination and, as I said earlier, sexuality. 3271 3271 21:06:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —I rise tonight to pay tribute to a wonderful Australian woman, Annie Donaldson. She was diagnosed with a rare blood cancer—a death sentence for a lot of people—about 15 or more years ago but Annie has fought that disease. In particular, over the years she has not simply gone into remission; she has worked out how to deal with the disease on a personal level and in a way that she hopes has kept her—as a mother, as a daughter and as a sister—just as supportive as she has always been. But Annie has not been content simply to deal with her disease on a personal level. She has set about raising funds for the whole business of cancer research, particularly stem cell research. She has been most concerned about the fact that people from rural areas, as Annie is, have great difficulties with accommodation when they go for long stints to metropolitan hospitals. Annie has a very particular skill with art and craft. She makes the most superb porcelain dolls. She dresses them and makes their hair. These are real works of art. Annie has made doll after doll for raffle after raffle to raise money to help not her personally but those coming after her who have this dreaded disease. Annie was one of the founding members of Relay for Life in Shepparton. The Relay for Life, as we all know, is a major fundraising activity for state and territory cancer councils. It remembers those who have been lost to cancer and the carers who have been left, those who tried to ease the days when their loved ones were alive. Every year I have been the patron of the Relay for Life and I have walked with Annie in the opening ceremony, and we have raised the biggest number of dollars for every Relay for Life held in Victoria year after year. This year Annie is not likely to be with us, but I know that she will be with us in spirit and I know that she has served as an icon for both the sufferers of cancer and their carers. As she has strode out with her short hair with its radiation curls, with a smile on her face and wearing her sash, she has been a living embodiment of the spirit of struggle. I have to say that Annie has for so many of us been a person larger than life. I am sorry; I need a moment. 849 Sidebottom, Sid, MP Mr Sidebottom —We understand. Keep going. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr STONE —She is a young woman just in her 50s and she has come home to palliative care. Perhaps she has only weeks to live but her whole thinking and concerns are about the justice that needs to be found more and more in our world and about what she can still do in her last few weeks. She is concerned about and interested in rural and regional issues such as the drought and the lack of rain and she is trying to think what we might do for our farmers who are in great distress. I just want to make sure that Annie understands that I—on behalf of her family and the Mooroopna community, and she is a proud woman of Mooroopna—have put her life on the record of the parliament of Australia so that for literally generations to come people can read about the life of Annie and understand that she did not simply live and then die of cancer, that she actually lived a fantastic life of caring, of volunteering and of using her skills to help others. Annie had and still has an extraordinary love of life and love for others. When she comes in, her smile lights up the room. When she lost her hair during each of her treatments she laughed—and then, when it grew back, she donated herself to Shave for a Cure, shaved it all off again and raised money for cancer. She joked about having purple hair and then she decided to write a little pamphlet for other women who were losing their hair to tell them what to expect, not to worry, and that they would feel the tingling and the loss of hair during one stage. Her advice was: shave it all off, get it over quickly and get on with it. She is that sort of woman. I want to pay a special tribute to Annie tonight—to remember her husband, Allan, her son, her daughter and the joy of her grandson, and to say to her that she is a great Australian woman. I wish that there were more like Annie. She might only have lived a short time compared to many others but she has lived a very full life. She is one of those people who are perhaps born carers. As a trained nurse, she has spent much time in hospitals looking after others who have terrible afflictions and diseases. Now Annie is going to receive very loving palliative care in our community, knowing that a lot of the fundraising she did has gone into the services that will finally help her too. I pay my loving regards to Annie Donaldson. May this record in parliament serve as a real tribute to her and to others like her who struggle with cancer. And let me say, Annie, that we love you very dearly. You are a great Australian woman, a Mooroopna woman, a great Liberal and you will be sadly missed. 3272 3272 21:11:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I support the words of the previous speaker. I know how she feels because I recently lost a very dear friend under similar circumstances. In April I went to the IPU conference in South Africa. Whilst I was there, I went with UNICEF to visit one of the programs they run in that country. Before I talk about the program, I would like to give some background, some of the facts and figures in South Africa. HIV is one of the things that are having an enormous impact in South Africa. In South Africa currently, three million women and 300,000 pregnant women are HIV positive. Each year 32,000 children and 400,000 adults die from HIV-AIDS. There are 500,000 new infections each year. Three-hundred thousand people are on treatment, and that figure should be 1½ million people. By ‘on treatment’ I mean receiving retroviral treatment that has actually turned people’s lives around, given them hope and prolonged their life indefinitely. There are a number of things that people can do to prevent HIV, but the message is not getting through in South Africa. It needs not a one-dimensional approach but a multidimensional approach. Issues like gender, the economy and economic circumstances, the political situation and political opinions, work, social situations within the country, welfare and social justice all impinge on HIV infection and treatment. Real solutions are needed for the problems of South Africa, but those real solutions can only come from South Africa itself. AIDS is spread to children through infected mothers. Each day in South Africa 500 children become orphans as a result of HIV-AIDS. South Africa has the greatest number of orphans on earth. You have to ask: how does a nation cope with so many orphans? I am going to share with you tonight one way in which it has been coping, a way that gives some hope for the future. In doing so, I would like to pay tribute to the work of UNICEF. I also noted earlier tonight from my emails that UNICEF are working in Burma, and they are asking for some support there. After seeing their program and what they are doing in South Africa, I encourage everybody to get behind UNICEF and do anything they can to help. The program that I visited was called Isibindi, which is Zulu for courage. It is about creating circles of care. The childcare workers from the community work with orphans. They teach them about budgeting and help them remember their parents by putting together memory boxes. It is a very flexible approach. The childcare workers support the children to enable them to remain in the community in children-led households. Rather than the children being sent off to an orphanage, they are able to stay in the community, and the community supports them to live. The children are encouraged to go to school. The program builds community capacity; it is a social franchising model. We visited two families in the community. The first was a family of three children—or should I say four, because the older girl had had a child. They were living in a little out-shed, a tin lean-to, behind the main house. The two younger children, a boy and a girl, both attended school. When their parents died, they lived with their aunt and she received child endowment or child welfare payments for caring for the children. But she threw them out, and the welfare workers believe that she kept the payments. These four children were living on 200 rand a month; seven rand equals $1. The level of poverty suffered by that family and the struggle that they went through were enormous. They cannot access the welfare payments that the aunt is receiving, because she has their birth certificates. These payments can only be accessed if you have a birth certificate. But there is good news in this story because the children are together. There is also good news in this story because the community has got behind them and the childcare workers are helping them each and every day to get their life back on track. The memory box contains photos of their mother and father and a few little mementos that link them to their family. It is pretty sad when kids have lost absolutely everything and their only connection to their past is in these boxes. The boxes, which are so important to the children, are developed within the communities. The youngest of these children, the little baby, is nine months old. The second family we visited was very different. Isibindi, the program that was running in this community, prevented the young child of this family from becoming an orphan. The mother, Dora, had full-blown AIDS and a virulent strain of tuberculosis. She had been hospitalised and was dying. Because she was so sick, she was ignored by her neighbours. She had absolutely no support. She would talk to people but they did not want to support her. She was in hospital for six months. She told us that there was a particular room in the hospital where people were taken to die. The hospital workers would say to her, ‘You’re going there soon; it’ll be your turn soon.’ However, she started to take antiretroviral tablets, her tuberculosis was cured and she returned to her community. This was a woman who had been ignored by her neighbours. She had felt totally disempowered and had had no-one’s support. The community now has come together. The childcare workers have worked with Dora over a period and she now has her life back together. The strength of the community, through the circles of care that exist within it, has helped her to get her life back on track and has helped her son too. Her son attends school in the area and hopes to play soccer for South Africa one day. He was a lovely, typical little eight-year-old boy racing around and you could see that there was a very special bond between his mother and him. The very powerful message that came out of that visit was the importance of antiretroviral treatment and how it needs to be spread throughout the South African community, because there is hope if you have the right sort of treatment. I conclude by saying that UNICEF, wherever they work, do a fine job. Isibindi-Circles of Care—‘isibindi’ is Zulu for ‘courage’—is a fine program; it is one that could be replicated in other areas throughout the world. (Time expired) 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 3274 21:22:00 Main Committee adjourned at 9.22 pm 3275 Questions in Writing 3275 3275 4 to 6 3275 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr Pearce asked the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion, 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. 3275 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Hon Julia Gillard MP Three DLO’s two commenced in December 2007 one commenced in February 2008   The Hon Brendan O’Connor MP One DLO commenced in June 2007   The Hon Kate Ellis MP One DLO commenced in December 2007   Senator the Hon Ursula Stephens One DLO commenced in January 2008   The Hon Maxine McKew MP One DLO commenced in December 2007   3275 3275 10 and 11 3275 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr Pearce asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, 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. 3275 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Stephen Smith —On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: DFAT As at 9 April 2008, the following numbers of departmental employees are working in the offices of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Smith, the Minister for Trade, Mr Crean, and the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, Mr Kerr. The Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Smith Departmental Liaison Officers: 2 Officers. 1 x 4 months (from 7/12/2007) 1 x 3 months (from 9/01/2007) Relief Staff: 2 Officers. 1 x 2 months (from 15/02/2008) 1 x 1 month (from 11/03/2008) The Office of the Minister for Trade, Mr Crean Departmental Liaison Officers: 2 Officers. 2 x 4 months (from 10/12/2007) The Office of the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, Mr Kerr Departmental Liaison Officer: 1 Officer. 1 x 4 months (from 4/12/2007) Austrade Austrade has one staff member working in the office of Mr Murphy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade. The officer has been in the position since 12 January 2008. Ausaid As at 9 April 2008, the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) has one Executive Level 2, Department Liaison Officer employed in the Office of the Parliamentary Secretary for International Development. The Department Liaison Officer has been in the office for a period of 4 weeks, commencing on 11 March 2008. EFIC Nil ACIAR Nil 3276 3276 13 3276 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr Pearce asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, 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. 3276 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: As at and including 11 March 2008, departmental staff working in the Ministers’ Offices and the Parliamentary Secretary’s Office are as follows:   Office Role Length of Service (in calendar days) Minister for Health & Ageing Departmental Liaison Officer 83 Departmental Liaison Officer 100 Graduate* 57 Minister for Ageing Departmental Liaison Officer 98 Acting Adviser 23 Graduate* 98 Minister for Sport Departmental Liaison Officer 99 Acting Receptionist 39 Parliamentary Secretary Departmental Liaison Officer 69 Graduate* 97 * The Department of Health and Ageing’s Graduate Development Program includes provision for short-term development opportunities in the portfolio’s Ministerial Offices. 3277 3277 17 3277 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr Pearce asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 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. 3277 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: As at 22 April 2008 there were two Departmental employees working within the Minister’s office.  Both of these are Departmental Liaison Officers, one has been employed in the Office since 3 December 2007 and the other since 31 March 2008. 3277 3277 19 3277 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr Pearce asked Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Water, 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. 3277 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr Swan —The Minister for Climate Change and Water has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: 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 4 February 2008 1 Acting Media Adviser who commenced on 29 January 2008. The Acting Media Adviser returned to the Department on 18 March 2008. 3278 3278 26 3278 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr Pearce asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, 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. 3278 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 Mr Griffin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 2 = 1 Departmental Liaison Officer (DLO) and 1 Departmental Graduate. DLO placements are usually for a period of 18 months.   As part of its Graduate Program the Department offers 1 x 4 month and 2 x 3 month rotation periods each year to its Graduates to assist and work with the DLO and gain valuable broader portfolio knowledge. 1 1 38 to 72 1 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr Pearce asked all Ministers, in writing, on 12 March 2008: Between 3 December 2007 and 3 March 2008, how many consultancies has the Minister’s department entered into or engaged; and what is the total expected cost of these respective consultancies. 1 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr Tanner —The answer to the honourable member’s question, on behalf of all Ministers, is as follows: All agencies subject to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) are required to report procurement contracts awarded on AusTender (the Government’s tender and procurement reporting system) where the contract value is $10,000 or more. Of the 99 FMA Act agencies which were required to gazette their contract details, 97 agencies have complied with the new reporting requirements, including reporting consultancy status, that took effect on 1 July 2007. The remaining agencies, the Department of Defence and the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO), have yet to fully transition to the new reporting requirements. All contract details reported on AusTender are publicly available at www.tenders.gov.au. As at 5 May 2008, the 97 agencies which have so far reported on AusTender, entered into 543 consultancies, comprising a total amount of $50,656,114, for the period identified. Individual details for these consultancies can be found on AusTender under the Reports menu. The reports can be extracted on a whole of government or individual agency basis. The Department of Defence has informed me that for Defence and DMO, the total number and value of consultancies entered into for the period identified is 203 at $17,198,630. Of these amounts, Defence let 168 contracts with a value of $14,038,241 and DMO 35 contracts valued at $3,160,389. Defence will also subject these amounts to further quality assurance as part of Defence’s annual reporting obligations. While AusTender contains details of contracts valued at $10,000 or more, I consider that it would be an unreasonable diversion of resources for agencies to provide details of all consultancies valued at less than $10,000. 3279 3279 73 3279 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 Mr Haase asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 12 March 2008: Does the Government’s commitment to extend the Australian Health Care Agreements to include chronic disease prevention, as announced at the February 2008 Australian Health Ministers’ Conference, include a framework for Australia’s National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. Does the Government guarantee the continuation of the current home test program beyond June 2008, and that a full roll-out of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program will make screening available to all people between 50 and 74 years of age. 3279 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: Support for Australia’s National Bowel Cancer Screening Program will be considered in the negotiation of the next National Healthcare Agreement. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed on 26 March 2006 that the new health care agreement would be signed in December 2008 with a commencement date for the new funding arrangements of 1 July 2009. In the 2008-09 Budget, the Government committed funding of $87.4 million over the next 3 years to continue the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program for 55 and 65 year olds and extend it to 50 year olds. The National Bowel Cancer Screening Program will be implemented by the Government, in partnership with state and territory governments, from 1 July 2008 and will offer testing to people turning 50, 55 or 65 years of age between 2008 and 2010. Up to 2.5 million people will receive an invitation to participate in the program. This program includes funding to establish a national framework for ongoing implementation of the program, including a structure for workforce planning, training and support; and ensuring sufficient coordination services and quality assurance mechanisms are in place. The Government will further support the states and territories, through the next Australian Health Care Agreements, to provide follow up services for participants with a positive result. This commitment is an important step towards screening all people aged 50 years and above every two years. 3279 3279 74 and 75 3279 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP 0 Mr Ian Macfarlane asked the Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 13 March 2008: By what date will he respond to my correspondence to him dated 17 December 2007 concerning the Government’s position on the Toowoomba Bypass Project. 3279 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —On behalf of the Prime Minister and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Hon Anthony Byrne MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister responded on the Prime Minister’s behalf on 3 April 2008 to Mr Macfarlane’s letter of 17 December 2007 regarding the Toowoomba Bypass Project.