At the request of Senator Ludwig and Senator Conroy, I move:
That the following bills be introduced:A Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth, to repeal certain obsolete Acts, and for related purposes.A Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to telecommunications, and for other purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bills and move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I table the explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and move:
That these bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL 2008
Statute Law Revision Bills are important mechanisms which ensure more effective and accessible laws. The Office of Parliamentary Counsel does an excellent job in reviewing, correcting and updating the body of Commonwealth legislation by preparing these Bills.
Scrutiny of the statute book extends beyond the correction of minor errors and the clearing away of obsolete Acts. This Bill removes gender-specific language which will ensure that our laws are contemporary.
The timely corrections and repeals of obsolete language effected by Statute Law Revision Bills improve the quality and accuracy of Commonwealth legislation and facilitate the publication of consolidated versions of Acts.
The Bill has four schedules. Schedule 1 amends minor and technical errors contained in principal Acts, such as incorrect spelling, punctuation or numbering.
Most of Schedule 2 amends errors contained in amending Acts and misdescribed or redundant amendments. The remainder of Schedule 2 amends errors in cross references to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, which came before the Parliament in 2005 but was not enacted until 2007. References to the “Australian Citizenship Act 2006” are amended to refer to the “Australian Citizenship Act 2007”.
Schedule 3 repeals obsolete Acts and makes consequential amendments to provisions of other Acts that refer to a repealed Act. A large number of these obsolete Acts are administered by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and relate to programs that are now finished.
Schedule 4 amends a number of Acts to replace gender-specific language with gender-neutral language.
The effect of the commencement provisions in Schedules 1 and 2 is that the errors are taken to have been corrected immediately after the error was made. Schedule 3 commences on Royal Assent and Schedule 4 commences the day after Royal Assent.
While none of the amendments proposed by the Schedules will alter the content of the law, the Bill ensures our Statute book reflects current social standards and it will improve the quality and public accessibility of Commonwealth legislation.
I commend the Bill.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (NATIONAL BROADBAND NETWORK) BILL 2008
Access to high-speed broadband services is critical to Australia’s future economic prosperity and social well-being.
This is why the Government has committed to investing up to $4.7 billion in partnership with the private sector and to consider necessary regulatory changes to establish a new national broadband network.
This national broadband network is expected to provide minimum speeds of 12 megabits per second to 98 per cent of homes and businesses within five years.
The national broadband network will be an open access network that provides for equivalence of access charges and scope for access seekers to differentiate their product offerings by allowing the customisation of access speeds, quality of service and contention ratios. This will facilitate real competition, delivering high quality and efficiently priced services.
The national broadband network will provide a platform for sustainable growth for our economy for many years to come.
The Government is committed to the expeditious delivery of these outcomes. The Government’s recent announcement of its Panel of Experts, that will play an integral role in the assessment process, and the recent introduction of a Bill to enable access to the Communications Fund demonstrate this commitment.
So that the nation achieves the best outcome from this once-in-a-life-time transformational initiative, the successful proponent will be selected through an open and fair competitive assessment process.
It is essential that parties interested in rolling out the new network are not prevented from participating in the selection process by a lack of information about existing network infrastructure.
It is generally acknowledged that the amount of information in the public domain regarding Telstra’s customer access network and other infrastructure, especially in non-metropolitan areas, is not extensive.
As the owner of Australia’s largest fixed customer access network – elements of which are likely to form part of any fibre-to-the-node network – Telstra is at an advantage to other potential proponents of a national broadband network if it has sole access to information that is essential for the preparation of competitive proposals.
Knowledge of other non-Telstra infrastructure that could form part of a national broadband network, such as that used for backhaul, is also relevant.
It is essential, therefore, that potential proponents have access to sufficient information to develop, with confidence, robust network designs and costings.
The Government has sought agreement from carriers to provide this network information voluntarily. Some carriers have agreed while others have expressed reservations.
Most network operators, including Telstra have demonstrated that they are working towards giving this information voluntarily.
We welcome this cooperative approach. Discussions are continuing with carriers to ensure information is available as soon as possible. However, the Government has come to the conclusion that legislation is necessary to ensure that it is able to meet the ambitious timetable to begin rolling out the new network by the end of the year.
It is important that all potential bidders have access to network information to develop their bids, and that private network data is protected.
This Bill provides a mechanism for providing potential proponents with access to relevant information for the purposes of the competitive national broadband network assessment process, so they can put forward robust proposals.
Importantly, the legislation includes strong legislative safeguards to carriers, which guard against the misuse of sensitive network information. The Bill, and any subordinate instruments which are provided for by the Bill, are not intended to override any protections under the Privacy Act 1988 for personal information. The Bill prohibits disclosure of network information except for specified purposes. It also includes a sunset provision so that the obligation on carriers to provide information would cease to have force 12 months after the commencement of the legislation. This will enable the Government to meet their commitment to begin building the National Broadband Network by the end of the year.
Carriers will retain ownership of their information and will continue to have full use of that information.
The information requirements that I have consulted with carriers on are limited in scope, and can only be used for the purposes of building a broadband network. Any instrument issued as a consequence of this legislation would similarly be limited in scope. This measure will ensure a fair and effective competitive process for the benefit of the entire Australian community.
The Bill enables the Government to allow all parties in the market to compete on the merits of their proposals, not on the basis of control of information derived from their market position. This will increase competitive tension in the Government’s process, resulting in the best possible outcome for the Australian public.
This Bill creates a new proposed Part 27A for the Telecommunications Act. Under this Part, carriers would be required to provide specified information to the Commonwealth. The information would only be able to be disclosed to:
The Bill contains provisions to protect the information from disclosure and specifying the circumstances in which that information could be disclosed by the Commonwealth and potential proponents.
The Bill also provides the Minister with the power to make legislative instruments setting out conditions that would have to be satisfied by potential proponents prior to them receiving carrier information, restricting or limiting the entrusted company officers to whom carrier information could be disclosed and setting out conditions for the storage, handling or destruction of carrier information. These provisions provide a further and flexible mechanism to address concerns, including those relating to national security, about the release of network information.
Subject to the conditions specified in the legislative instruments I have referred to, the Bill would allow entrusted company officers to disclose the information to other entrusted company officers for the purpose of considering whether to make a proposal or preparing a proposal. It would also allow an entrusted public official to disclose the information to another entrusted official for the purpose of considering or providing advice in relation to the national broadband network process and proposals.
Breach of the non-disclosure prohibition by an entrusted public official would be a criminal offence under section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914 and breach of the provisions by an entrusted company official would be a breach of a civil penalty provision.
The Bill is an important step in the competitive process for selecting the successful proponent that will build the new high-speed national broadband network that is so important to Australia’s future.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
At the request of Senator Ludwig, I move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) and (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008Tradex Scheme Amendment Bill 2008
Question agreed to.
Consideration resumed from 18 March.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
I would like to raise a couple of general things before I get to my amendments. In particular, I would like to start with the definitions—and this is very important because it relates to the whole purpose of why we are establishing Infrastructure Australia. What the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008 says is that the definition of:
nationally significant infrastructure includes:
in which investment or further investment will materially improve national productivity.
I am interested in knowing why social infrastructure is not included here. I would argue that schools, universities, hospitals and libraries are nationally significant infrastructure. What we have here is a narrowing of purpose by saying what is nationally significant has to materially improve national productivity. Again I would argue that if your ambition is to move Australia from a resource based economy to a brains and information based economy then nationally significant infrastructure which would materially improve national productivity would include schools, universities, libraries and so on.
The first part of my question is: why is nationally significant infrastructure restricted to those categories and schools, universities, libraries and so on are not included? The second part of my question is: how does this relate to the government’s stated intention to prioritise infrastructure development in Indigenous communities? From what I can see here, there is one promise to improve infrastructure in Indigenous communities as part of the welcome to country, as part of reconciliation and as part of the whole agenda of saying sorry. It is unclear to me that there will be any priority in Indigenous communities in these areas and it is unclear to me, especially when we get to the membership of Infrastructure Australia, whether there will be anyone on it who has any expertise on the needs of Indigenous communities and infrastructure. Those are my questions to begin with.
I will do my best to respond to the senator’s questions. In relation to her first question on her suggestion of limitations to the definitions of significant infrastructure, I draw her attention to page 2 of the bill which specifies:
nationally significant infrastructure includes
However these definitions are not the limit. This is not a prescriptive list. Other issues are able to be incorporated.
I am also advised in regard to her second question on the issue of Indigenous consultations and involvement that the minister will be working through the COAG processes and will ensure that these issues are properly dealt with through consultation with the states and territories.
I thank the minister for that explanation, but it is not clear to me that the social infrastructure I am talking about is in any way intended to be covered by this legislation. In the second reading speech of the bill, I could not find any reference to the fact that nationally significant infrastructure will include schools, universities, libraries and so on. To me, the way that this bill and the second reading speech have been written does not automatically include that infrastructure. I would like to have it spelt out more clearly that nationally significant infrastructure does include more than communications infrastructure in moving to an information and knowledge based economy.
Secondly, I would like some clarification. What do you mean by ‘materially improve national productivity’? I would like that clarified specifically in relation to the infrastructure I am talking about in Indigenous communities. There are many who would argue that that infrastructure might not materially improve national productivity, but it is critical to improving the lives of and opportunities for Indigenous people in those communities. I would really like to have an understanding of that because just going through the COAG process is not enough. With respect, it has not worked to date. There has been no prioritising or significant investment through the COAG process.
I still do not have a response to whether there is going to be a specific attempt in putting together the membership of Infrastructure Australia to include someone who has expertise in identifying the appropriate infrastructure needs of Indigenous communities. It is not just any infrastructure that is needed; there is expertise required to determine what the most appropriate and effective infrastructure is for those communities. The government must, in my view, in terms of what has been said in the Indigenous debate and in the policy commitments of the government, include this somewhere in Infrastructure Australia.
Once again, I will do my best to answer the questions. As I am sure the senator is only too readily aware, I am representing the minister here today. The advice I have is that the definitions of the bill are not prescriptive. The word ‘include’ is used to highlight that. There are in fact two areas, and there is provision within that definition to cover social infrastructure issues. Further, there is a reference within that definition to further investment to ‘materially improve national productivity’. That is, again, a broader concept than purely that described by transport, energy, communications or water.
In regard to the issue of representation on the board, I am advised that Infrastructure Australia’s board will be made up of representatives from local, state and national governments. In terms of the provisions, the Commonwealth Labor government has said that the issue of Indigenous representation will be dealt with in that manner. It is not just Indigenous people who are not specified in terms of membership of the board; there are many other categories of people who were equally not specified in this legislation. It is up to the process of dialogue between the representatives of different levels of government to ensure that the board is able to fulfil those functions. A whole range of people is needed to make up a body such as this. In essence, it is to deal with both public and private provision of infrastructure across Australia.
Thank you for that explanation. I just heard you say that social infrastructure is implied in two of those categories. I am sorry, but that escapes me. I would like you to specify which of the two categories include the social infrastructure I am talking about—schools, universities and libraries. For Indigenous communities, where are those social infrastructure commitments implied? That is not clear to me.
Secondly, I asked for a specific undertaking from the government for an understanding of ‘materially improve national productivity’, because, as I said, there will be people who will argue that investment in infrastructure in Indigenous communities will not materially improve national productivity. I want a commitment from the government that infrastructure investment in Indigenous communities will be included and will be regarded as materially improving national productivity.
I again draw the senator’s attention to clause 1 of the bill, which says:
(1) Infrastructure Australia has the primary function of providing advice to the Minister, Commonwealth, State, Territory and local governments, investors in infrastructure and owners of infrastructure on matters relating to infrastructure, including in relation to the following—
There is nothing in that definition that precludes consideration of social infrastructure of the type that you have canvassed, Senator Milne. The view of the government is that, for this body to actually undertake its job properly, it must be able to consider both hard and soft infrastructure in the manner in which you have proposed.
There is nothing in there that precludes consideration, but there is nothing in there that specifically includes consideration. That is my point. Anyone reading this and looking at the primary function and looking at materially improved national productivity, which is specifically stated, would see that it implies it has a clear economic benefit. I would of course argue that things such as public transport do, and I will get to that a little bit later. I would also argue that, if you are trying to shift to a knowledge based economy, then investment in schools, universities, libraries et cetera is clearly a material improvement in national productivity.
But this is not stated anywhere in the second reading speech. All I have had now from the minister is: ‘It does not preclude it.’ I would like a statement from the minister that it specifically includes it. That would satisfy my concerns about social infrastructure. I would argue in the case of schools and universities that it is a material improvement in national productivity. I would like to have a statement from the minister that it specifically includes that infrastructure and specifically includes consideration of infrastructure in Indigenous communities. For the minister to say that there are lots of other groups that are also not included is quite offensive, because the people who are specifically included are the corporates—the businesses whose business it is to provide infrastructure. So those who have an interest in making a profit from infrastructure are clearly intended to be included.
I argue that Indigenous Australia has a special case. Of course there are many others, and we will get to that later. I argue that there is a special case for Indigenous Australians to have their expertise included on the board of Infrastructure Australia because to date all the platitudes from the government about consultation with Indigenous communities have failed. That is why we have this huge effort now to do something about years of neglect in Indigenous communities. If you are serious about inclusion and if you are really serious about getting ongoing infrastructure development post the Northern Territory intervention then you have to have a consistent level of advice and expertise in your strategic think tank, which this is going to be for national infrastructure. This is meant to be a strategic blueprint for the future. I would like those specific commitments, Minister.
Senator Milne, I am not quite certain what I have said that you find so offensive, but I will recap the government’s position. The government’s view is that you do not need to spell out in minute detail every representative group that may well be represented on such a body. There are no references in the bill to representation from the workforce. There is no representation specifically legislated for people with disabilities. There is not a requirement in this bill specifically for consumers. There are a whole range of groups in our community which you cannot specify in finite detail in legislation of this type.
This legislation seeks to define infrastructure very broadly and its service of the community. It is about a nation-building program. We do not have to define that in absolute minute detail to satisfy our policy objectives and to put to this parliament a bill that allows us to actually construct the infrastructure necessary to sustain a reasonable standard of living for the people of this country. The minister has repeatedly made these points, but you do not need to spell out the details of what that means in every finite clause of this legislation.
I repeat: the legislation is designed to be broad in its scope but not allow us to get into the fine minute detail of the nature of representation on the board. We are dealing with three levels of government. It is appropriate that there be some flexibility in the discussion about who represents the interests of this country through these three levels of government. We do not seek to prescribe membership of the board in the manner that the senator is seeking.
On the question of Indigenous representation specifically, all I can say is that the government has firm commitments. You might regard these to be platitudes, but that is the nature of government policy. We are accountable to the parliament for that policy’s implementation. I do not think it is appropriate to specify every particular interest group that should or might be represented by future governments through this body.
Minister, I refer you generally to proposed section 5(4) which states:
Infrastructure Australia is to perform a function under paragraph (2)(c), (d), (g) or (h) on request by the Minister.
Could you explain why the body itself cannot initiate those inquiries without having to do it only on the instruction of the minister?
My advice is that the provision there refers to the line responsibilities through to the minister and it is designed to ensure that there is not an overlap with existing infrastructure provision agencies, whether it be in a state, in local government or within the Commonwealth itself. It is to ensure that there is effective coordination between the various agencies of government and within government at a national level.
Minister, Infrastructure Australia has the power to provide advice on infrastructure policy arising from climate change, which to me would seem to be a fairly important role for this board, this committee, this unit, but it can only do that upon instruction from the minister. If this board, this entity, is to have the qualified people on it that we all assume and indeed hope that it will have, why would it be constrained in looking at infrastructure requirements in relation to climate change only in the event of it being directed to do so by the minister? It would seem to me that that is a very restrictive approach to what we hope will be a competent and intelligent board. With climate change the great concern that it is—not only to Australians but right around the world—it would seem to me that this body of expertise should be free to make its own decisions on climate change issues and not simply have to wait for the minister to do so.
I wonder which minister will make those decisions in relation to climate change. Will it be the minister responsible for Infrastructure Australia or will it be the climate change minister? How are those decisions likely to evolve through the government process? Will they be cabinet decisions? Will they be decisions of the climate change minister and the relevant minister? How is that going to work out? It seems to me to be unduly restrictive on the authority to have to wait for a direction from the minister on climate change issues. I emphasise that your government minister has made a great deal about climate change—convinced the electorate that signing a bit of paper would cure all of our ills. It is an important issue, but it seems to be that under this bill your government is relegating it to a very unimportant issue in that it can only be dealt with should the minister choose to give the direction.
Again I will do my best, Senator Macdonald, to answer your question. The bill, as it currently reads—as you quite rightly highlighted—requires the minister to seek advice on these particular matters for coordination reasons, as I have indicated. The view of the government is that we should ensure that there is not duplication. It is the minister’s responsibility to ensure that there is not duplication with existing agencies. That goes to the issue of efficient use of resources. Secondly, given that this body is being established within the context of the COAG arrangements, it is quite important that the Commonwealth agency does not act in a manner inconsistent with the arrangements entered into with other levels of government. So, the principle behind this legislation is that the government does not want to duplicate work that is already being undertaken by other bodies and by other ministers. That is essentially the nub of it.
You asked a question about who takes responsibility for climate change: will it be this minister or that minister? Clearly, under this provision, the minister for infrastructure has responsibility to work with this agency. The processes of government are determined through cabinet: the normal—and I would have thought unexceptional—method of ensuring coordination across government at that level. In an administrative sense, in terms of the agencies, it is important to have the heads of powers outlined in the legislation, as we have done.
Minister, you raise another issue that I was going to go on to. In proposed section 6(2) it says, ‘The minister may have regard to any decisions of COAG’ in arriving at a direction under proposed subsection (1). I understood that in June 2005, COAG had decided that each state and territory would prepare an infrastructure assessment every five years. The first of those infrastructure assessments is complete. It seems to me that setting up this body is a duplication of processes already in train.
I concede that, if my state of Queensland is any guide, a federal government would be very unwise to rely upon the assessments of the Queensland state Labor government when it comes to infrastructure. If you fly up and down the coast of Queensland—as I do very regularly coming to Canberra—and look out the window, you just see the coastline littered with ocean-going cargo ships sitting out there for days and indeed weeks on end, waiting to get into state run ports. This is a scandal that the Queensland state Labor government has allowed to continue for many, many years.
I know that in the years before we were able to blame another person—I know you are not allowed to do that these days, Minister—some in the then opposition, now government, would say that it is all the Commonwealth’s fault that the ports are clogged up. Anyone who has any understanding and who is being honest knows that it had nothing to do with the Commonwealth. These were state instrumentalities which the states very jealously guarded. They would not privatise them; they would not allow them to come into a Commonwealth directed arrangement that our government sought. They jealously guarded their own independence.
What actually happened in Queensland—I cannot speak for other states—is that these port authorities made huge profits. What happened to those profits? They had lots of things that they wanted to do with the profits they made, in the way of capital investment. They all acknowledged that their capital infrastructure was falling down. Were they allowed to reinvest their profits into capital expenditure? Of course not. They were ripped off by the state government to try and balance the state budget. So these port authorities—and I might say energy authorities are in the same boat—got a huge rip-off of dividends to the state coffers, but those instrumentalities were left with no independent means of investment.
My understanding is that investment had to come from capital grants from a state government, and in Queensland that state government is already borrowing in its forward estimates. Don’t hold me to this figure, but I think it is $25 billion they have put forward to borrow—contrary, of course, to the federal government, which has paid off all debt and does not have any debt, or did not under our government. The state governments are out there borrowing, adding to inflationary pressure, and doing that because they simply cannot manage money. The Queensland government have not invested in the port authorities as they should have. In fact, they have ripped them off in demands for increased dividends.
So I can well understand why the government would be cautious in taking notice of any infrastructure plans prepared every five years by governments of the like of the Queensland state Labor government. But it seems to me, Minister—and I think you have a problem here—that you are adding another bureaucratic level to infrastructure in Australia. Here you have the states doing these plans under the COAG agreement. You are setting up this body to also look at those things, but apparently, according to the paragraph I referred to at the beginning of this question, the federal minister may have regard to COAG arrangements. But then I guess, equally, that means he may not have regard to them. So we are going to find that the states are doing these assessments continuously and reporting every five years and, at the same time, you have a federal body also doing assessments and giving advice. So I would ask if the minister could clarify what role this federal organisation will have in looking at the massively important infrastructure requirements in the various areas that are controlled by state instrumentalities such as the port authorities in the state of Queensland.
Thank you, Senator Macdonald. Obviously, I do not wish to comment on some of the observations you made, other than to say I do not necessarily agree with everything you have put. The specific questions that I think I can extract from the general comments that you made were to do with why the word ‘may’ has been used in clause 6. As I am advised, the process here is that the previous government took the view that, working with the states, there would be a five-year infrastructure assessment. The new government has a broader approach and wants to see a national infrastructure audit undertaken by the new body, Infrastructure Australia.
I cannot quite follow the logic of Senator Macdonald’s argument. He seems to be saying on the one hand that it is wrong to use the word ‘may’—in other words, it should be directed by COAG to undertake this project—but then goes on to say that the states cannot be trusted. I think that is the thrust of what you are putting about Queensland. What this bill does is to establish a new body, Infrastructure Australia. It does not abolish the states and it does not seek to abolish the states. Clearly, the states are still able to undertake matters within their province and may well undertake matters of direct concern to them within their jurisdictions. This is a national body that seeks to coordinate activity but does not preclude other levels of government undertaking infrastructure development. It is clear that the intent here is to ensure we do have national priorities for the provision of infrastructure, but it does not preclude the possibility that states may have matters that they want to deal with under their own resources.
I will make this the last question on this particular line that I am following. Minister, I thought what I said—perhaps you were too busy talking to your adviser and did not quite hear what I said—is that you have the states doing these infrastructure plans, reporting and giving advice, and then over the top of that you have this new federal body doing the same thing. Your advisers will generally assure you that the general comments I make about the ports in Queensland are accurate, if you do not want to accept the detail. It is quite clear. As I said, anyone who flies up the coast can see that the ports in Queensland are grossly poorly managed through lack of investment, and that is costing Australia huge amounts of money, just in the demurrage on those ships sitting out there for days and indeed weeks at a time, waiting to load up with coal which could be being sold, earning money for Australia and making life better for Australia’s working families. Because of state government inability to properly manage infrastructure, we lose all that money.
What I am saying is: what is this body going to be able to do that the state assessments do not already do? This is important, Minister. If the federal body disagrees with the approach of the state authorities and the state reviews—let’s confine it specifically to Queensland ports—and there is a difference of opinion and the federal body as part of its advice says, ‘There should be massive new investment,’ or if perhaps it says, ‘The state government rips off all these profits by way of dividends and doesn’t allow the authority to reinvest in capital works,’ how are those conflicts going to be resolved?
What will Infrastructure Australia do? Will it just give advice to the minister, who will then say, ‘Thanks for the advice,’ and move on with life and nothing further will happen? Or are they likely to come in and try and take over the ports? Are they likely to loan the Queensland government some money to do something? If they do that, will they have a recommendation that might say, ‘If we’re putting it in this investment we don’t want the Queensland government simply to rip dividends off the port authorities for the purposes of their general budget without any thought of reinvestment in these areas’?
My concern is: what is the purpose of this organisation vis-a-vis the state governments, who under COAG are already forming plans, making assessments and making recommendations?
Again I will do my best to answer your—
We only expect you to do your best.
Senator Macdonald, I will just make it clear. The bill seeks to establish a new entity—Infrastructure Australia. The primary function of this entity is to provide advice to the minister, Commonwealth, state, territory and local governments, investors in infrastructure and owners of infrastructure on matters relating to infrastructure including the relationship to a number of matters, including the national significance of that infrastructure, pricing, policy, regulatory issues, impediments to the efficient utilisation of that infrastructure and the options and reform proposals that might emerge from the building of a particular infrastructure item. It seeks also to provide advice on the needs of users of infrastructure and mechanisms for financing investment in infrastructure.
So it is an advisory body—that is the purpose. It is an advisory body aimed at providing the best possible advice to overcome the issues that you have highlighted. I think it is a fair observation that has been made about the nature of the Australian Federation since 1900 that the ability of the states to coordinate their efforts has not been one of our strengths as a country. As a nation, one of our challenges has been to ensure that there is an efficient and effective prioritisation of needs across the country.
I know in my portfolio area we have seen it on numerous occasions with regard to scientific infrastructure. The states will invariably compete with one another to secure a particular piece of infrastructure, and that is no different in a whole range of areas, be it the railways, the ports or anything else. So there needs to be a nationally coordinated response to the infrastructure needs of this country, which the Reserve Bank and many other bodies have highlighted as a major impediment to our economic development and a major problem with regard to the inflationary pressures that we are now confronting. So this is a body designed to assist the states and local government—and, of course, the Commonwealth—come to a rational view about the allocation of resources.
Frankly, Senator Macdonald, I think the bill spells that out quite clearly. If you have a concern about the Queensland government’s priority setting, it is a matter I would have thought would be—
No, that’s not the point.
I think the material sets out clearly the objects of this particular piece of legislation. It seeks to highlight the need to address a pressing political, social and economic problem that this country faces. The minister responsible has made the position of the government very clear on this. I think this legislation clarifies that quite clearly. The provisions that were undertaken via the old arrangements under the previous government, of which you were a minister, allowed for five-yearly infrastructure assessments. What is being proposed here is that the audits be on a broader basis—that we do overcome this issue of state rivalries and we do get a more rational assessment of the provision of the infrastructure needs of this country.
Minister, can I say first of all that the Democrats are very supportive of this move. In fact, investing in infrastructure was the first item on our platform at the last election, where we called for a national sustainability commission to coordinate investment in infrastructure to meet future growth needs and ensure consistency between sustainability policy and implementation. So, at the outset, I say that we think this a long-overdue reform.
However, I was dismayed when I saw the bill and the extent to which climate change has been downgraded as a function of this organisation. It does not appear in the list of primary functions for providing advice. I know, Minister, you said earlier that we do not want to see duplication by others, but it seems to me that climate change is absolutely central to the decisions which will be made and the advice which will be given by this body to the government. I would have put it at No. 1—or A—in terms of the primary function of this organisation. But, no, what your government has done is bury it away under the additional functions and limited it to providing advice on infrastructure policy issues arising from climate change. I can only assume that ‘arising from climate change’ means, ‘What do we do when the sea level rises and our ports no longer function? What do we do when the roads get clogged with cars because there is inadequate public transport?’ Is this government truly anticipating that this body will virtually ignore climate change on the basis that others are thinking about it and giving government advice?
Well, no, Minister. This is the opportunity for the infrastructure of this country to be determined with climate change not as a kind of add-on, side-effect down the bottom of the list of priorities but at the top. Decisions which will be made, presumably by government acting on advice from this organisation, will be on things such as: do we build more roads and freeways assuming that there is going to be an endless flow of oil and that we do not have to worry about the greenhouse impacts, even though greenhouse emissions from transport, for instance, have now overshot 1990 levels—I do not have the exact figures with me—by close to 30 per cent, as I understand it, and are projected to overshoot 1990 levels by a great deal more than that? So I find it unbelievable that climate change, greenhouse impacts and global warming would not be part of the primary function of this organisation. How is it going to make recommendations and give advice on any of that list of items without taking into account the very dramatic and possibly disastrous effects of climate change not in 50 years time but in two or three years time? How can this organisation possibly function without that advice being central to absolutely everything it does?
Minister, I urge you to put climate change as the primary function and make it No. 1 because that is going to be what will affect not only infrastructure but the future of this country and the way in which we deal with our very serious obligations to reduce emissions. It needs to have the highest—and I cannot say this often enough—priority. In fact, our proposal is that transport funding, for instance, should be pooled and the No. 1 criteria for who gets that money should be: does it help us reduce our emissions or does it not?
So I agree that we need to worry about infrastructure, particularly around our coasts because the sea level is going to rise metres. We now know that there is an enormously increased rate of melting of ice sheets in the Antarctic and in the Arctic. We know that sea levels are going to rise not by a matter of a handful of centimetres over the next hundred years; it could be metres—it could be 25 metres. We need to listen to the scientists who are telling us now that the matter is absolutely urgent and much more serious—as of just a matter of months ago—than we thought. With sea level rises of metres, I can understand why you would want to receive policy advice from this body on those matters. But before we get to that point, surely this body should be looking at reducing greenhouse impacts. Not only is it item (g) under part (2) of additional functions; it is not even something that Infrastructure Australia can decide for itself if it sees fit to investigate, report and give advice on. It can act on climate change policy issues which arise from climate change only if the minister instructs it to do so. That is a ludicrous situation. Minister, I ask you to respond to this and I urge you to assure us that this is a mistake in the legislation and that you really meant to put that under the first list of high priority items.
Senator Milne, this is similar to the subject of your first amendment. Do you want to move onto that now and give focus to the debate or do you have other questions?
I want to respond to the minister in relation to definitions and then move onto this amendment. I indicate to Senator Allison that that is precisely why the Greens will move the amendment to clause 5 that I am foreshadowing—so that Infrastructure Australia is required to advise the minister on any ‘greenhouse gas emission and oil consumption implications of any development’ that is being considered. That is for the very reasons I outlined last night and for the very reasons that Senator Allison has just reiterated in here this morning. The notion that Infrastructure Australia will only report on these matters if it sees fit to do so or if the minister requires it is ludicrous. Experience to date shows that Infrastructure Australia almost certainly will not see fit to do it itself. We only have to look at today’s papers to see the disasters when private-public partnerships get going and governments get so close to developers that they do not do any social or economic impact assessment. Look at the white elephants trumpeting in Sydney as we speak with the Iemma government having gone ahead with those road projects which are now having to be written off. The traffic through the tunnel in Sydney, for example, has been 50 per cent down on forecasts. The investors are writing it right down as we speak. It is the same thing with the cross-city tunnel—that has not been anything like what it was proposed to be in the first place. What has happened here is that we got enthusiasm from developers and governments overlooking the public interest and not looking at climate change and oil implications at all and rather just going with more roads. In fact, that is why I am very keen that there will be a new body to look at funding priorities so that we do not have this political cherry-picking of road projects at election time. I want to point out that at the last federal election Labor committed $62.5 million on 27 September for stage 4A of the Geelong ring road. On 18 October—21 days later—it committed a further $107.5 million for stage 4B of the same road. They were items 17 and 18 on Victoria’s AusLink 2 bid, right down the list even by state government priorities. You can bet your bottom dollar that there was no social or economic impact assessment or greenhouse gas assessment or peak oil assessment of those roads. And yet they are suddenly now national infrastructure priorities that the government has committed to actually implementing.
It is a ridiculous way of determining what the national priorities ought to be in road funding. It is right across the country, and it was not just the Labor Party either, I might say, in the last federal election. Those AusLink lists became the cherry-picked lists for all parties—for the Liberal and Labor parties—in terms of funding, and it was all roads funding. When I move the amendments, I want to speak further about that, but I want clarification from the minister that transport infrastructure in nationally significant infrastructure includes—Minister, I would like a commitment on this—urban public transport and urban passenger rail. I would like a commitment that nationally significant infrastructure, materially improving national productivity, includes urban public transport and urban passenger rail.
I came here this morning to do Senate duty. I am becoming an instant expert on these issues and I am advised—
Don’t kid yourself!
Given your contribution, I will not be learning anything from you. Senator Milne, of course the question of urban infrastructure will be considered. Does it improve productivity? Does it improve the quality of life? Of course it does. That is the point of these provisions. You make some points about the approach taken to the West Ring Road in Melbourne. I live within 200 metres of the Tullamarine Freeway and I can assure you how important that piece of infrastructure is for health and safety, for accessibility for the people of the region and for productivity.
When are we going to get a train on it?
You may well ask that. That is a question which could be considered by a body such as this. That and the rail link to Melbourne Airport are the types of issues which I expect would be considered in the discussions. I do not know what the states will put forward in that area. You know the argument as well as I do, Senator Allison, in regard to rail links to the airport. These are the types of questions which I have no doubt will, over time, be considered. The issues which you speak of—and this is the point I am trying to make about what you are saying is your view—is that these are ad hoc processes. Surely that is what this bill does. It deals with the issue that you are raising as a general concern. I suggest to you that that is why the bill is worthy of support.
Questions have been raised about the matters on page 3 of the bill, the functions of the bill. I acknowledge that, on first reading, there may be a perception that these words could have been put better; although, on the advice I have been given, legally the provisions of this bill will not be able to be distinguished between primary and additional functions—at law. The measures proposed here are to ensure that there is greater attention to the issues of climate change by ensuring that Infrastructure Australia works within the government’s framework for climate change measures. The way it has been explained to me is that the provisions of the bill have been divided between those functions in general and those additional functions which will be undertaken immediately.
Senator Milne, are you wanting to move your amendments?
by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2):
(1) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 17), after paragraph (1)(b), insert:
(ba) greenhouse gas emission and oil consumption implications of any development;
(2) Clause 5, page 4 (lines 12 and 13), omit paragraph (2)(g).
These amendments address specifically the very concern I have about the greenhouse and climate change agenda of the government. The government has said that climate change is a priority, that it is very important. The reason I believe the minister is incorrect in what he has just said is that he makes it very clear that the only time that advice on infrastructure policy issues arising from climate change will be considered is if Infrastructure Australia thinks it fit to do so or if the minister requests them to do so. As I said before, I have absolutely no doubt that Infrastructure Australia will not think fit to assess the oil implications or the greenhouse gas implications because Infrastructure Australia is going to be heavily lobbied by and have at least three people from the corporate sector who have a vested interest in building more roads. They will not assess the implications—they have not to date.
Infrastructure partnerships do not recommend urban rail, for example. It has never entered their heads and it never will. That is the whole point. If we have a minister who desperately wants a cross-city tunnel or a tunnel under Melbourne, they will not give a directive that Infrastructure Australia consider the greenhouse gas implications or the peak oil implications. In fact, oil is not even mentioned here as a consideration. Climate change is considered in terms of emissions but not in terms of anything about energy security into the future. So we are going to have a situation where the minister will decide when and if the greenhouse gas ramifications of any project are to be considered. We know that the government picks and chooses on that. The fact that this government has refused to consider the greenhouse gas implications of the Gunns pulp mill in Tasmania is a classic case. They know full well that that project is going to release at least 10 million tonnes of greenhouse gases a year and they have said specifically that they will not look at it. That is what the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts has said—he will not look at it. So why would I have any confidence whatsoever that this government is not going to just cherry-pick itself those projects it will suit it to have looked at for greenhouse gas implications? That is why I want it moved out of additional functions ‘subject to the whim of Infrastructure Australia or the minister’ as to whether it will be considered and instead moved to a primary function. I want it to be that Infrastructure Australia et cetera ‘advises on matters, including in relation to the following’, and ‘the following’ is, as I have said in my amendment, the greenhouse gas emission and oil consumption implications for any development.
We know that new road infrastructure in cities has driven the massive expansion of car use in Australian cities. If you want to reduce car use in Australian cities, you have to move to rapid investment in public transport and in particular in urban rail. I welcome that the minister has said on the record that Infrastructure Australia, in looking at nationally and significant transport infrastructure, will include urban public transport and urban passenger rail. It is on the record now that that is what they can consider.
What I do not like about what the minister said was some words in relation to ‘in the fullness of time’, or ‘in the future’, or ‘in the next few years’. I would like a commitment from the minister now that when he is talking about the inclusion of urban public transport and urban passenger rail it can start from the beginning, that this is not something they might consider in the future but something that will be in the consideration from the start. That is the intention of these amendments: that it becomes an obligation of Infrastructure Australia to report on greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption. That means they will have to look at the car use, the predicted emissions, and alternatives. As I indicated last night, there is no requirement for Infrastructure Australia to consider alternative ways of providing the same sort of transport access that some of these proposals might come up with. I recommend the amendments to the chamber.
I welcome Senator Ian Macdonald saying that the consideration of climate change is important because, until 24 November last year, he was a climate sceptic. In the last period of government he was one of the most critical of the importance of greenhouse gases and the importance of climate policy. I really welcome his change of position on that and assume that the coalition will be supporting my amendments to move greenhouse gas emissions to the front of the agenda and to being a primary function, because that is what Senator Macdonald was specifically saying a moment ago.
I notice that the opposition amendments are trying to take away ministerial direction in terms of assessing the greenhouse gas implications. I oppose that because, the way it is currently worded, if these amendments do not pass then at least there is the opportunity for the minister to require it. If you take away ministerial discretion you can guarantee absolutely that greenhouse gas implications will never be considered by Infrastructure Australia. It is being set up in such a way that those people who have never considered greenhouse gas implications will never consider them. I am indicating I will not be supporting the opposition’s move to take out ministerial direction. I am urging the other parties in the chamber, consistent with Senator Macdonald’s statements earlier about the importance of greenhouse gas implications and also consistent with Senator Allison’s long-standing commitment to greenhouse gas emission reduction and consideration of peak oil, to support the amendments. They are also consistent with government policy, and consistent with Prime Minister Rudd’s statement in Bali, that Australia wants to be a leader in greenhouse gas reduction and in climate change. If you want to be a leader, then greenhouse gas reduction does not become something which is at the whim of Infrastructure Australia, or at the direction of the minister; it becomes a mandatory advice function of Infrastructure Australia upfront. I commend the amendments to the committee.
Senator Milne, I am just clarifying that you have moved amendments (1) and (2) together.
Yes. The effect of the amendments together would be to omit the reference in (2)(g), which is in the second part, and to move greenhouse gas emissions to a primary function providing advice for Infrastructure Australia, so I am moving them together.
For the reasons I have outlined, the government will not be supporting the proposed amendments. This bill does not preclude road funding from infrastructure. I know that Senator Milne has some difficulty with supporting road funding but this bill does not preclude it. It acknowledges that roads are an important part of the national infrastructure network. I advise Senator Milne, when she suggests that this infrastructure agency will be dominated by big business, to have another look at it.
Further, when Senator Milne discusses the question of whether the agency will consider more efficient uses of infrastructure, be they public transport versus roads, I advise her to read the functions as outlined in clause (4), which specifically give the new body the capacity to look at:
(c) impediments to the efficient utilisation of national infrastructure networks;
(d) options and reforms, including regulatory reforms, to make the utilisation of national infrastructure networks more efficient;
(e) the needs of users of infrastructure ...
I think that Senator Milne has not read the legislation and I would appreciate it if she could have another look at it. In any event, the government will not be supporting these amendments.
In the event that these amendments are not supported—and the Democrats will emphatically support them because we think this issue crucial to the whole legislation—can the minister categorically rule out the interpretation from subclause (2)(g):
(g) to provide advice on infrastructure policy issues arising from climate change ...
Does that mean that this advice is confined to the implications of climate change? If so, why was it worded in this manner? The crucial words are ‘arising from’. Does it mean that Infrastructure Australia can advise the minister about priorities on the basis of our need to meet targets for greenhouse emission reduction? Can you make that absolutely clear to us today? Or is this just saying that Infrastructure Australia can consider the impacts of climate change?
Senator Allison, the answer to your first question is no. I do not read it the way that you have suggested. It does not narrow the advice. Furthermore, in proposed section 6 of the legislation it says that the minister must not give directions about the content of any advice that may be given by Infrastructure Australia. That is a categorical assurance, based on my reading of that legislation.
I am interested in the minister’s response. In my wildest dreams I would love to think that such a bill precluded a whole lot of new freeways, but it never occurred to me for a moment that it precluded roads. The issue was that I wanted to make sure that it specifically included urban public transport and urban passenger rail. Those were the things that I specifically asked about. I never dreamt for a moment that it was not going to include roads, because my nightmare is that it will only be roads. The question is specifically in relation to urban passenger rail and urban public transport. I welcome the minister’s commitment that it will include urban public transport and urban passenger rail. That is now on the record.
In relation to climate change, the minister said that, for the reasons that he has outlined, he is not supporting the amendment. But he has not outlined any reasons. I would like to know specifically why it is that Infrastructure Australia does not have a mandatory function of providing advice on greenhouse gas and peak oil implications and why that advice will only be required by the government at the discretion of Infrastructure Australia or at the discretion of the minister. What is your objection to making the greenhouse gas and oil implications of any recommendation infrastructure development necessary advice to the minister? Why are you opposing that?
I would draw your attention once again to clause 5(1)(d), which goes to the issue of the functions of Infrastructure Australia. Clause 5(1)(d) says that one of the functions is to provide advice on the options and reforms, including regulatory reforms, to make the utilisation of national infrastructure networks more efficient. The minister who is responsible for this legislation has indicated on numerous occasions the intention of the government to consider the issue of alternative urban transport options and that that is a provision of the government’s program. That is a clear, unequivocal commitment.
In terms of the amendment, I have outlined on numerous occasions that the amendment does not add any value to the legislation, because the way that the bill is written ensures that the new agency will conform with the government’s broader approaches to climate change. To ensure that there is a focus to that attention, the existing functions in the bill allow for Infrastructure Australia to provide advice on infrastructure policies arising from climate change. That is broader than the proposed amendment. You are in fact weakening the provisions of the bill by this amendment. I might suggest that that is a reason in itself to oppose this amendment.
That is a ludicrous proposition. It is a good ‘try on’ from the government, but it is clearly a ludicrous proposition. The minister has not answered the question. Why are you making consideration of climate change at the discretion of Infrastructure Australia and at the discretion of the minister and not mandatory? I would put to you that clause 5(1)(d), which you raised and which is about making them more efficient, is not necessarily about making them more greenhouse friendly or less oil intensive—although you would hope that they would be in the future because of costs. How does changing something from being discretionary to being mandatory weaken the legislation? On the contrary: it is requiring that climate change be taken into account and not at the discretion of Infrastructure Australia or at the discretion of the minister. Why aren’t you prepared to have it be made mandatory if it is government policy?
The opposition will not be supporting this amendment. In this particular case, we support the government. I have had a look at it closely. I understand your concerns, Senator Milne. But I have had a very close look at proposed section 5(2)(g). There is nowhere else in the legislation where we are specifically compelling Infrastructure Australia to take any particular direction. The catch-all and fairly vague function that the minister provides clearly gives the minister opportunity to do so. I would have thought that organisations of the nature of Infrastructure Australia will not be prevented from doing so. The fact that in the legislation it says ‘to provide advice on infrastructure policy issues arising from climate change’ is sufficient, I would have thought. It would not improve the legislation to make that more specific.
That is a very disappointing contribution by the coalition, I have to say. Senator Scullion says that we do not want to direct Infrastructure Australia, but we are directing them on things like efficiency by talking about ‘impediments to the efficient utilisation of national infrastructure networks’. This is a statement about what the priorities should be. So far, we have efficiency but we do not have climate change. We have an oddly worded function which does not in any way suggest the serious priority that should be given to climate change in this country. The coalition is happy to go along with that. We are again seeing the two major parties ganging up and not wanting to take the important steps that would lead Australia to massively reduce its greenhouse emissions. This is a perfect bill to be stating the priorities of the parliament in. It would be a message to all Australia that we think that this is important. Infrastructure which will be planned, advised about and coordinated—all the words that are in this bill, including assisting in the allocation of resources—is going to be around for 100 years. The advice given by Infrastructure Australia is utterly crucial to the future of this country.
This is not just about a bit of congestion here or there or whether there is an Eastlink link-up; it is about whether our cities and our country can respond to a climate change requirement which is massive, which will require fundamental change in the way we do business across the board—in the way that we send goods around the country; in the way that we plan our houses; in the way that infrastructure, the built nature of this country, is going to see us out over the next 100 years. Maybe we will dissolve this organisation and put in another one next year. Maybe that is the intention—I do not know—but I do not see here the vision for how we will cope with this most serious problem facing the country. I do not see it written here. It is buried away under a ‘dodgily’ worded—that is not a very good word, I realise, but I will stick with that—phrase here that is buried at the end of a set of objectives.
It is just unbelievably disappointing that this is what it has come to. The two major parties have again come together and said: ‘It doesn’t matter; it is there. Of course we’ll do it. Don’t worry; it is mentioned. That’s all you have to worry about.’ But it is not given the priority it needs, Minister, and I urge you to rethink this and to make sure that there is a message not only to Infrastructure Australia but more broadly to the whole community showing that this government is prepared to take leadership. This is the government that went to Bali and said, ‘Yes, we’re going to ratify Kyoto,’ and the whole country cheered, Minister. The whole country was relieved that at last we had a government prepared to act on climate change. This bill is an opportunity to demonstrate that not just in symbolic terms but to say: ‘These are our instructions to the people that we want to advise us. This is our priority. This is what we think is important.’ But, no, it is buried in this bill.
I hope that the assurances you have given us make a difference, Minister, but it is certainly not written here in the way that I would want to see. It is not written in here in the way that I think most Australians would want to see. Eighty per cent of Australians want urgent action taken on climate change. They believe the scientists. They hear them and they see the future of this country being in deep trouble, like the rest of the world, if we do not act. Here was your chance and you blew it. And the opposition have folded and not been prepared to use their numbers when they have them to make a difference. Despite all the assurances that we have had from the Leader of the Opposition that there is a new face there that considers such important matters as climate change, you have ganged up together and made sure that this very first opportunity will be a dud.
I am deeply disappointed in the responses of those on both sides of the chamber to this very simple, straightforward amendment which would set the priorities right. That is what we want you to do: we want you to plan infrastructure in this country, bearing in mind the very serious needs of the globe to respond to climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and it is not here. It is here in a very qualified, limited and low-order priority, and that is a grave disappointment.
I am extremely disappointed. I simply do not understand the coalition’s response to this amendment. We had the Leader of the Opposition yesterday at the Press Club saying that climate change was now a priority for the coalition, that it has changed its position on it and now recognises the importance of climate change; and here we have a government that has made much of climate change in the media surrounding this bill and that, in the second reading speech, said:
Well-planned infrastructure is the arteries of a successful, modern economy and essential to ...
Then there are six dot points, and I am disappointed to say that the last of the dot points—but nevertheless it is there—is that well-planned infrastructure is essential to ‘reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions’. That is absolutely correct, that is true—and that is our point. Having said that in the second reading speech, when you get to the actual legislation setting this up you find that there is no mandatory requirement to consider reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions—and peak oil did not get a mention at all in the whole speech.
But reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions was mentioned. The publicity surrounding the bill talks about it, but when you get to the bill itself you find that it is only something that may be considered at the discretion of Infrastructure Australia or at the discretion of the minister, giving the government and this Infrastructure Australia body the option of not considering it at all if they have a political imperative to build something that will be quite contrary in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
As I indicated last night, all of the evidence is showing that our transport emissions are out of control and that new suburbs are being built with no public transport access. What we are seeing are clogged arterial roads, and putting in these tunnels is only going to spread the congestion to the connector points outside. This is going to drive really poor urban planning, because you are going to have increased arterial access and then riven development outside the cities and no public transport infrastructure. It is just going to reinforce all of the problems we have, and there is nothing in this bill—nothing at all—making it mandatory for Infrastructure Australia or the government to consider greenhouse gas emissions.
I find it incredibly disappointing when all I am asking for upfront is that it becomes a requirement to report on this. In fact, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Australia committed to making efforts to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. We keep going overseas saying we want to do that, yet we have not taken the very first opportunity to take a strategic look—and that is what I like about developing this option of Infrastructure Australia—at infrastructure provisions in the future and say, ‘End this political pork-barrelling at elections, of running around promising people the road that they want, and let us look nationally at providing infrastructure strategically for Australia’s future.’ Infrastructure will deliver the type of Australia you want to live in. And the type of Australia you would want to live in would be one which is reducing its emissions, which has better amenity in the cities, which is reducing its dependence on foreign oil, which takes social inclusion seriously and incorporates that in the functions of Infrastructure Australia and which takes the transition to the knowledge based economy seriously and includes that specifically in Infrastructure Australia.
All I have heard here this morning is that the directions in relation to Infrastructure Australia do not preclude the consideration of schools, universities and libraries, but they specifically include several other things, so there was a decision to leave those out as specific requirements. There was also a decision to leave out as a specific requirement the inclusion of infrastructure for Indigenous communities. And now we have a decision to make discretionary the consideration of greenhouse gases and oil depletion—peak oil—issues. So I can only say that the rhetoric around climate change is now being exposed as just that. The rest of the world will be incredibly disappointed, because this is a major signal of where this government are taking their so-called whole-of-government approach on climate change. If they were really serious about it, they would have it upfront, and that would be a signal to all state governments and local governments that they had better start putting up transport and infrastructure proposals that reduce greenhouse gas emissions—especially in terms of energy infrastructure. It is not just about transport infrastructure; it is about energy infrastructure. If it is only at the discretion of the minister when they look at energy infrastructure as to whether they consider greenhouse gas emissions then we will have new coal fired power stations and we will have more desalination plants. They will not have to look at the greenhouse gas implications of the infrastructure that they are providing. It will be at the discretion of the minister. This brings it all undone. It is pretty threadbare, I have to say, and it is extremely disappointing.
All those people out there who thought they were voting for a government that was going to prioritise climate change are now finding out that, in the consideration of new energy infrastructure, it will not be mandatory to take into account greenhouse gas emissions. Overnight we had the minister, Martin Ferguson, talking about coal to liquids for transport fuels. We are now finding out that he is going to rush through the parliament a bill on carbon capture and storage. It is all without consideration of the big picture of greenhouse gas emission reduction, long-term environmental impacts and the shift to a low-carbon economy. It is all stopgap measures. It is ad hoc. Tragically, this is not going to deliver a whole-of-government infrastructure strategic planning approach for a future in which we have to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions well beyond the 60 per cent that the government is currently talking about. We are going to need more than a 30 per cent cut by 2020. How are we going to achieve that by passing a bill that allows for the development of infrastructure—that is, more roads and freeways and more energy intensive infrastructure—without the mandatory consideration of greenhouse gas reductions? I have not heard from the minister how we are going to achieve those emissions reductions without this mandatory consideration. I put that to him before the amendment is moved. Minister, explain to me please how you are going to achieve your emissions reductions without a mandatory assessment of emissions from infrastructure developments that are to be recommended.
The normal provisions in terms of EIS and other environmental measures apply to infrastructure. There is nothing in this bill that precludes the application of the law to these questions. Senator, I know you have made some points here but I do not know how much more I can contribute. The government’s position has been outlined. You have a different view. You doubt our sincerity and our integrity. We have been in office for all of three months. You are entitled to do that. I understand that. That is the nature of this chamber. But there is not much more I can say to you other than to put on the public record, for the umpteenth time: you are wrong.
The minister says that greenhouse will be dealt with under the law. I remind the minister that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act does not include a trigger for greenhouse. An EIS might be done, but it will be about vulnerable species; it will be about a whole range of things within the act—but not greenhouse. I ask the minister, if he thinks the law will protect us from climate change due to our own emissions, will he indicate that sometime soon, hopefully in the next sitting week, we will deal with a bill in this place that puts a greenhouse trigger into place, as was promised by the previous government many years ago but never happened? My guess is that the states will not want it, so we will never see that trigger. I think 500 million tonnes was the original proposal. We would like to see it a bit lower than that, and I know the Greens would as well—100,000 tonnes has been suggested. If we are relying on the law, will this government fix the law so that greenhouse can be taken into account as a threat to the country and to all of those matters of national importance that are covered under the bill?
I see we have a change of ministers in the chamber. I hope the new minister, Senator McLucas, is able to get a grasp of this issue quickly and that the advisers are able to give us a date when we can expect to see that trigger inserted into the EPBC Act—because, if we do not have it here as a No. 1 priority, then at least the law has to be accessible for people so that a desalination plant which would generate a million tonnes of greenhouse a year is able to be challenged. It is not able to be challenged now. We know that because already, even though it is a controlled action, it is not a controlled action insofar as greenhouse is concerned, despite our best efforts to make sure that it is. Minister, are you in a position to tell us, if greenhouse is not going to be included as a high priority and mandated requirement for reporting, will there at least be the avenue for us to take projects to the federal government? When I say ‘us,’ I am talking about the broader community out there. Will they be able to take projects like the desal plant, like various road or other infrastructure projects, to the federal environment minister under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act?
What I can tell the senator is that the government’s commitment to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is well understood by the community. It is well understood by the government and it is a whole-of-government approach. It is clearly different from the previous government—I think both speakers this morning have recognised that fact—and it is something that we intend to do.
What we have done so far in 120 days is that Senator Wong, the Minister for Climate Change and Water, has put down her plan to establish an emissions-trading scheme. She has been open and transparent with the community about how we are going to achieve that. I am sure you know about the proposals from the government around the question of the mandatory renewable energy target that we said in opposition was not working and that we now have said we will deal with. You may not know that the Climate Change Task Force, headed by Roger Wilkins, will review every program and every activity of the government to assess its climate change implications. You cannot ask for much more than what we have said is the early days, the early start to a climate change agenda.
I think the Australian community will believe that the commitment from the Prime Minister passing down across every department to deal with dangerous climate change is a heartfelt and strong commitment. It is about dealing with something that would end in a lot of trouble if we did not. I think the leadership that our Prime Minister showed in Bali in particular was extraordinarily well received. You have both made that point. But it is not just about icons; this is real. This is something that we know we have to do.
The amendments that you propose do not assist in that process. The bill does indicate that climate change will be a consideration. It is not in the place that you would like, but it is there. That commitment will be carried through. We will disagree on where it should appear in that part of the legislation, but I think you can take it from all of the government, not just from me, that we are absolutely aware of the responsibility that we have to pick up the climate change ball and get on with the job of dealing with this not just for Australia but, as you both know, to play our part in the international sphere.
I appreciate the minister’s response. I understand that she is quite sincere in what she is saying, but the reality is that it is not about where it is placed in the bill; it is about whether it is a discretionary or a mandatory commitment to assess greenhouse gas emissions. My view is that if the government is serious about a strategic approach to climate change then consideration of greenhouse gas emissions would be mandatory, not discretionary.
I have to say that Senator Carr misled the chamber a few moments ago when he said that greenhouse gas emissions would be assessed in environmental impact assessments—they are not. I can tell you right now that the Commonwealth jointly agreed to an assessment process for the Gunns pulp mill in Tasmania. Prior to doing so there was legislation—which went through the Senate supported by Labor in opposition at the time—to say that the emissions from the logging and burning of forests would be excluded from the environmental impact assessment of a pulp mill. So you exclude the area where you are going to have the most emissions, the logging and burning of forests, and then say, ‘We’ll have the environmental impact assessment just done on the actual facility.’
Then, when we get to the environmental impact assessment process, as Senator Allison just said, it is about threatened species on the actual site. It is not in relation to the feedstock, the forests, when it comes to this pulp mill. There is no greenhouse gas trigger. If there were, then even the facility itself would trigger a greenhouse gas assessment not to mention the feedstock of the forests. Senator Carr used to speak for the Labor Party on matters relating to the EPBC legislation and so I cannot understand how he would have misled the chamber in this way. But, nevertheless, if he wants to come in here and tell the chamber that the greenhouse gas emissions from the total pulp mill process, from the logging in the forests through to the delivery of the pulp to the wharves and elsewhere, is included, then I would be very pleased. We will go back, do the greenhouse gas assessment of that pulp mill project, and show how it is going to blow out Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions as nothing has before. This would lead to an appropriate assessment of the huge volumes of carbon that are going to be released into the atmosphere by the logging of old-growth forests and the release of soil carbon from those forests.
I would really prefer the rhetoric of what people might like to do and the reality of what is happening be actually acknowledged in the chamber. I look forward to the government bringing in a greenhouse gas trigger. In the estimates hearings when I asked Senator Wong where the trigger is and what level it is going to be set at, she completely refused to answer the questions and evaded the questions one after another. I asked several times because in opposition Labor’s trigger was 500,000 tonnes. We wanted to bring it down to 100,000 tonnes; nevertheless Labor’s policy was 500,000 tonnes. Now that policy commitment has evaporated. The minister for climate change utterly refused in the estimates process to commit to 500,000 tonnes or to when this greenhouse gas trigger at whatever level was going to be introduced. There is no commitment to an introduction into the EPBC Act of a greenhouse gas trigger. Contrary to what has just been said, greenhouse will not be taken into account in environmental impact assessments. What is even worse is that, with many of these infrastructure projects coming up from the states, there is no adequate, if there is one at all, full environmental and social impact assessment let alone an economic impact assessment of these projects.
That is specifically why we are on our feet now saying that it should be in this bill as a mandatory decision and not something that is at the discretion of either local, state and federal government representatives on Infrastructure Australia or ministerials. That is why I am asking. It is not about placement in the bill; it is about the difference between discretion and mandatory consideration of greenhouse gas emissions. I do not know if Senator McLucas has anything to add, but that is clearly the point of difference. It is a significant point of difference in a climate where we need to have deep cuts and soon.
I fear what is going to happen here is that this amendment will be defeated, we will go ahead with this bill, Infrastructure Australia will come forward with a whole lot of new road projects that will increase transport emissions and 10 years down the track people will be wringing their hands, saying, ‘We’ve got all these cars in cities and we don’t know what to do about it. How are we going to reduce our emissions?’ We have the opportunity now to put that upfront and make sure that infrastructure planning for energy and transport takes into account an assessment of the actual volumes of greenhouse gas emissions that are going to be generated by the projects.
I just want to ask the proponent of this amendment: exactly what impact will this have on the changing climate of the world? I have listened to Senator Milne on and off this morning talking about how we should effectively stop decent transport for those of us who live in more remote parts of Australia and railing against, as I understand what she is saying, infrastructure on roads. That is very important to those people who live in country and rural Australia. But, if it is for a purpose, then perhaps that is something that should be considered. Bearing in mind that Australia exudes less than 1.4 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, unless we can get China, America, Japan, Russia and India to stop their greenhouse gas emissions what this amendment will do for the changing climate of the world is, to my way of thinking, problematic.
I have always said that Australia needs to show leadership. We certainly did that at the APEC convention and in other ways in the last three or four years. We set up the world’s first greenhouse office. We have demonstrated a commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It seems to me that the thought behind this proposal of Senator Milne’s to make it difficult to service a country as vast as Australia might be fine if it were going to do something about the increase in droughts and cyclones, but I would just like Senator Milne to explain to me in fairly simple language how this is going to help stop the changing world climate.
I thank the senator for the opportunity to respond to that question. I was perhaps premature in suggesting that he had changed his position in relation to climate change. I had regarded him as a sceptic until today and I was about to change my position, but I now see that the sceptic has returned. The first point to make is that Australia is impacted by climate change probably more than a lot of other places in the world. We are a desert country and, if you go anywhere in rural Australia, people will tell you immediately how we are already being impacted by climate change. If the implication is that Australia should carry on with business as usual with our emissions but expect the rest of the world to reduce theirs so that there is a reduced impact on Australia, that is a ‘Pull up the ladder, Jack; we’re all right’ kind of process.
Australia has agreed that there is a moral obligation for every country in the world to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. We have ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and we have now also ratified the Kyoto protocol and made a commitment to reducing our emissions and to joining the rest of the world as part of a global commitment to reducing climate change because we understand that the impacts of climate change do not stop at national borders and that we are impacted the same as everybody else and have an obligation the same as everybody else to reduce our emissions.
Per capita, we are the worst, most selfish people in the world when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. We have a huge obligation to reduce our own emissions. People who are thinking about climate change all the time are now reaching the position that we should be moving to contraction and convergence, whereby we contract our emissions so that developing countries have some leeway to develop—albeit by decoupling economic growth from energy use. That is our main challenge and that is the way in which Australia could not only do it but assist other countries to do it. I am certainly a supporter of contraction and convergence and of deep cuts, and I certainly understand the impact of climate change on Australia. To suggest that, because Australia’s emissions are a small percentage of total global emissions, we should therefore not worry about it so much and should not look at our transport emissions is an unethical and immoral position.
In terms of roads, at no stage did I say that there should not be adequate, efficient, high-class transport to service Australia. In fact, that is my total commitment in this whole discussion. That is why I support a strategic approach to infrastructure development: because I want to see better, more efficient transport. But I want to see the wheels keep turning in an age of oil depletion and carbon constraint. In order to do that, you have to prioritise things like urban passenger rail and mass rapid transit for buses in cities.
The Howard government for a decade precluded investment in urban passenger rail as part of infrastructure development, which is in part why we are in the mess we are in now in terms of congestion in our major cities. It is in fact by putting more people in cars that we make the amenity of life in cities even worse, because when you put more people in cars you get high levels of congestion, you get high air pollution, you slow down the city, you lose productivity from the city, you end up with whole suburbs like those in Western Sydney that are ill served or not served by public transport, and you get expansions in Melbourne for the same reason—all those issues apply.
Whether Senator Ian Macdonald likes it or not, the Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, has said that the Liberal Party is now concerned about climate change and, I presume from that, is concerned about meeting Australia’s obligations. That is the context in which I am here today saying we need to not only meet our obligations for deep cuts but also do it in a way that provides the services. That is the challenge—to be clever and innovative about infrastructure development. My concern is that by leaving out a compulsory requirement to report on greenhouse gas emissions we are going to have business-as-usual propositions coming forward from infrastructure developers and from the states, because they have shown very little capacity for innovation to date. Through this amendment I am putting out the challenge: let us have highly efficient, modern transport and, at the same time, lower emissions. That is our challenge. Many people want cycleways to be part of Infrastructure Australia’s development, but if you are not going to have greenhouse gas emission and oil depletion assessments you are not going to get prioritised investment in cycleways in our cities—and that would deal with issues like obesity as well, which people are increasingly concerned about.
So, if you have an opportunity to use infrastructure to improve public health, to improve air quality, to make a city move faster and therefore make it more economically efficient, and to reduce emissions, then you should do so. That is the perspective I am bringing here today. It is not about going back to the Stone Age; it is about making sure that we do not build white elephants in cities, as has happened in New South Wales and Victoria, but that we build infrastructure that is suitable for a carbon constrained 21st century.
I will respond to your question too, even though you did not ask me, Senator Macdonald. I hesitate a bit because I have heard you ask this question umpteen times and you do not seem to ever take much notice of the answers that are given. I have not seen the latest statistics, but I think Australia is either No. 9 or No. 10 on the list of greenhouse gas emitters. In other words, we are the 10th largest emitter. It may not seem a lot—somewhere between one and two per cent, I think, is our contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions—but we are No. 10, and that means that there are hundreds of countries that emit less than we do. Now, if we and all of those countries took the same attitude you would like to see this country take, Senator Macdonald, then what chance would there be of us ever being able to get global cooperation? Zilch. Absolutely zero.
Not only that but also we are the biggest emitters on a per capita basis, because we are big wasters. Sure, we have got a big country and we have got to transport people around it, but on that point, Senator Macdonald, as I travel around country Victoria mostly but other states as well, the constant refrain I get is: ‘The public transport doesn’t serve us. There’s so much money that goes into roads, and it’s fine if you’ve got a car and it’s fine if you can afford the petrol to get yourself from point A to point B, but what we want is a decent bus service from Geelong to Bendigo,’ or from Shepparton to Echuca or some such, ‘and it’s not there.’
The implications of that are that young people, old people, families with not a lot of income and many, many people in country areas are disadvantaged by the sorts of attitudes and policies of the former government and state governments—I acknowledge that; state governments are no different in terms of seeing it as important to put money into roads and not look at the alternatives. I think a lot more money needs to be put into transport generally. Look at the Roads of National Importance program. That money was spent on a freeway around Melbourne! And we all know that it was done for political reasons. Political parties said, ‘We’ll get more votes out in the Scoresby area if we put this freeway in.’ Everyone knows that. That is common knowledge, absolutely common knowledge. So I am just as critical of state governments as I hope you are, Senator Macdonald, but I am also very critical of your government because for almost 12 years it ignored public transport.
There was a very good program under the former Labor government called Better Cities. I think that was its name. You can chuckle, Senator Macdonald, but it did include public transport, and that is crucial—public transport in the country, in the city, everywhere. There are people who do not have cars or have cars but cannot afford to drive them who need public transport, and it is missing. We would get a lot of people off the road if we improved the level of service in public transport in our cities and elsewhere. It is the least that Infrastructure Australia should be looking at. Anyway, I think we have clarified that it will, and that is a very good thing. But I wanted to pick up—sorry, we seem to be missing a minister altogether now. We were on our third minister, but he has absented himself from the chamber. Obviously, not exactly—
There is a minister here, Senator Allison.
Thank you, Chair; I am glad you pointed that out. His crouching down made him invisible to most of us. Minister, we will have to go through it all again, I am afraid, because you were not here for much of the last debate—
Senator Ludwig interjecting—
You were listening. Excellent. Well, you would have heard Senator McLucas point out the step forward on greenhouse gases at Bali, and, yes, we all said that was a great thing, but then she said that we could not question the commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions because this government was at some stage going to do an extension of the mandated renewable energy target, and we welcome that—there is no reason why it should not start tomorrow instead of having to wait till 2009 or 2010, however. But the point is that that is about electricity. MRET is about electricity; it is not about transport, and that is principally what we have been debating for the last hour or so. Senator McLucas also mentioned emissions trading. Again, emissions trading is about electricity and industrial processes and the like; it is not going to cover transport. So we are still searching, Minister, for a commitment from the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through infrastructure, and as we all know the biggest slab of the Infrastructure Australia agency’s work will be related to transport.
I would have asked Senator McLucas, who mentioned this, but I put it to you, Minister, that the only initiatives that this government have seriously made a commitment to, are MRET and the emissions-trading system. We still do not seem to be having a greenhouse trigger in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act anytime soon even though, as I recall, Senator Lundy in 2003 moved an amendment to that effect. So the amendment is there; it is ready to go. Turn it into a bill, Minister, and put it before us. You will find that there will be widespread support for putting that trigger in place. It is in your policy. You have moved in the past on putting it into bills. Let us have a government bill that does that. Then we will be satisfied that there is some mechanism by which we and the rest of the population can challenge decisions that have enormous implications in terms of greenhouse emissions. There will be a law there.
Minister Carr made the mistake of saying that there will be an EIS on anything to do with greenhouse. That is not so. We all know that is not so. The federal law does not cover greenhouse, which is crazy because the federal environment laws are about matters of national significance. There is no more significant matter than greenhouse. I am getting fed up with saying this, Minister, because it is clear that these amendments will go down. As has been said many times before, that is an unfortunate signal because, like Bali, this was an opportunity for the government to say: ‘We mean what we say. Greenhouse is important, and we will act on it.’ This is the first chance to do it and there has been a failure on the part of government to do that. Minister, I would be grateful if you could acknowledge that emissions trading and the mandate of renewable energy targets have nothing to do with the vast bulk of the work that is likely to come through Infrastructure Australia, which is transport.
What I can say—and the previous minister, Senator Carr, and parliamentary secretary, Senator McLucas, said this—is that all the matters that you have raised, such as climate change, are included within the existing bill, so they can be dealt with in that way. I understand the arguments that you put. I know they are matters that you are particularly passionate about, and I acknowledge that, but they can be included within the existing bill.
I do not want to carry this debate on. I understand there is some pressure building to complete the debate so that the bill can be passed. I certainly do not want to give Senator Milne an opportunity for another 15 minutes of saying what she said in the previous 15 minutes. But I do want to comment on how strange it is that Senator Milne should criticise Senator Wong for never answering questions. She is right in that Senator Wong never does answer questions, but Senator Milne is a great exponent of that herself. When I asked her a question before, we had 15 minutes of attacks on me and the coalition, as always, and we had allegations that I am a sceptic. Well, I am a sceptic of the Greens political party, not of climate change. I accept, and have accepted for a long time, that climate change is happening. We as a government understood more about greenhouse gas in being the first government in the world to set up a greenhouse office. So do not lecture me about those sorts of things, Senator Milne.
My scepticism comes, as always, with the hypocrisy of the Greens political party—a party that is purely hypocritical when it comes to environment matters. Shut down the Tasmanian forests—which are the best managed forests in the world—but do not worry too much about Indonesia or the Solomons or the Congo or the Amazon; they are not too worried about that. What do they do to try to get the United States to the table—the big emitters? They continually attack them; call them names. They have stunts when the United States President comes in to town. What a great way to try to get the United States to get involved in matters of greenhouse gas emissions!
I am not a sceptic, Senator Milne. I am sure no-one takes too much notice of you, but I want to place on record that Senator Milne’s accusation that I am a sceptic is simply not true. I am concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and the changing of the world climate. I do not need to be lectured by Senator Milne saying that Australia will be one of the countries most affected by the changing climate. I know that. My comment simply is: unless you get the big emitters to the table, nothing Australia does will impact upon the changing climate of the world.
The Greens and the Democrats get all very warm and fuzzy: ‘We’ll cut Australia back. We’ll do this, and we’ll do that.’ I am a proud Australian and I like to think that everyone notices what we do in Australia, but I have to say, with some regret, that very few do. We have to play our part. We have played our part, and we will continue to do so. If signing a bit of paper means we are playing our part, well, good luck to us. Let us play our part. What we have to do it if we are really serious about climate change is not destroy the Australian economy while every other economy keeps emitting 98.6 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Sure, we have to do our bit, but we do not have to do it in advance of what other countries are doing. We need to get those really big emitters to the table—that is the way we can do it. I did not ask Senator Milne for a 15-minute discourse on what she had said previously, attacking the Howard government and a word or two about the Greens’ mates in the Labor Party. I asked her what practical impact her amendments would have, not on greenhouse gas emissions, not on Australia’s ranking, but on the changing climate of the world. Of course, we did not get an answer to that, because the answer would not suit the Greens political party’s purpose.
As I say, I do not want to continue this on. There are a lot of other questions I have on the bill. This is the third minister who has been in charge of this bill in this debate. Clearly, the government is not terribly serious about it. The questions I asked of the first of the ministers, about the actual set-up of the bill, were not answered.
I am curious to know if the infrastructure announcements by the Labor Party in the pre-election period are going to be subject to advice from Infrastructure Australia. My understanding of Mr Rudd’s comments is that everything the Labor Party promised would be delivered. Even Regional Partnerships projects that had been rejected by the department but had then been promised by the Labor Party in the pre-election period will go ahead without any scrutiny whatsoever. For example, the dead tree in Barcaldine is going to get lots of money, whereas carers, Bonnie Babes and those sorts of people are going to have to fight for theirs. I wonder, Minister, if you could explain to me whether Infrastructure Australia will be looking critically and carefully at the infrastructure promises made by the Labor Party prior to the election. If, as I suspect, they will not be looking at them because they are going to be delivered anyhow, then I ask what credibility this unit, Infrastructure Australia, could possibly have if it is only going to be allowed to look at selected infrastructure areas, not areas that the government has already decided are going to go ahead.
It is one of those matters that will come up later during the debate, but I note that the opposition has expressed concern that Infrastructure Australia is unable to independently consider the ALP’s election promises. Infrastructure Australia is about addressing the 11½ years of neglect by the previous government, so we do need to get on with the job. Firstly, I would like to say that the government does take its election commitments very seriously. Secondly, the election promises were developed after wide consultation with stakeholders, as you may have appreciated, during the pre-election period and before. Also, in travelling around Australia in developing those, the urgent need for work on highways such as the Pacific Highway and the Bruce was blindingly obvious, as you would well know, given where your electorate office is placed. Too many people spend too much time in what you could only describe as bumper-to-bumper traffic on the Ipswich Motorway instead of being with their families. I am sure you have experienced that, as I have.
About 80 per cent of Australians who live in our cities are now subjected to long-term water restrictions, and rural Australia is suffering after years of drought. Those matters, I am sure you would agree, are blindingly obvious. They are also a very good reason why the government made election commitments to provide critical water infrastructure that will secure water supplies within and outside of the Murray-Darling Basin. I am sure that is obvious to you as well, as it is to those people who are in the Murray-Darling Basin.
Infrastructure Australia will have its work cut out for it, auditing and prioritising Australia’s infrastructure needs, without having to look at projects that any water user or any motorist in New South Wales or Queensland would tell you are in dire need of attention. Infrastructure Australia will be forward looking and provide support to decisions made about Australia’s future, rather than raking over the past time and time again. It appears to me that those are matters that you did not get on with when you were in government. You navel-gazed about them for so long that they never got done, unfortunately. It is critical that Infrastructure Australia works both strategically and in a much more cohesive fashion than you did when you were in government, and it is critical that it continues to boost the productive capacity of the nation—and to keep a lid on inflation. That is one of the critical aims and something which you did not do when you were in government, which you let get out of control. In any event, I think that provides a short answer to your question. I did not want to take up a particularly long time to respond to you, but I think it is plain.
I will not take the opportunity to respond to Senator Macdonald, except to say that after the parliament had risen last year I do not know where Senator Macdonald went or what he did, but I went to Bali to the UNFCCC conference. There I took up the issue of the Indonesian forests, particularly with the European Union. I took the opportunity to brief members of the European parliament on the conversion of tropical forests to palm oil and also the effect of draining tropical forests for palm oil on increased fires through Indonesia as a result of climate change.
Also, at the World Heritage meeting in Christchurch last year I took the lead on getting the World Heritage Committee to raise to the level of the African Union the devastation and potential devastation of further areas of the Congo forests. So, whilst Senator Macdonald might make whatever accusations he likes, the reality is I use many opportunities and international fora that I attend to raise the issue of the protection of forests. I do not just stand in this parliament and make pronouncements about them.
But before we put the question on the amendments I want to return to the issue that I think Senator McLucas raised—although there have been three or four ministers here, so I am just not sure which one; it may not have been Senator McLucas. A minister talked about the emissions-trading scheme that the government is introducing, and I acknowledge that. Under the Kyoto protocol, it is one of the financial mechanisms to reduce emissions. But that is the point here in terms of getting a consistent government approach. If you are going to have an emissions-trading scheme, are you going to include the transport sector in the emissions-trading scheme, and how will that work?
If you have an emissions-trading scheme or you tax embedded carbon in fuel by regulation—which in my view would be a better way of going—either way the price of fuel with the highest amount of carbon in it is going to increase in a carbon constrained world because governments are going to bring additional costs onto the price of fuel. So, whichever way you look at it, petrol prices are going to go up because of the underlying increase in the price of oil and because of either a carbon tax on embedded carbon or an emissions-trading system, which means that motorists are going to be paying more for their fuel. If you are looking at that, you are looking to plan infrastructure that reduces the number of cars on the road and maximises the opportunity for large numbers of people to access public transport so that your emissions are reduced but also your costs are reduced. One of the arguments I have always used in terms of building these new suburbs on the edges of cities is that they should not be given planning permission unless they are connected to a public transport route. That should be a requirement. Otherwise you have this issue that we currently have, particularly in Western Sydney, where the poorest people live furthest from the centre of the city, drive the oldest, least fuel-efficient vehicles, have no options for public transport because it is not provided and end up paying a disproportionate amount of their income in having to use the car to get to work because they do not have any other options.
That is why I am asking for consistency across government. We are going to be addressing climate change and reducing emissions through emissions trading or taxation or a combination of both. The price of oil is going up; the price of fuel to the motorist is going up. That must be taken into account when you are planning infrastructure in the future, and it also must be taken into account in terms of reducing emissions. So I would be interested to know from the minister how consistency of approach is going to be assured when we know that the price of fuel is going to go up. How is dealing with transport emissions going to be taken into account by Infrastructure Australia?
I do acknowledge the point you made, Senator Milne, about the fact the we have had a number of ministers in the chamber for this stage of the bill. I had to go to an important meeting and the Manager of Government Business had to come in to field some questions. As I indicated earlier, we are introducing an emissions-trading scheme. It has been well received by the community, and you have acknowledged that as well. I cannot comment on the intricacies of how that will work. I think the timetable that Senator Wong released, I think on Monday this week, would probably be where you would find the answer to your question.
But I do refer you again to the fact that the bill does provide that Infrastructure Australia will have a function to provide advice on infrastructure policy issues arising from climate change. As I said earlier, you and I will disagree on where in the bill that is placed, and you have made your points about why you think that should be somewhere different. We have heard them and we have now been debating these amendments for quite some time, and I think we have possibly exhausted the argument.
Question put:
That the amendments (Senator Milne’s) be agreed to.
by leave—I move all opposition amendments on sheet 5463:
(1A) Before appointing the Infrastructure Coordinator, the Minister must consult with the Chair and members of Infrastructure Australia.
When we were speaking this morning there were some undertakings. I would like to think that, in the early days of the government, we are perhaps not as cynical as those from the Greens and the Democrats. Let us hope that is not a poorly placed judgement or a little bit naive. In the matters relating to this very broad catch-all function that has been bequeathed to the minister to provide direction to Infrastructure Australia—page 4, section 5(2)(j)—the bill gives to Infrastructure Australia:
... any functions that the Minister, by writing, directs Infrastructure Australia to perform ...
In most of the discussions this morning, while many of the responses were not a sort of ‘trust me’ response, we would expect the minister to make directions that involve many of the questions from this morning. The real challenge, of course, is that we will not know just what those directions are until the annual report of Infrastructure Australia comes out. This amendment seeks to ensure that, in the interests of transparency, such a direction should be tabled in each house so that we actually know that the directions being given are about climate change or many of the issues that came up. If it is actually tabled in both houses, a vague function, which is quite a broad function, is going to be buried in an annual report of Infrastructure Australia. We do not think what is currently proposed in the bill is good enough. Effectively, the amendment will allow a degree of transparency about the most important function of Infrastructure Australia.
Amendments (2) and (3) are, really, technical amendments. But a real weakness in the bill is where it stipulates that Infrastructure Australia may only evaluate infrastructure proposals on advice to the minister. As Senator Ian Macdonald alluded to earlier, what this effectively does is ensures that they are unable to independently consider, for example, the Australian Labor Party’s infrastructure election promises. We know they have had a bit of difficulty with those promises. The Labor Party puts its hand on its heart and says, ‘If it is an election promise, we’re really going to stick with this.’ Labor has decided to scrap the F3 to Branxton link road. I can certainly recall the comments by the federal transport minister in parliament that this is a critically important road to remove bottlenecks around Newcastle and the Hunter Valley. The comments simply do not add up. The commitment by the Rudd Labor government that it would absolutely match the coalition’s commitment of $870 million to the link road flies in the face of the statement made in parliament.
I am not suggesting there is any particular conspiracy to say that the reason we have put this here is not to look at ALP infrastructure election promises, but it constricts this organisation when looking at a whole range of issues that may come to their attention as part of the process or reviewing things. It takes away the independence completely. If you look at section 5(4) on page 4 of the bill, it specifically forbids Infrastructure Australia from conducting any review of its own volition. Instead, Infrastructure Australia requires the request of the minister. So the statutory authority will have absolutely no capacity to act independently. We think that is a great shame. I, for one, would certainly welcome an objective analysis of the rigour and appropriateness of Labor’s election promises and how this fits in with general infrastructure. I think it is a weakness that Infrastructure Australia cannot have its own independence, and that is why we propose this amendment to rectify this weakness.
In relation to amendment (5), the bill does not require the minister to take advice from Infrastructure Australia when appointing the infrastructure coordinator. I think that the minister, when making such a significant appointment, should be compelled at the very least to consult with the members and chairs of the agency. This amendment deals with this weakness. It has already been mentioned in this place. I think the Labor Party should very much support this amendment. It will spare them from this terrible temptation in using Infrastructure Australia as a vehicle to hand out jobs to their mates. We have got a bit of form in this area; recently, Steve Bracks was appointed to head a review of the Australian car industry. If you support this amendment then of course you will not have that temptation.
The opposition will not be opposing the establishment of Infrastructure Australia, but I think that our amendments redress some of the flaws in the bill. The amendments are going give Infrastructure Australia more independence by permitting it to analyse Labor’s infrastructure promises without the approval of the minister. They are going to increase transparency by subjecting ministerial directions to the scrutiny of parliament. In fact, these directions are not specifically disallowable as a legislative instrument, which is not providing the sufficient transparency that this organisation would require. As I have said, these amendments are going to help Labor ensure that they are not tempted to use Infrastructure Australia as a place to give their mates jobs.
I take it, Senator Scullion, that having moved all of the amendments together you are going to continue the debate on them, or are we just dealing with this one now?
All together.
I will quickly respond in relation to the Greens’ position on the opposition amendments. The opposition is moving that any additional functions which the minister might require for Infrastructure Australia be laid on the table of the house. We would support that. I am seeking parliamentary scrutiny for this process throughout and I hope that the opposition will also support my amendment requiring projects over $50 million to come back and be laid on the table of the house as well. I will talk about that when I move my amendment, but I just point out that there is a consistency here in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. We would support what Senator Scullion just said about things not being buried in the annual report and that there actually be an indication to the parliament what the additional functions are that the minister is asking for. I hope there will be consistency in supporting our amendment a bit later.
We do not support removing the capacity of the minister to give a direction to Infrastructure Australia, because, to me, it is bad enough that it is only discretionary for Infrastructure Australia to deal with climate change. To then remove any ministerial discretion to require them to do anything actually limits what they do to what they choose to do themselves. As I have indicated, I have real concerns about the make-up of Infrastructure Australia and the breadth of knowledge and expertise that is going to be brought. I think it is important that the minister has the capacity to direct them on additional functions and, consistent with that, that those functions, if they are additional, be laid on the table of the house.
As to the ministerial directions, the Greens have exactly the same amendment, just worded differently, in terms of having the ability to disallow. My advice is that the intent is the same but the wording is different. So, because the opposition amendment is being moved first, we will support that one. I withdraw my subsequent amendment to the same effect.
As to the last clause, which says that the minister must consult with the chair before appointing the infrastructure coordinator, I am not going to support that. I would assume that that would occur anyway during discussions on it, but the point is that the government do have the right to appoint whomever they like. The make-up of Infrastructure Australia ought not to be able to influence who the government decide should be their infrastructure coordinator. I just wanted to indicate that that is the way that the Greens will be responding to each of those amendments.
The Democrats take a similar view and I wonder at this point whether we need to separate those amendments so that we can vote on them separately rather than together, in order to deal with the different approaches.
We can do that.
The Democrats are always in favour of amendments which improve accountability, and for this reason I share Senator Scullion’s move and support it. He probably would not have made it when he was in government, but that is what we see of governments. When they are in opposition they are keen on accountability and being able to have greater scrutiny over ministers who give instructions that may remain secret. But, be that as it may, it is good to know that this amendment is able to be put and passed. It is another accountability measure that will be put in place. As I said, we almost always support those measures.
I have just had clarification on something. My understanding of the ministerial directions amendment was that the opposition’s amendment and my amendment were to the same effect. However, I have just had advice that that is not the case. In fact, it is the case that the opposition were seeking to remove reference to ministerial discretion, therefore not requiring anything to be placed on the table of the house. That is the House of Representatives approach. My amendment, by saying that it is a legislative instrument, is specifically saying that it is a disallowable instrument. Removing it all together would not say that it is a legislative instrument. I just wanted to clarify why I am changing my position from what I said a minute ago. I have had some more technical advice, so I want to indicate that in relation to clause (5), page 4, sheet 5463—the opposition amendment with regard to ministerial discretion—I will be opposing that and still putting my amendment.
Does the committee still wish to proceed with the amendments separately?
I understand that the debate will be a cognate debate but that we will then vote separately on each amendment.
The proposition before us is that the amendments will be put in two lots: opposition amendments (1) to (3) and (5), and opposition amendment (4).
We should take them separately; otherwise there is going to be confusion here, because I am going to support the first amendment then oppose the rest.
Yes, Senator Milne, we will put them separately.
In response to the opposition amendments, I want to indicate that the government will not be supporting any of them. I think it is reasonable that I go through why. In relation to amendment (1), Senator Scullion indicated that the proposed amendment seeks to place under parliamentary scrutiny the minister’s power to give Infrastructure Australia new functions. The bill itself requires Infrastructure Australia to prepare an annual report on its operations. That provides the transparency, scrutiny and accountability that Senator Scullion’s proposed amendment was alleged to.
Also, we are talking about building infrastructure that is required by a country. We require an element of flexibility to respond to evolving issues as they come on the plate of the entity. The opposition’s amendment, which seeks to require the minister first to table in the parliament a description of any additional function, would do nothing other than introduce delays into the work program of Infrastructure Australia. This bill reeks of transparency. That is why we are introducing this bill—to get over what we lived with for the last 11½ years, when decisions were made about infrastructure on the basis of who had to win which seat at the next election. We do not think that is a good way to run infrastructure development in this country. The opposition stand up here in 2008 and talk about the need for accountability and transparency, but I agree with Senator Allison, who observed that the opposition probably would not have done this when they were in government. She is absolutely right. They had 11½ years to be a bit more transparent and accountable in the expenditure of public moneys on infrastructure—in their decisions to spend some money here and not to spend it somewhere else. If you come along here and talk about transparency in 2008 and say that that is important, I have to ask the question, ‘Were you going to do it in your 12th year?’ We will not be supporting amendment (1) for that reason.
In terms of amendments (2) and (3), given the comments from the opposition about whether or not Labor’s election commitments would come before Infrastructure Australia, we have made it perfectly clear. We made those commitments during an election campaign in the context that we were living in at the time, where the government did not have any system to ensure that decisions were made on the basis of need for infrastructure. We made judgements during the election campaign about certain pieces of infrastructure, and we have committed to doing that. In my state, we committed in 2004 to upgrade the Bruce Highway to the point where we might be able to send bananas south during the wet season, which is a pretty important thing to do. I think the opposition said they would join in and do it too; I wish they had done it five years ago. We might be able to ensure continuity of supply from the banana crop down to Melbourne on a reasonable basis during the wet season. We said that we were going to upgrade the Ipswich Motorway. The new member for Blair, Mr Shayne Neumann, was overjoyed the day that we committed to upgrade the Ipswich Motorway. But it was not just Mr Neumann; it was the people of Blair who agreed that we had the right approach when it came to upgrading that particular piece of infrastructure. I do not know much about the Pacific Highway, because it is not in my state. I have driven it once; I did not enjoy it; it does need work. But it is not on that basis that we make decisions about infrastructure. We make decisions on infrastructure, particularly to do with the Pacific Highway, around the need for movement of people and also of product. We stand by the commitments that we made during the election, and we will ensure—and the Prime Minister has said ‘unequivocally’—that we deliver on those commitments.
Amendment (4) goes to the question of whether or not these are legislative instruments. I indicate to the chamber that how we have drafted this legislation is simply good practice. It avoids any potential ambiguity and I will be very clear about this, given that we are talking about clarity: they are not legislative instruments. We need to make that absolutely clear, and that is why that clause exists in the legislation.
I found the fifth amendment rather confusing. Senator Scullion said that we need to ensure that we have transparency in the appointment of the Infrastructure Coordinator. The position of the Infrastructure Coordinator is created by the infrastructure legislation and is, by definition, a statutory position. On 5 February this year, the Australian government introduced a policy implementing transparent and merit based assessment in the selection of statutory officers working in, or in conjunction with, APS agencies. The appointment of the Infrastructure Coordinator will therefore follow the rules that were set out in that policy—a policy that the previous government never thought of. The merit based selection for statutory office holders includes requirements for oversight of the advertising process and assessment of applicants’ claims to be undertaken by the secretary of the department and the Public Service Commissioner. Selections will be made against a core set of selection criteria. A report endorsed by the Public Service Commissioner will be provided by the secretary to the minister recommending short-listed candidates. This ensures that not only the Infrastructure Coordinator but all appointments of this nature will be done in an arm’s-length way to ensure that the person who is selected is in fact selected on the basis of merit. Where the minister wishes to appoint someone not recommended by the panel, the minister will need to write to the Prime Minister setting out reasons why.
The opposition seems to think that the clause referring to the appointment of the Infrastructure Coordinator was designed to provide for appointments of Labor mates to this position, and Senator Scullion said as much. The amendment proposed by the opposition is substantially weaker in transparency than that which would be followed under the government’s policy and would only create uncertainty about the process. Therefore, in the interests of transparency, the government will oppose this amendment. I refer and commend opposition members to the Australian Public Service Commission’s February 2008 publication Merit and transparency: Merit-based selection of APS agency heads and statutory office holders for some essential reading before taking pen to paper to draft amendments.
I would like some clarification from the minister in relation to the directions that the minister might give. We have heard before that the reason for not including consideration of greenhouse gas emissions as mandatory is that that is something that the minister can ask Infrastructure Australia to perform. However, when we look at the minister being able to give directions to Infrastructure Australia, the bill says:
Directions given by the Minister under subsection (1) must be of a general nature only.
Since the only mechanism for Infrastructure Australia to consider greenhouse gas emissions is through ministerial direction, what does that mean?
Thank you for the question. I am advised that the minister may give written directions to Infrastructure Australia about the performance of its functions, asking them to undertake a piece of work. But the way the bill is drafted is to explicitly indicate that the minister cannot, essentially, ask Infrastructure Australia to provide him or her with advice that he or she wishes to have. So it is making it clear that a minister cannot seek confirming advice, if that is a way of explanation.
If I understand the minister correctly, the bill is saying that the minister cannot say, ‘Provide me with advice that justifies road X or road Y or train this, or something or other else,’ but it does not preclude the minister asking for specific advice in relation to something like the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, peak oil or something like that.
That is correct. That is not precluded.
I do want to keep it brief, and I am trying to be as disciplined as I can, but there are just a couple of points for the record. I note your long-standing interest in your own country, to which you often refer—as we all do. The road between Townsville and Cairns is in a very bad state. I wonder if you can, perhaps, get in touch with your Labor counterparts in Queensland and ask them about the $368 million of taxpayers’ money that has been supplied to them specifically for the flood immunity work and the repair of the work there, because it has been there since 2005-06. That might provide the answer about why some work has not happened.
In terms of the ‘jobs for mates’, I do appreciate it, and I am sure that the work by the Public Service makes fantastic reading, but again I am not sure if you could advise me—perhaps it could be put on notice—whether or not, in fact, the appointment of Steve Bracks to the car industry inquiry was the subject of that particular forensic process.
There is a difference between a statutory authority and an inquiry. That is very clear.
I propose, after following the debate, that opposition amendment (1) be put separately and that opposition amendments (2) to (5) be put together. Is that the wish of the committee? The question is that opposition amendment (1) on sheet 5463 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The next question is that opposition amendments (2) to (5) on sheet 5463 be agreed to.
I move Australian Greens amendment (5) on sheet 5464:
Page 5 (after line 13), after Division 1, insert:
Division 1A—Reference of advice of Infrastructure Australia to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works
6A Reference of advice of Infrastructure Australia to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works
(1) If Infrastructure Australia provides advice in accordance with its functions under section 5 in support of infrastructure the estimated cost of which exceeds the threshold amount, the advice stands referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report.
(2) On receiving the advice of Infrastructure Australia in support of infrastructure the estimated cost of which exceeds the threshold amount, the Minister must cause a copy of the advice to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the advice, together with:
(a) a statement in relation to the infrastructure; and
(b) such plans, specifications and other particulars as the Minister thinks necessary.
(3) Development of infrastructure which is the subject of advice that has been referred to the committee in accordance with this section must not be commenced before a report of the committee concerning the work has been presented to both Houses of the Parliament.
(4) If, after a report of the committee in accordance with this section, on advice of Infrastructure Australia on the development of the infrastructure, has been presented to both Houses of the Parliament and before the development of the infrastructure has been commenced, each House resolves that, for reasons or purposes stated in the resolution, the advice in support of the infrastructure be again referred to the committee for consideration and report, the committee must further consider the advice and the development of the infrastructure must not be commenced before a further report of the committee concerning the advice has been presented to both Houses.
(5) The development of the infrastructure the subject of advice that has been referred to the committee must not be commenced unless, after the report of the committee (or, if there has been a further reference of the advice under subsection (4), the report of the committee on the further reference) has been presented to both Houses of the Parliament, both Houses have resolved that it is expedient to carry out the development of the infrastructure.
(6) The development of the infrastructure the estimated cost of which exceeds the threshold amount must not be commenced unless:
(a) the committee has reported on the advice of Infrastructure Australia in relation to the infrastructure in accordance with this section; or
(b) both Houses have resolved that, by reason of the urgent nature of the development of the infrastructure, it is expedient that it be carried out without the advice of Infrastructure Australia in relation to that infrastructure having been referred to the committee; or
(c) the Governor-General has, by order, declared that the development of the infrastructure is for defence purposes and that the reference of the advice in relation to the development of the infrastructure to the committee would be contrary to the public interest; or
(d) the development of the infrastructure has been declared, by a notice under subsection (7), to be a repetitive development for the purposes of this subsection.
(7) The Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, declare the development of the infrastructure to be a repetitive development for the purposes of subsection (8) if:
(a) he or she is satisfied that the development of the infrastructure is substantially similar to other development of infrastructure that has been carried out, is being carried out or is likely to be carried out from time to time by or for the Commonwealth, or by or for an authority of the Commonwealth to which the Public Works Committee Act 1969 applies; and
(b) the committee has agreed to the development of the infrastructure being so declared.
(8) In this section:
committee means the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for the time being constituted in accordance with the Public Works Committee Act 1969.
estimated cost, in relation to the development of infrastructure, means an estimate of cost made when all particulars of the development of the infrastructure substantially affecting its cost have been determined.
threshold amount means:
(a) $50,000,000; or
(b) if another lower amount is specified in the regulations for the purposes of this definition—that other amount.
The amendment is with regard to a reference of advice of Infrastructure Australia to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. The issue here is that, as the bill currently stands, there is no parliamentary scrutiny of the projects that Infrastructure Australia will recommend to the minister. Of course, I recognise that not everything could come before the parliament, but I think where projects are worth more than $50 million they should come before the parliament. The reason we have had these ‘white elephants’ in Sydney and disastrous projects around the rest of the country is that governments have abandoned the notion of parliamentary scrutiny of public works. This is public infrastructure. The money is coming from the public purse largely, although there has been a breathless embracing of public-private partnerships in recent years. I am sure some of those private partners, particularly in relation to the Sydney tunnels, wonder at the stupidity they engaged in at the time, as they are losing money hand over fist. But the point remains that there needs to be parliamentary scrutiny.
In moving this amendment I want to refer particularly to a paper written by Professor Bill Russell, titled ‘Who decides infrastructure priorities? Federal funding for urban transport in the time of climate change’. This is a particularly insightful paper, and part of that is to acknowledge—as, indeed, the Greens are acknowledging—that we do need a strategic approach to infrastructure development in Australia. But we also need to be able to look at whether plans for these burgeoning freeway expansions are consistent with the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And we also need to be sure that studies are undertaken at a systemic level as to the overall consequences of such projects on regions and the pattern and efficiency of urban development. Particular attention should be paid to the value of the many hectares of potential housing land that has been taken up by freeway development and interchanges. In that regard, you only have to look at a recent report of a colleague of mine, Maribyrnong Greens Councillor Janet Rice, talking about the 30-kilometre public transport black hole between the existing Werribee and Melton rail lines. She says that what is now farmland is being filled up with houses, but none of them is going to have anything but cars to get into town. So what we need are studies at a systemic level on the overall consequences of such projects on the pattern and efficiency of urban development. We also need greater transparency as to the appraisals undertaken before transport projects are approved and the extent to which the widespread use of public-private partnerships is reducing transparency and public accountability for such decisions.
The infrastructure audit is set to review standard principles for public-private partnerships, but it is essential that these principles for the transparency and adequacy of the appraisal process are there prior to projects being approved. Parliamentary scrutiny and independent environmental and social impact assessments need to be done. They should provide the opportunity for alternative approaches, different routes and different financial or ownership structures to be considered. There must be a transparent discussion before binding decisions are made. The community must be given the chance to have their say and must have confidence in the integrity of the appraisal processes in place. To date, that is not happening. The community is not being given a say; there is not adequate consultation; there is not systemic analysis. The community and the parliaments are not actually being given the opportunity to scrutinise infrastructure proposals—to look at, or even to ask about, alternative routes and whether they were discussed, or whether alternative appraisal was sought or different financial structures might be more appropriate in a particular case.
So I am arguing that where a project is worth more than $50 million it will be brought back for parliamentary scrutiny by the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Public Works. The reason we have standing committees on public works is to do specifically that. If Infrastructure Australia provides advice according to its functions, it will be looking at the estimated cost, and we have to know whether that cost is realistic or whether it has been underestimated. Particularly with some Queensland road projects, independent assessment has shown that there has been almost a deliberate undervaluing of the real cost of projects on the assumption that, when the cost blow-outs occur, the public purse will just pick up the cost blow-outs. So you have transport agencies and state governments who are inclined to put in undervaluations in order to get the projects up and then leave the community to pay in the longer term. And that is not even in the context of climate change and oil depletion; that is just in terms of the estimated costs as they stand at the moment.
What I am saying is that the minister must have a copy of the advice from Infrastructure Australia tabled in each house of parliament within five sitting days of that house receiving it, and with it a statement in relation to the infrastructure, the plans, the specifications and anything else that is necessary. The committee then has the opportunity to really scrutinise any of these infrastructure projects. I think that would put paid to a lot of these white elephants that have been the particular favourites of the government of New South Wales. It would also overcome my concern that Macquarie Bank and other infrastructure providers around the country are becoming the recycling grounds for ex-premiers and state ministers who, through that route, take the opportunity to have projects paid for by the public or by other means—projects that they could not get up through their state parliament and have been their pet projects ever since and that will not have had proper assessments for environmental or social impacts or for likely impacts on the urban sprawl, climate change and the like.
I strongly urge the government to support the idea that parliamentary scrutiny is critical. I find it extraordinary to be standing up in a parliament urging a government to support parliamentary scrutiny for the disbursement of funding on projects of more than $50 million. The public would assume that there would be appropriate oversight and yet that is not what we are going to have at all unless we get things brought to the floor of the house and have an opportunity for an appropriately constructed parliamentary committee with responsibility for public works to look at it. In my view, each of the major projects should also be subject to a comprehensive and independent environmental and social impacts review. Whilst people talk about those things and say, ‘Of course that’s going to happen,’ it is not happening on a regular basis. If it had been happening on a regular basis we would have very different outcomes from what we have now.
As Professor Russell has said in his paper, the expected boom in infrastructure projects, where we are going to start investing in them, will be important for Australia’s future, so key decisions must not be made behind closed doors. Transparency and accountability can be built in if state and federal processes for parliamentary scrutiny and environmental assessment are dovetailed and meet consistent, widely accepted principles as to independence, scope and the provision and testing of evidence. The testing of evidence is particularly important, because what we have seen with these private-public partnerships is that the people promoting them are breathless in their enthusiasm for them but there is not very much scrutiny as to the evidence that is being provided to support them, so I have real concerns about the testing of the evidence.
In my view, the best place to do that is in the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Public Works. So what I am seeking in this chamber is support for the notion that the parliament ought to scrutinise the disbursement of funding on infrastructure, especially given that we have had undertakings from the government now in. They have said, ‘Of course we are going to take into account greenhouse gas emissions.’ I have not heard the same ‘Of course we are going to take into account peak oil,’ but that is implied. Of course they are going to take into account social equity; of course these matters will be considered, but there is nothing in the bill that requires it. By bringing it back to the parliament, to a committee on public works, we would be able to at least have parliament scrutinise whether public infrastructure is in fact in the public interest, whether it is the best use of the money and whether an alternative project or alternative way of addressing the problem might be considered. That, at the very least, is the way we ought to be proceeding. The new Prime Minister has given an undertaking that there will be transparency in this government, that there will be improved practices—and I really welcome that—but one way to guarantee that is to allow the parliamentary scrutiny of the infrastructure priorities and recommendations coming from Infrastructure Australia.
I commend this amendment to the house. Given that the opposition wanted to have laid on the table the ministerial directions, I hope that they are going to support me here in having this brought to the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Public Works.
In the politest possible way I have to say that I think the amendment misunderstands the intent of the bill. Infrastructure Australia, if it is established, will not be controlling expenditure. Infrastructure Australia will be providing advice—but not only to the Commonwealth government. Infrastructure Australia will provide advice to governments of Australia, probably through COAG, to private investors and to owners of infrastructure about all sorts of issues that have been put in front of it. So it is not simply the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government of the Commonwealth of Australia who will be receiving that advice. To require all advices to go before the parliamentary Public Works Committee will simply make it redundant; it is not required and not needed. What is required is scrutiny when our government makes a decision to use public money, and that is when the normal scrutiny process will kick in.
If Infrastructure Australia advises the government to undertake a particular piece of work and the government puts money toward the construction of that piece of infrastructure, that is the point at which scrutiny should rightly—and will—be applied. So to say that advice should be scrutinised, rather than the use of public moneys, is I think just missing the intent of what Infrastructure Australia is about. Infrastructure Australia may advise that it is more appropriate that a specific project is funded by the private sector, for example. If they make that recommendation, why should that then go before the parliamentary Public Works Committee? Infrastructure Australia will, I am sure, make recommendations about regulatory reform. Why would that advice need to go before the parliamentary Public Works Committee?
Can I say, Senator Milne, that your intention is sound, and I trust that you are trying to provide greater public scrutiny. I agree with the sentiment but the way you are trying to achieve it will not affect that outcome. It is when public money is proposed to be spent that scrutiny should apply, not at the point of receipt of advice.
I thank the minister for that, but currently there is no scrutiny of decisions to spend public money. During the election campaign we had endless commitments from both the Labor and Liberal parties to spend public money, based on AusLink’s priority lists, determined by state parliaments, where those priority lists had not been before public works committees and had not been assess for environmental and social impacts. It was a wish list from state governments.
Progress reported.
Order! It being 12.45 pm, I call on matters of public interest.
I rise to speak today on a matter of public interest which currently affects one in two households in Australia and is a major cause of chronic pain and disability. It is estimated that around 3.85 million, or one in five, Australians suffer from some form of arthritis, which is one of the country’s most prevalent diseases. While generally considered an older person’s disease, arthritis can and does affect Australians of all ages. Statistics show that some 60 per cent, or 2.4 million, arthritis sufferers in Australia are of working age. Indeed, infants as young as 18 months have also been diagnosed with a juvenile form of arthritis. In Australia arthritis conditions are more prevalent among females. Over two million females, 19.9 per cent, and 1.8 million, 17.1 per cent, males are estimated to have arthritis.
Arthritis is an umbrella term given to more than 100 various medical conditions which affect the joints, specifically where two bones meet. While the most common forms of arthritis are osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, all forms have the potential to limit the quality of life for sufferers, often having a debilitating and painful effect on everyday life. When describing his well-known battle with reactive arthritis to Andrew Denton, Australian musician Daniel Johns said that in his case:
... the arthritis just went from bad to worse, and went through all of the bones in my body, through my spine, up into my neck ... I just couldn’t move ... Couldn’t have a shower ’cause the water pressure felt like it was cracking my spine.
Thankfully, after 12 months of rehabilitation treatment, Johns was able to make a recovery. However, talk to other sufferers of arthritis and Johns’s story is not so unfamiliar. While you do not die from arthritis, it can be a life sentence. With my own mother suffering from the disease, I have witnessed firsthand the pain and discomfort that can stem from the disease.
The physical and emotional effect of living with arthritis was detailed in a study published in 2004 by Arthritis Australia, the peak body for arthritis sufferers in Australia. Known as The voice of arthritis, the study revealed that for people living with arthritis its effects can be painful, disabling and long lasting and can flow well beyond the physical. It found that arthritis can have a negative impact on family, personal and even sexual relationships. It can directly affect a sufferer’s ability to participate in work and can even limit their lifestyle choices. Just last year, Arthritis Australia prepared a report titled Painful realities, which examined the economic impact of arthritis in Australia. In preparing the report for Arthritis Australia, Access Economics sourced data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ National health survey and survey of disability, ageing and carers, as well as from various publications and databases from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. It found last year that the total cost of arthritis to the Australian economy is estimated to be at $23.9 billion, an increase of more than $4 billion on the costs calculated by Access Economics in 2004. It found that almost half of this was due to non-financial costs associated with the burden of the disease, while direct costs associated with impact on the health system, including hospitals, pharmaceuticals and aged care, accounted for 20 per cent. Interestingly, a further 17 per cent of total costs were productivity costs associated with the impact that the disease was having on employment and workforce participation in Australia.
While 60 per cent of sufferers are of working age, the direct impact on the workplace that this condition is having cannot be ignored. Most importantly, however, was the finding by Access Economics that the main bearers of the costs associated with arthritis in Australia were the individual sufferers themselves, who, it is estimated, carry approximately 61 per cent of the total cost—largely from being the bearers of the disease. These figures prove two things. Firstly, the impact that arthritis is having on peoples’ lives and the Australian economy cannot be ignored. With over 3.85 million Australians suffering from the disease, it is costing the Australian economy $23.9 billion last year alone. This disease is having a real and significant impact on individuals and the nation. Secondly, unfortunately, the biggest bearers of the costs associated with the disease are the sufferers themselves.
Obviously, more needs to be done. As a part of its national strategy, Arthritis Australia has identified a number of key goals which it sees as crucial for improving the lives of those people suffering from arthritis and in turn reducing the impact that the condition is having on the wider community and the economy. It aims, in collaboration with its state and territory affiliates, to promote awareness of the disease, to encourage early diagnosis and early intervention and also to improve and preserve sufferers’ quality of life. This is because Arthritis Australia believes that for sufferers of arthritis ‘living a lesser quality of life is not an option’. The Rudd Labor Government is committed to assisting those people in need, and a number of initiatives contained in its suite of health policies are likely to ease the burden on sufferers of arthritis and their families and to assist in the early intervention and ongoing treatment of the disease.
The Labor government is committed to building a modern health and hospital system equipped to meet the health challenges of the future, including an ageing population, the rising burden of chronic disease and the ever-increasing costs associated with medical technologies. That is why prior to the election the government announced a comprehensive long-term plan for health reform in this country, including a $2.5 billion commitment to improve the health of and hospital system for all Australians. As is the case with many other public resources, hospitals are constantly underfunded and ignored. Now, as a result of the funding announcement by the Rudd Labor government, we will be able to move on.
At the first Australian Health Minsters Conference it was agreed that there is a need for building and reporting on a comprehensive set of performance measures across the entire health system to try to get things right. The meeting identified areas that require the immediate focus of the Commonwealth as well as the state and territory ministers. These included shifting the focus to preventative care and taking the pressure off hospitals; improving the experience of people using the health system; bringing the different aspects of the system together so that hospitals, ambulatory care, primary and community care have clear funding, role delineations and paths of engagement; and building new models of care based on patient experience. All of these priorities, particularly the focus on preventative care and bringing together different aspects of the health system—in the case of the GP superclinics, housing them all under the one roof—will no doubt assist in improving the rates of early detection and the ongoing management of arthritis in Australia.
Since forming government last November, the Rudd Labor government has wasted no time in taking action to improve outcomes in the health and hospital system in Australia. As the Prime Minister stated in his First 100 days report:
The Government is committed to ending the waste, duplication and cost-shifting in our health system and replacing it with improved health services and better hospitals so working families receive the services they deserve.
As a result, in the past three months the Rudd Labor government has taken immediate and decisive action to directly improve health and hospital services in Australia. It has: (1) invested $150 million to fund 25,000 elective surgery places, to assist states and territories to conduct an immediate national blitz on elective surgery waiting lists to ensure that elective surgery patients are treated within the clinically recommended time—this initiative will no doubt enable people waiting for joint replacements to receive their new hip or knee and return to leading a fulfilling life; (2) recently established the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission, to be chaired by Dr Christine Bennett, to develop a long-term national reform plan for the nation; (3) helped tackle the chronic health services shortages in our hospitals by commencing a rollout of cash bonuses for nurses to attract them back to the workforce—it is hoped that this will result in up to 1,000 nurses returning to the hospital workforce by the end of this year alone, with the Rudd government committing to bring 7,500 extra nurses into the Australian workforce in the next five years; (4) invested $124 million in new medical and health research projects; (5) commenced negotiation on the implementation of the new Commonwealth Dental Health Program, which will provide $290 million over three years to support up to one million additional consultations—an area that has previously been severely neglected; (6) commenced implementation planning for the GP superclinics to provide essential primary care services and reduce the burden on our hospitals; and (7) established the Health and Ageing Work Group, through COAG, to ensure the effective implementation of new Commonwealth programs.
Health is an area that this government has flagged as one of national priority. As a result, the Rudd Labor government has already taken decisive action to help improve outcomes in the national health and hospitals system and is committed to taking further action over the next three years to significantly improve the services and infrastructure available. The Rudd Labor government is committed to establishing a new healthcare and hospital system which is patient focused and well equipped to provide them with world-class treatment and care. It is also committed to taking a new approach to health care in this country—one which is increasingly focused on prevention and improving the general health and wellbeing of all Australians, which in turn will result in removing some of the burden on our hospitals. These measures, along with the others yet to be rolled out, will no doubt assist in the early intervention and management of arthritis. The shift in focus to preventative health care will help with early intervention but it will also assist with identifying the lifestyle factors and conditions—such as obesity—which are contributing to the ever-increasing rates of arthritis, particularly in younger people.
While in 2002 arthritis was made a national health priority and its prevalence today is higher than any other health priority, it appears the condition has not to date attracted the attention that it deserves. As with so many other generally non-life-threatening conditions, it is more often than not overlooked and sufferers are expected to simply ‘live’ with the condition. However, with the prevalence of the condition only set to increase and other health conditions such as the growing obesity epidemic adding to this, the disease can no longer be ignored.
Indeed, Access Economics has estimated that by 2050 some seven million Australians, or 23.9 per cent of Australia’s projected population, will suffer from the disease. In light of this, Arthritis Australia has embarked on a campaign to promote awareness of the disease to assist in early diagnosis and early intervention and to assist in improving and preserving sufferers’ quality of life. Arthritis Australia believes that living a lesser life, as sufferers of arthritis often do, is not an option and it is determined to enlist the support of governments, rheumatologists, GPs and other health professionals to create a coordinated approach aimed at creating awareness about the disease and shifting community attitudes toward it.
This push is why a number of us have decided to join forces to establish the first ever Parliamentary Friends of Arthritis Group. The purpose of this bipartisan group—which I will co-convene along with Jim Turnour MP, member for Leichhardt; Senator Judith Adams, senator for Western Australia; Senator Rachel Siewert, senator for Western Australia; and the Hon. Kevin Andrews MP, member for Menzies—is to develop a formal process to deliver our parliamentary colleagues with up-to-date information on arthritis, including the measures that can be taken to assist constituents in managing the personal, social and economic impacts of the disease. The group will work in close conjunction with Arthritis Australia and is, I believe, an essential step forward in acknowledging the real impacts of arthritis and assisting sufferers in managing the impacts of the disease on their everyday life.
Since indicating our intention to establish the group we have had an overwhelming response, with over 90 of our parliamentary colleagues electing to join and indicating they wish to be kept up to date with the latest information regarding the treatment and management of arthritis. This is a promising start which will translate into beginning to build a national coordinated approach to increasing awareness of arthritis and ultimately better outcomes for its management for sufferers and their families.
The group will be officially launched tomorrow morning at a breakfast from 7.30 am to 9 am in the senators alcove. I would warmly invite anyone not already attending to come along to the launch. I would also urge those of you who have not already joined the group to strongly consider doing so, so that we can assist as many sufferers and their families as possible from right around the country in ensuring they have access to the most up-to-date information and services available to assist them in the management of their disease.
I rise with a heavy heart to inform the Senate of the negative and short-sighted policy decisions that the Rudd Labor government has pursued toward rural and regional Australia in its first 100 days. Regional Australia is indeed the biggest loser so far in the settling-in period of the Rudd Labor government.
That’s why they lost the seat of Page!
I know, Senator Forshaw, you are sympathetic to this and in your heart of hearts you do have some sort of sympathy for rural Australia. I know you have got to control it—
Senator Forshaw interjecting—
Order! Senator Boswell, I would advise you not to respond to interjections.
In the short time Labor have been in power they have managed to find every hollow log they can to steal the hard-earned money that the previous coalition government committed to rural Australia, they have managed to tear down the institutions that are the final bastion of trade advantage to rural Australia, and they have increased the cost of transport in regional areas and in doing so legislated to encourage inflation through higher taxes and charges.
In the last month this parliament has seen the gutting of rural Australia and the services that the previous coalition government had put in place. The Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund is the first of many hollow logs that the Rudd government will call upon to find the cash to fund their expensive election promises. The loss of the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund, which guaranteed the absolute minimum of $2 billion to the future infrastructure needs of rural Australia, is a tragedy. The fund was set up to assure regional Australia that they would never fall behind as they did when the Keating government was in place. It was set up to make sure that they would be guaranteed an equal opportunity to access the latest communications technology, not just broadband but mobile telephone coverage, along with the infrastructure to provide these services—and any other services rural Australia did not have—to keep them up to speed. This was set up as a nation-building fund, an infrastructure fund, to ensure that all Australians could have the latest communications technology. It is a fund that was set up so that nobody was forgotten, even if they lived in the most remote corner of Australia.
The Nationals in government always made sure that the sale of national assets was not squandered in the short term by short-sighted governments. Instead, through the Future Fund the Nationals looked forward to the future requirements of all Australians, especially those who did not live in an area that had a highly competitive communications market. But within the space of four months we are already seeing a grab for cash by the Rudd government to fund their broadband policy—a broadband policy that, like a reverse Robin Hood, will take money from those in the bush and give it to those in the city.
But they have not stopped there with their cuts and cash grabs. Only yesterday we saw the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality rebadged as Caring for our Country, and with it came a funding cut. It was revealed that NHT programs would now receive only 60 per cent of their average historical funding. This long-awaited announcement is the Labor government’s answer to the Howard government’s highly successful Natural Heritage Trust and National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality—a $4.5 billion investment in the environment. The coalition’s solution was Australia’s biggest ever commitment to a sustainable future, but today we see that squandered with less money and less certainty for our delicate environment.
Caring for our Country is just a rebadging with less funding. As a result of this cut in funding, catchment management bodies that had been adapted to or had been set up specifically to deliver the NHT programs will only now receive 60 per cent of their average historical funding with the other 40 per cent potentially delivered on a competitive basis. This will present a serious challenge to the survival of many catchment bodies that are doing it tough. The Australian National Audit Office has already warned that 16 of these catchment authorities face insolvency, given the delay in this rebadged funding announcement by Labor.
The first 100 days will also go down in the history of this nation as the time when the great institutions of rural Australia were cut down by the Rudd Labor government. Labor’s policy of deregulation of the wheat industry and the loss of the single desk selling arrangements will throw an industry to the wolves of the international market. Thousands of wheat growers across Australia face the most radical overhaul of their industry structure in Australian history. They face the dismantling of over 60 years of a marketing system that was built around them and for them. Wheat growers who sow their crops today do not know what tomorrow will bring. They will no longer have a buyer of last resort to purchase their wheat. They will no longer have a national pool or an estimated pool return, which their bankers rely on, to fund cropping and harvesting options. They will not know whether they will get paid for their wheat when they do sell. They will not know whether to build storage facilities, whether their buyers will be able to transport their wheat to a port or whether there will be a ship to take it to market. They will not know how to be players in an international market characterised by foreign subsidies and sophisticated financial instruments—and one-desk buyers. They no longer have any say in a market dominated by international multinational corporations responsible to their shareholders. Australian wheat growers no longer face a market where they command a guaranteed quality premium. They will be picked off by large grain traders and experience larger price fluctuations and lower returns than they have experienced in generations. The impact of all this will be a marked increase of instability to the wheat industry in Australia. That means that thousands of growers and their families, suppliers and local communities face a future of uncertainty and greatly increased risk to their livelihoods.
Not only have the Rudd Labor government destroyed the fundamental fabric that has held together the wheat industry but they have also cut the programs that supported agriculture. The FarmBis program: $24 million cut in the blink of an eye. This coalition government program had assisted over 165,000 farmers, fishers and land managers to undertake business management, education and training. The training that was allowed under this program included financial management, marketing, natural resource management, production management, people management and general business management. So much for the education revolution—it obviously does not apply to hard-working families in rural Australia. The basis of this program was to boost the productivity of rural industry. However, now this program is lost to the annals of history, as is the AAA, Agriculture Advancing Australia, program: a cut of $26.2 million. This coalition program assisted over 35 industries with measures to assist their profitability and helped more than 700 people, including women, young people and Indigenous Australians, to gain skills so that they could contribute to their industry’s future as one of the decision makers. What a short-sighted view the Rudd Labor government must have to slash capacity building programs such as these.
But they did not stop there. The slashing continued when they cut $47.7 million from the Agricultural and Horticultural Australian Apprenticeships program. This coalition program provided practical assistance to apprentices who were just starting out in the workforce. It enabled them to purchase a tool kit valued at up to $800 and also contributed $1,000 to any training fees they had to pay. It really disappoints me that the Rudd Labor government would take the tool kits out of the hands of these new apprentices. It is a disappointing reaction to the current skills crisis that Australia finds itself in, and the Prime Minister and his colleagues have pointed out in many different ways that these problems are real. If they are real, I wish they would recognise them for rural Australia.
One wonders what other bright ideas they will come up with to help apprentices. They cut the living away from home allowance, a coalition government program that assisted apprentices if they had to move away from home for training. They cut funding from a program that encouraged apprentices to attend training programs away from their homes. These cuts are directed squarely towards apprentices from rural areas. These cuts affect directly those apprentices who would be more likely to travel back to rural areas to work in regional communities and strengthen the skills base in our regions, because that is where they have come from originally. But, no, the first 100 days of the Rudd government have sent signals to the regions that this government does not care about their wellbeing, does not care about their workforce and, unfortunately, does not care about the infrastructure that keeps these centres strong. This lack of foresight towards skills development in the regions has the potential to snowball and affect the future productivity of rural Australia.
The government do not care about regional Australia and they never have. They have started to dither about the funding programs directed towards building regional infrastructure. We were told in Senate estimates that the recipients of 116 Regional Partnerships approvals have been left in limbo while the federal government bumbles around working out administrative arrangements. Whether this situation has changed we cannot be sure, but I would urge the minister to rethink the current position and guarantee the funding of these vital projects. The projects being held up are not subject to scrutiny by any external body; they are just being held up because of Labor’s new red tape called administrative arrangements. The flow-on effects to the regional economy will be a disaster to small businesses and local communities if the indecision we have seen on regional partnerships funding continues.
The first 100 days of the Rudd Labor government will also go down as the time when legislation was introduced to increase the cost of transport in Australia. The increase in registration costs and the imposition of higher fuel taxes on truck drivers, from 19.6c to 21c per litre, can only increase the cost of transport in Australia. That is something where the coalition fought time and time again against some of the states who wanted to take these increases up. We realised that the CPI would be affected, and at the first meeting of the transport ministers the federal government gave up. These increased costs will not be worn by the industry but will be immediately passed on to the Australian consumer. The tax rise on the trucking industry will be an extra slug of 1.37c per litre on fuel from 1 January 2009 and an increase in registration charges for 69 per cent of the nation’s heavy vehicles. Even more disturbing is the decision by Labor to index this fuel tax—an approach first introduced by the Keating Labor government and abandoned by the coalition in 2001.
As Glenn Milne wrote this week, it:
... puts excise back on the inflation escalator, on fast forward. Because the index used is likely to be measured using something known as the Road Construction Index, usually substantially higher than the Consumer Price Index.
... It is the first time fuel excise has been indexed for seven years. It is a new petrol tax.
So much for keeping inflation down and so much for keeping grocery prices down—the Rudd government just slugs any moving target. The follow-on effects of this Rudd Labor government policy will be felt throughout the economy with upward pressure on grocery prices. Transport costs contribute to more than five per cent of grocery retail prices and 5.5 per cent to six per cent in regional areas. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported the cost of transport rose by 5.6 per cent between December 2006 and 2007 with the most significant increases in transportation costs due to the price rise of fuel. Transport is part of the mix of indicators that contribute to the level of the consumer price index and therefore this rise in tax leads to higher inflation.
In summary, the signs from the first 100 days of the Rudd Labor government are not good for rural Australia. The hollow logs that the coalition government filled with money for future infrastructure have been raided. The costs of transport and services have been increased and support programs for agriculture have been cut. (Time expired)
I would like talk today about the need for a strategic, science based approach to natural resource management and conservation. Natural resource management, NRM, is complex and of vital importance to Australia. Unfortunately, it is not well understood in the community or, I would also be brave enough to say, in this parliament. I do not think that people understand properly the need for landscape-scale interventions, the need for community engagement with multiple stakeholders, the long time frames that are involved and the need to tackle the major problems that come at a very big cost and have huge impacts on the environment.
Australia has a long history of natural resource management, particularly in relation to engaging land managers and communities in large government programs and in cutting-edge natural resource management resource and development. We have had programs in various iterations to address this, including Landcare, Bushcare, the National Soil Conservation program and the Natural Heritage Trust. These have been going for a number of decades; we have a long history of involvement. I personally have been involved in these programs for over 24 years.
With our large and ancient continent, unpredictable and extreme climate and fragile soils we also face some of the most difficult natural resource management problems you can find. These problems are complex. I think it is important to note that for every complex problem there is a simple solution that does not work. These problems require long-term interventions which take time to have a measurable impact in many cases. They can be difficult to measure and attribute outcomes to and there are complex interactions between factors. For example, it can take 10 to 20 years between changes in catchment management—in other words, putting in place deep rooted vegetation—to see the impacts at the base of the valley on water quality or groundwater tables. There are many other examples.
We believe there is a need for a consistent and concerted approach to tackling our natural resource management problems that can manage our land and water, protect our precious ecosystems and ensure that we have the food, fibre, clean air and water that we will need into the future. These are challenges that must transcend the short-term horizons of the terms of government and the political cycle. We need a strategic and integrated approach that engages all stakeholders. It must be strategic because the scale of the problem we face and the limited resources at our disposal mean that we need to make every dollar count. We need to focus and prioritise our efforts to deliver maximum bang for our very limited dollars.
It needs to be an integrated approach because we are dealing with complex interactions between systems and actions in one part of the landscape—for example, in the marine environment—that can cancel out, overwhelm or undermine the actions or lack of action in another. We need a joined up approach that ensures that we are not duplicating efforts in different areas or regions or repeating the mistakes of the past, that the actions we undertake and the assessments we conduct give us data and knowledge that is transferable and that we learn from this.
We must engage all stakeholders, we must all agree on the priorities and targets and we must all be speaking the same language. The scale of the problem means that we cannot achieve our interim targets with the limited level of public investment available. We need to engage a substantial level of community action, involvement and participation to make a difference. We need to foster a high level of volunteerism and engagement of land managers. I repeat that this is absolutely essential because we do not have government or public resources to do this without the engagement of the community. That has driven Landcare and all the different funding programs that have been devoted to natural resource management and environmental protection.
These are the lessons we have learnt, or I was hoping we had learnt, from the successes and mistakes of the last couple of decades of the various natural resource management programs such as Landcare, Bushcare, Coastcare, the National Soil Conservation program, the Natural Heritage Trust and NAP, which is the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality—the list rolls on. That is why over the last couple of iterations of the Natural Heritage Trust there was a move to the regional planning model and the catchment based approach because it was recognised that we needed to be doing things on a large scale, we needed to be doing it on a landscape scale, we needed to scale up our level of investment, we needed a coordinated approach, we needed to have a strategic approach and we needed to engage the community.
Having said all that, it brings me to an issue that Senator Boswell also touched on, and that was the announcement last Friday of the government’s latest funding proposals on the environment and natural resources funding—that is, the Caring for Our Country program. This program seems to be sending very mixed messages to the community and there is very little information to date. That is a cause for concern. To me it seems to be a grab bag of programs to address both natural resource management and also the government’s rather ad hoc environment promises. It smacks to me of having been rushed. It is, as I said, a grab bag and that is not strategic. I cannot find the word ‘salinity’, one of the biggest land management and environmental problems facing this country, particularly in my home state of Western Australia, and I cannot find mention of the word ‘science’ there.
A very important thing we have learned through the process is the need for a better information base that uses the science that is available to us in order to refine, target and be strategic about our investment funding in natural resource management. I am very worried that we seem to be repeating mistakes of the past. Having been there towards the beginning of our involvement in natural resource management investment and these care programs, I am very worried that we are about to repeat the mistakes of the past.
The ANAO report came out in the middle of February, I think, and highlighted yet again some of the problems that have been identified through the years with these funding programs. Minister Garrett’s announcement used the ANAO report as the rationale for scrapping the NHT3. Of course, it is up to a government to rebadge programs and come out with its own; I acknowledge that. My concern here is that we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In particular, there seems to me to be a move away from the regional delivery model.
The ANAO criticisms are valid and a number of us have been pointing out weaknesses in these programs for a number of years. However, I think that the minister’s announcement and the program misunderstand these criticisms and fail to address them. The key criticisms of the ANAO report are not addressed by the Caring for our Country program. The Caring for our Country background documents focused on the rorting of the previous programs and sought to recast NRM as a form of regional pork-barrelling. Its criticisms of the previous programs were valid, and there would have been some individual rorting going on. However, that is not the main game we should be talking about here. The big problem that the ANAO report identified was that it is not possible to report meaningfully on the extent to which program outputs actually contribute to the NRM outcomes sought by the government. The problem was that the planning and assessment processes focused more on activities and outputs—for example, where the money was spent or how many trees were planted—than on progress towards outcomes. This has been an ongoing failure with these programs. There was insufficient evidence of the economic costs and benefits of different actions on the ground.
The challenge the ANAO report outlined for the next iteration of future funding programs such as NHT was the need to ensure stronger targeting of investments to the highest priorities and the most critical national assets and to greater focus investment to ensure it is at an intensity and scale to produce real outcomes. That is the critical lesson that we need to be learning from our past investment in natural resource management. It is time to move beyond just capacity building. It is time to move on from the small-scale projects. A favourite saying of ours in natural resource management in Western Australia is that, when you get a bunch of money, you spread the vegemite as thin as you can across the landscape to give everybody a bit of money and make everybody feel they are engaged, but you actually achieve nothing on the ground. That is exactly what we are worried about for the future under Caring for our Country. It is going back to delivering small grants to people who are not strategic and are not backed up by science. This is a significant problem if we are trying to address natural resource management at the landscape scale. You cannot do that with small-scale projects that will not be able to be traced back to produce outcomes.
The government says that it wants to reduce administration. It wants to make this process more accountable and to reduce the rorting. Where we have got to in natural resource management funding has been developed in accountability mechanisms over the last two decades. The government does not say how it is going to improve accountability; it just says that it is going to. As for what it is going to expect the regional groups to deliver now, again the information is very scant. It says that the regional groups will get 60 per cent of current funding. But what is it going to ask the regional groups to deliver? Will it ask them to deliver against their already clearly articulated regional strategic plans and investment plans? Some regions have done them better than others. We should be looking at those plans to see which ones are actually delivering effectively in order to continue their funding and our investment there.
We also need to be assessing these against the science. Have we actually been able to deliver the protections that are needed with the funding that we have invested? Are we investing that money in the best way possible? There is work going on in the community that has been looking at this. One mechanism that is being developed, supported by NHT funding, is the Salinity Investment Framework. That looks at a proper and rigorous scientific method for investing our funding in natural resource management to address what the government says it wants to—and that is the highest priorities and looking after our national assets.
We need a process to get there. The government has not articulated that. The program that it released last week is very short on details, which I think is designed to keep quiet some of the regional groups and environment groups that have been asking questions about the future of NHT funding, the same as I have been asking questions about the future of NHT3 funding because it is absolutely of critical importance. I was expecting a much better thought-out process from this government than the scattered, ad hoc programs that it has announced that are designed around its ad hoc election promises.
On their own, the programs are good. I am not saying that putting $200 million into the Great Barrier Reef is not important; it is important, but it needs to be strategic. The other programs that the government are investing in all look okay on their own, but I would ask: where is the government’s strategic approach? Where is their framework for investment? How are they making the programs more accountable? What are they going to do now if they cut the funding to regional organisations? How are they going to scale up their investment at the landscape scale, which is what we need to be doing? We need to be clearly showing how investment of funds is going to produce better natural resource management and environmental outcomes. I challenge the government to tell the community how it intends to do that, because I see nothing in the limited amount of information that is available at the moment that gives me any confidence that they are using a science based, strategic, well-targeted approach to address the dire issues that are facing the environment and natural resource management in Australia.
Do they intend to continue to invest in salinity management? Are they going to repeat the mistakes of the past when we had small amounts of money? In the past—and I had been in these meetings—we would get small applications that said, ‘I want to put trees in the landscape here.’ In the past we had no idea what the hydrogeology of that catchment was and we had no idea whether those trees were going to survive. Let me tell you that I know very well that trees were planted at the bottom of a catchment and they died. So we planned and paid for a very expensive experiment on how to plant trees and to get them to die. That is what we are in the process of repeating now. We are in danger of not having learnt from the past.
We could make a significant leap forward. The government could really make a difference in natural resource management by actually looking at some of the work that is going on now and being much more focused, strategic and targeted in the way they allocate these resources. They are missing a golden opportunity just trying to keep more people happy by giving them small, ill-targeted grants. I have to say that it smacks to me of them wanting to keep a little money aside so they can spread it in the regional areas for a little bit of what they have accused the opposition of doing—pork-barrelling—into the future. I can only think that is the reason for having small projects back again—it is to keep more people happy. (Time expired)
I rise to express my support for the motion that was carried in the House of Representatives last Wednesday congratulating the state of Israel on its 60th anniversary. That motion was moved by the Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. Since that motion was carried there has been criticism and there has been support. There has been a lot of comment in the media and elsewhere regarding the appropriateness of the motion. I believe it was an appropriate motion to move at the time, and I support it wholeheartedly.
On that day there was an advertisement published in the Australian newspaper which criticised the fact that the motion was going to be moved. I want to respond to some of the arguments that were put in that advertisement because it contained outrageous allegations and distortions of historical fact. Let me deal with a couple of issues first.
It has been argued that this motion is inappropriate for the parliament to pass because we should not single out one country to congratulate them on a particular anniversary. It has been said that it was not done in previous years on the 50th anniversary of Israel or the 40th anniversary of Israel so why should we do it now? Firstly, the fact that it has not been done in the past does not of itself mean that it should never be done. Secondly, there is precedent in the history of the parliament for similar motions of congratulations noting specific anniversaries or events to be put and carried by the parliament. For instance on 14 September 1976 the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, moved:
That this House records its sincere regret at the death of Chairman Mao Tse-tung, expresses to the people of China profound regret and tenders its deep sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
That was supported by Mr Whitlam, the Leader of the Opposition. There were others who spoke in favour of the motion. I also note that Mr William Charles Wentworth—Billy Wentworth—opposed it.
If you read the speeches—I do not have time to go through them in detail—you will see a lot of wonderful words said about Chairman Mao, his leadership of China and the great things he did for that country. Others, including I know Senator Mason, would probably think that we should hasten slowly when we do these things because we should remember the effects of the Cultural Revolution on the people of China.
But there have been other motions, not necessarily moved by the Prime Minister or supported by the Leader of the Opposition, and other occasions where particular events and anniversaries have been noted. For instance, in June 1999 the member for Fowler, Julia Irwin, spoke on a report of an Australia-China Parliamentary Friendship Group that had visited China and Tibet in the 50th anniversary year of the National People’s Congress of China. The delegation had gone to China at the invitation of the People’s Congress in that anniversary year.
A similar motion was moved by Peter Coleman on the 30th anniversary of the Hungarian uprising. There was a speech on the 100th anniversary of independence of the Philippines by Roger Price, a speech by Senator Mark Bishop on the anniversary of Solidarity and a speech by Mr Somlyay on the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution. And they are just a few. So I do not believe it is inappropriate at all for the parliament to do this. I believe it is appropriate that on a significant event such as this the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were the mover and the seconder of the motion.
It is also appropriate in the special case of Israel because Israel is one nation that was actually established by the United Nations back in 1947-48. Australia did play a major role at that time through Dr Evatt’s participation in the work to bring about the ultimate decision of the General Assembly for the establishment of two states—Israel and Palestine—living side by side. It is also particularly significant because today I think Israel, maybe more than ever, is constantly vilified around the world, including at the UN.
The remarkable thing is not that this parliament has recognised the 60th anniversary; the remarkable thing is that there actually has been a 60th anniversary of Israel. If many had had their way, Israel would never have had a first anniversary in 1949. Of course we recall that at the time the Israelis accepted the resolution for a partition of Palestine and the Arab nations did not. They invaded Israel in an attempt to destroy the fledgling state at birth. That was not done in the cause of protecting the Palestinian population or promoting the concept of Palestinian nationhood; it was purely and simply to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, a Jewish homeland.
The allegations that are contained in this advertisement that I referred to—that this really is a celebration of the triumph of racism and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians since the al-Nakba catastrophe of 1948—are gross distortions. It has been a catastrophe for the Palestinian people, because there is no Palestinian state. But that is not Israel’s fault. The real attempt at ethnic cleansing was the attempt at that time to drive the Jews out of Palestine, just as they had largely been driven out of most Arab and Islamic countries in the region and just as they had been driven out or murdered in the Holocaust in many parts of Europe. Those who constantly claim they are standing up for the plight of the Palestinians by denigrating Israel conveniently ignore the facts that, at the time of its establishment, Egypt, Syria and Jordan sought to occupy and control parts of Palestine with the intention of incorporating them into their own countries. Indeed, Jordan itself annexed east Jerusalem and the West Bank in 1950. They did not move to establish a Palestinian state. It is a modern miracle that Israel celebrated its 20th anniversary in 1968 and its 25th anniversary in 1973, given that in both of those years it was forced to defend itself against its neighbours. The Arab invasion in 1973 almost succeeded in destroying the state of Israel. Today, that ambition is carried on by the terrorist groups supported to different degrees by other countries in the region.
I would like to also say a few things about the United Nations. There is always constant reference to the many resolutions condemning Israel carried by the United Nations. Kofi Annan said back in 2006:
Some may feel satisfaction at repeatedly passing General Assembly resolutions or holding conferences that condemn Israel’s behaviour. But one should also ask whether such steps bring any tangible relief or benefit to the Palestinians. There have been decades of resolutions. There has been a proliferation of special committees, sessions and Secretariat divisions and units. Has any of this had an effect on Israel’s policies, other than to strengthen the belief in Israel, and among many of its supporters, that this great Organization is too one-sided to be allowed a significant role in the Middle East peace process?
You always find that people who want to attack Israel’s existence or condemn it refer to resolution 242, which followed the 1967 war. But they only refer to one of the two principles. They only ever refer to that which speaks of the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the conflict. There is never, or very rarely, any reference to the other aspect of it—which is the need for sovereignty, territorial integrity and peace and security for all of the states. That is conveniently ignored.
I had the great privilege and honour to be one of the two parliamentary advisers to the United Nations General Assembly late last year. I have to say that whilst there are many good things about the United Nations—and I will speak about those on another occasion—one of the constant features is the continuing attack on Israel. I note that Senator Mason is here. He had been to the UN General Assembly the previous year. At the outset of last year’s General Assembly in September, the two major issues of focus were the human rights abuses occurring in Myanmar—or Burma—and in Darfur. Those issues were addressed in debates in the Security Council and General Assembly. But very quickly the General Assembly then reverted to its annual practice: numerous speeches by representatives—often from some of the most despicable regimes and leaders in the world—condemning Israel. Accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing are thrown about with alacrity. Even the language of the Holocaust itself is turned on Israel.
One of the worst examples of this bias against Israel in the United Nations is the Human Rights Council: the body that was established to replace the former UN Commission on Human Rights because it became clear that the commission was simply not interested in tackling the great human rights issues around the world. So the UN reformed it by establishing the Human Rights Council. But the permanent agenda of the Human Rights Council that was adopted last year singles out only one country as a permanent agenda item for examination. It is Israel. Item 7 of the agenda is ‘Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories’. No other country is specifically mentioned. Zimbabwe, North Korea, Belarus and Cuba are not mentioned. Attempts to include them on the agenda were blocked. There is no reference to the appalling genocide that continues to this day in Darfur. In 2006-07, the Human Rights Council carried eight resolutions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict condemning Israel. Only one was carried on the issues in Darfur, where every day hundreds of people are massacred, where thousands upon thousands of people have been massacred in recent years. We all recall the conference on racism that was held in Durban in 2001. It simply degenerated into an attack on Israel. There is a proposal to hold a further conference as a follow-up. Let us hope they can do better this time.
Finally, I want to refer to a statement in an article by Alan Ramsey in last Saturday’s Herald:
The truth is there is no real debate in this country about the travesty of what is happening in the Middle East, and there are those in the community who, with their money and influence, do all they can to ensure no such open debate occurs, either in the national Parliament, in the media or anywhere else.
I actually have some respect for Alan Ramsey. I think he is a fine writer. I do think that he on many occasions is biased and has a vehemence in his criticism, but he is entitled to his opinions. But he is simply wrong. This is nonsense, that there is no opportunity for debate in this parliament, in this country or anywhere else, that somehow there is a powerful lobby that prevents it. I could use an unparliamentary word, but I will not. It is just wrong. The very fact that Mr Ramsey can have almost a page in the Herald, last Saturday and the Saturday before, puts the lie to his claim there is no debate. Every member has an opportunity to stand in this place and debate this issue, as I do today. It is constantly in the news, whether it is the ABC, the print media et cetera, and debated in academic circles—everywhere. There is probably no foreign policy issue that is more discussed, more debated or more commented upon in this country than the Middle East issues. So this rubbish that is trotted out all the time, that somehow there is a lobby that prevents debate, is untrue. (Time expired)
I would like to speak today about the rights of Indigenous Australians and some of the political dynamics surrounding them. I have said on the record a number of times, in this place and outside it, that I welcomed the success of the previous Indigenous affairs minister, Minister Brough, in delivering a lot more political focus and eventually some added financial resources to the issues affecting at least some Indigenous Australians. But what I strongly criticised was the way that he went about it, and particularly the way the debate was conducted.
I use the example of the Northern Territory intervention, where an issue that is almost universally supported—trying to reduce and, ideally, eliminate child abuse, an area where surely we all had a common goal—turned into one of the most divisive issues possible because anybody who disagreed with the way that was put forward to achieve that goal was immediately vilified as being willing to support child abuse. That sort of thing not only derails rational debate; perhaps even more importantly it reduces the chances of effective action, and that means the people who suffer most from such a heated and divisive debate are the Indigenous people themselves, who, at least in regard to all of our words, we are seeking to assist.
All of us can share some blame for that at various times, and I think it is a reminder to all of us to continually try to keep debate around substance and fact and keep it focused not just on evidence based information but on what we are meant to be debating for, which is to improve the situation. We are not actually debating these issues to gain political points, to boost somebody’s leadership stocks or to shift the political dynamic or the political agenda. I have been concerned that since the election, even though 99 per cent of the Northern Territory intervention is continuing, including parts of it that I do not support, we have still been seeing disagreements over very small parts of it being used as ideological, political footballs. To me that just allows the continuation, firstly, of misunderstandings about the facts around a lot of those issues. Secondly, it means that the focus on ensuring that we deliver results for Indigenous people gets diverted into another big ideological stoush of political point-scoring, a political football match.
I am seeing some examples of that also appearing in regard to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Certainly anybody, including the Liberal Party, has the right to make an argument saying that this declaration should not be supported. But I think it is important to ensure that that debate is at least conducted with regard to the facts. An article by Glenn Milne in the Australian of 10 March details the views, at least as reported, of the shadow Attorney-General—a fellow Queenslander, Senator Brandis, who I note is now labelled as one of the leading moderates in the opposition. Labels are an interesting thing, so I will leave others to decide the accuracy or otherwise of that. It is not something I have noted particularly in the past, but maybe all these things are relative. Even in the postmodern world of the Liberal Party these days, maybe these things are relative and perhaps Senator Brandis is a leading moderate. It does not really matter. To be serious again—for those who could not tell, I was being flippant—I am interested in the substance of this debate.
I noted in Mr Milne’s article he said that the UN declaration ‘slipped under the Australian political radar’ last year, that the then shadow minister, Ms Jenny Macklin, indicated Labor’s support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in a statement in September last year. Well, she did do that. We did also have an hour-long urgency debate in this chamber on 10 September last year. I know the level of interest by the press gallery in proceedings in the Senate in September last year probably matches their level of interest now, which would be shown by the usual level of attendance in the press gallery at the moment, which, for those who cannot see, is zero. They are all, no doubt, getting ready to stampede across to the House of Representatives for the daily vaudeville show of question time. But the fact is that this was debated in the Senate at length. Positions were openly put on the record then.
I would also say it was debated the year before, when I raised similar issues about the importance of the declaration, from my point of view and that of the Democrats, and the importance of engaging with these issues. The declaration was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly by a vote of 143 to four. The four countries that voted against were Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US. Canada is described in the article in the Australian as ‘soft left’, which might come as news to their conservative government these days—but, again, I guess labels do not really matter. It is about the substance of the issue.
Mr Milne also said that, unlike the 143 countries that supported the declaration, the four that opposed it have substantial indigenous populations. Australia does, that is true, but it is not just the US, New Zealand, Canada and Australia that have indigenous populations, I can assure you. There are significant indigenous populations, whatever definition you use, in a large number of countries around the world. They were heavily involved in the development of this declaration over many years—I am not sure of the precise number, but I know it was certainly more than a decade—of toing and froing, discussion, debate and development amongst indigenous peoples themselves, through international fora, from a multitude of countries.
Indigenous peoples, for example particularly in parts of Latin America, exist in far greater proportion—much greater—than here in Australia. I would also point out that Taiwan has a significant indigenous population and actually reserves seats for its indigenous people in its parliament. But Taiwan, of course, is excluded from the UN, so it probably did not get a say on this particular declaration. Another point to make in passing is that Taiwan’s people and views are not able to be represented at all, but I shall not digress down that path particularly. The fact is that indigenous peoples are present in a huge number of nations around the world; all but four of them did not oppose the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The key point that needs to be made is that, more so than with conventions and treaties, this declaration is a non-binding document. So, sure, you can raise concerns about the content—and obviously the content is not meaningless or there would be no point in agreeing to it—but the simple fact is that it is not binding. The previous speaker referred to Senator Mason’s extensive experience in the international arena, so as he is in the chamber he may be able to correct me, but my understanding is that this is not actually like a treaty, where Australia can now ratify it or sign on to it; it is a declaration that has been passed via a vote of the UN General Assembly, similar to something being passed by this chamber. The new Australian government can now say: ‘We support this. We support the principles; we will seek to meet the benchmarks contained within the declaration.’ But, as I understand it, we cannot actually sign on to it or ratify it.
So really all we are talking about is whether or not Australia as a government or parliament or Australian bodies such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission seek to use the content of this declaration as benchmarks. Given that it has been adopted by the UN General Assembly regardless of Australia’s opposition, there is certainly a valid argument that we still have a requirement to at least assess what we do against those benchmarks. We can still vary from them, as we always can with any international instrument, but it is there—it now exists.
A key point that I wish to make, though, is the need to avoid misinformation not just about the impact of the declaration but about the meaning of its content. The false argument has been made—it was made in this chamber last year and by former Minister Brough in justifying the previous government’s opposition to this—that supporting this declaration opened up the possibility of its content overriding Australian law. That is simply not the case. It is not the case even with a convention; it is doubly—triply—not the case with something that is not a convention nor a treaty but just a declaration, in this case on the rights of indigenous peoples. So there is no potential for Australian law to be overridden. There is no potential for customary law to be placed above national law. For customary law under any forum to be recognised in Australia it has to actually be part of our law, as it has been from time to time in very small parts through decisions made by this parliament. We could have the debates in this parliament and in the Australian community in the context of where it might be applied and whether it is appropriate. It is simply wrong to say that this declaration opens up the possibility of, for example, Indigenous customary law overriding Australian law. That cannot happen. The only way it can happen is if we as a parliament choose to make it happen—and then it would not be overriding our law; it would be incorporating and recognising it as part of our law.
There is a lot of misinformation about what the principle of self-determination means. I concede that it is a much debated concept, even in international law. People more learned than me would be able to give dissertations on that. But the simple fact is that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does not do anything new with regard to self-determination. In fact, it does little new at all. It predominantly pulls together components of a range of existing treaties and conventions that have already been adopted. With regard to self-determination, that principle is actually one of the first—I think the very first—articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. So, unless the moderate Senator Brandis is suggesting that we disassociate ourselves from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with regard to the principle of self-determination, I would suggest that to create an argument about self-determination being mentioned in this convention is wrong-headed, if not misleading.
I know the principle of self-determination in the international arena is routinely ignored by countries left, right and centre, as with many international conventions—that is an interesting phenomenon and another aspect of the debate. But, either we sign up to these things, at least with the pretence of recognising them as important principles, albeit ones which in the realpolitik of international diplomacy cannot always be adopted as much as we would like—and one could rattle off any number of regions and countries where that is an issue—or we withdraw from the conventions. Frankly, in the interests of intellectual consistency and honesty, I would prefer people argue that we withdraw from conventions or principles if they do not agree with the treaty in question rather than adopt them and then ignore them, as governments of all persuasions in many nations regularly do.
To return to the core point, and one that has to be made: the Democrats obviously strongly support—it has been on the record a number of times in this chamber and in the community—the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It sets a benchmark and sets goals for us to measure ourselves against. I do not mind people debating whether those goals are appropriate or whether they should be reconsidered, but let us not misrepresent what the declaration does and let us not suggest that, by recognising what is actually a principle established in a number of international conventions already with regard to self-determination, it somehow opens up some prospect of secession, customary law overriding other laws, the possibility of a raft of compensation measures, the right of veto over mining exploration or any of those furphies. They are furphies; let us just put them to bed. Let’s have a debate around the substance and keep in mind the core goal: to improve the situation of Indigenous Australians, and I suggest that includes properly recognising and consulting with them.
I direct my question to the Minister for Climate Change and Water. By how much will electricity prices rise as a result of Labor’s mandatory renewable energy target?
I thank the honourable senator for his question. I again make the point that I made yesterday, which was this: at the last election Australians did vote for a government that would take action on climate change. I think the Australian people understand that the costs of failing to act, the costs of neglecting to act, will be far greater than the costs of responsible action now. What they have on this side of the chamber is a government which will take responsible action by ensuring the least cost path through this economic transformation to shift the Australian economy to a lower carbon future. I am waiting to see exactly what the opposition’s position on climate change is. On the one hand they want to play short-term opposition politics with it, yet Mr Nelson seems to believe that the challenge of climate change is ‘the most significant economic, political and moral challenge that will face our generation’. The question is really whether those on the other side agree with their leader that this is an issue—
Mr President, I raise a point of order going to relevance. This is question time, where the opposition can ask questions of the minister; it is not for the minister to try to deflect the issue by asking questions of the opposition. She was asked a very simple question: by how much will electricity prices rise as a result of Labor’s mandatory renewable energy target? Anything other than that is simply irrelevant.
Ministers have always been allowed considerable latitude in answering their questions, but I would remind the minister that the question did relate to electricity prices and ask her to resume her answer.
Amongst the range of policies to tackle climate change with which we went to the election were, of course, first, an emissions-trading scheme and, second, a renewable energy target. We on this side of the chamber do believe it is necessary to ensure that you bring renewable technologies into the market over time. We understand that in terms of shifting this nation over time to a lower carbon future we have to bring more renewable technologies on stream. That is why we are committed to ensuring at least 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply comes from renewable sources. It is a transition mechanism that will help prepare the electricity sector to contribute to the significant emissions reductions that will be needed to address climate change.
But again I ask: who on the other side actually supports their leader? Is it you, Senator Bernardi, who is in the camp of people who are sceptical about climate change? Is it you, Senator Chapman? Do you believe this is an issue?
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! I call Senator Wong to order to address the chair and not directly refer to senators across the chamber.
You are quite right, Mr President. Through you I say this: I rarely agree with the Leader of the Opposition but I do agree with him on this issue—the challenge of climate change is likely to be ‘the most significant economic, political and moral challenge that will face our generation’. That is why we will implement our policies, including a renewable energy target and the emissions-trading scheme. We will do so methodically and carefully. We will undertake economic modelling, as I have already indicated in this place, to carefully assess the impact on the Australian economy. We will have a very clear eye on ensuring Australia’s future prosperity because we believe tackling climate change is about preparing for the future and ensuring that Australian families and this nation are better prepared for the challenges of the future.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that, despite a lot of bluff and bluster, the minister has failed completely to answer a very simple question about the cost of living. So I ask as a supplementary question: how can the Labor government claim to be helping struggling families with the cost of living when it has put in place policies which will drive prices up?
As I said, I think Australians know many things, and they certainly know two things. One thing they know is that the cost of neglecting to act on climate change will be greater than the cost of responsible action now. We know that from Stern and we know that from Garnaut. The other thing they know is that those on the other side have absolutely no answer when it comes to the issue of climate change because too many of them on that side do not believe it is a reality—from Senator Minchin all the way down.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Faulkner. Can the minister advise the Senate on the most recent developments in Tibet, and Australia’s position in relation to the situation? In addition, what is the government’s attitude to the call by the Dalai Lama for an end to the violence in Tibet? What role has the Department of Foreign Affairs played in ensuring the safety of Australians in Tibet during this time?
I thank Senator Kirk for her question. The government is of course monitoring events in Tibet and neighbouring areas very closely. We understand the current situation on the ground is quiet but tense. The government reiterates the calls it has made in recent days for calm and restraint by all parties and for the unrest to end quickly and without further casualties. Obviously the violence and loss of life that has occurred is greatly regretted. I certainly do note that the Dalai Lama has, overnight, also called for an end to the violence.
We urge China to allow free access to Tibet and other affected areas so that the international community may gain an accurate understanding of what is occurring there. The government welcomes the Dalai Lama’s call overnight for an end to the violence. The government believes that constructive dialogue offers the best prospects for peaceful resolution of the issue and certainly the long-term stability of the affected areas. As I have said before in this chamber, Australia recognises China’s sovereignty over Tibet, but we believe it is in China’s best interests to implement policies which will foster an environment of much greater respect and tolerance. Officials in both Canberra and Beijing continue to discuss developments in Tibet with Chinese authorities.
Senator Kirk asked me about the role of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It is monitoring the welfare of the 10 Australians who we know or understand are in Tibet. The department and embassy in Beijing have already assisted 12 Australians, who have departed Tibet. The government continues to advise Australians to reconsider their need to travel to Lhasa and to exercise a high degree of caution in the rest of Tibet and in the Tibetan areas of bordering provinces. It has been clear from the government’s statements over recent days that we remain concerned about persistent and serious inadequacies in the protection of Tibet’s religious, civil and political rights and cultural and environmental heritage. These concerns are not new and have been raised directly by the government with the Chinese, including by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Smith, with the Chinese foreign minister, Mr Yang, during his visit to Australia on 5 February. The government will continue to raise human rights issues with China.
Finally, I mention the issue of the Olympics and Australian participation in the Olympics. It is the government’s position that there is no reason for Australia to reconsider our commitment to participate in the Olympics. We believe the most effective way to influence human rights in China positively is through engagement. I note also that the Dalai Lama himself has dismissed calls for an Olympic boycott.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Wong. Given that Labor yesterday voted with the coalition to continue the former government’s unfair dismissal regime, will the Rudd government now restore the $1.8 million which was set aside to help disabled people contest unfair dismissal and which the razor gang cut so callously?
As the Senate will know, a most unfortunate aspect of the former government’s Work Choices laws was the fact that it took away unfair dismissal protections of Australian workers. As the Senate will also know, what has had to occur as a result of that is an apparent increase in claims to other forums, and it was reasonable to expect an increase in claims to forums such as HREOC. The reality is that the Howard government’s Work Choices laws forced many Australian employees to seek some relief elsewhere. We, as a government, have a commitment to unfair dismissal laws which will be fairer, simpler and easier to access. As the opposition knows, we have, consistent with our election policy, committed to introduce those remedies as part of our substantive industrial relations reform. If opposition senators are so concerned about ensuring these remedies return, I look forward to their support for the substantive bill when it is introduced into this chamber.
These new unfair dismissal laws will restore protection against unfair dismissal to nearly double the number of employees from an estimated 3.5 million under the current system to an estimated 6.5 million. I want to make the point that the Rudd government is committed to taking action to assist people with disabilities, including through Minister O’Connor and Parliamentary Secretary Shorten, and working with disability groups to develop a national mental health and disability employment strategy. We have committed to a national disability strategy to increase participation, social inclusion and support for people with a disability and their carers. We are consulting with disability groups on the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and progressing a review of disability standards for accessible public transport. We are also moving ahead with the development of disability standards for access to premises.
The reality is that the budget provision from the previous government provided funding to HREOC to deal with an increase in employment complaints generally following the former government’s Work Choices laws which removed unfair dismissal protection for employees of businesses with fewer than 100 employees. The reality is that this is funding that the previous government had to introduce because of the removal of unfair dismissal rights within the Work Choices regime. As you know, the Rudd government will reinstate those rights in accordance with our policy. If those opposite are concerned about ensuring people have access to reasonable unfair dismissal rights, we look forward to their support.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, thank for you for all you had in your briefing notes, but it was not an answer to the question I asked. Yesterday you agreed to the continuation of the unfair dismissal laws. Minister, it is a simple question and a simple answer: yes or no. Will the Rudd government restore the $1.8 million that had been set aside to help disabled people contest unfair dismissal? There is no in-between. Will that be continued, yes or no?
I note the opposition’s comments on this issue, and I also note that this was a savings measure which was first identified in February of this year. It is interesting that it has taken until now for the opposition to try to jump on board—that is, not until it was in the paper. I have to say the hypocrisy on the other side of the chamber on this issue is breathtaking. When the Howard government came to power it slashed the human rights commission’s budget by 14 per cent.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order!
As I said, the hypocrisy on the other side of the chamber is extraordinary. This government is reversing spending by the previous government which was introduced as a result of their extreme Work Choices laws. When the Howard government came to power it slashed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s budget by 40 per cent and cut a third of its workforce. I am advised the Work Choices funding was the only new funding provided to HREOC—the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—by the Howard government. You have no credibility on this issue whatsoever. (Time expired)
Mr President, my question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Sherry. Can the minister inform the Senate on any new trends in the use of discretionary grants by Commonwealth governments?
Thank you, Senator Polley, for the question on this important aspect of economic and fiscal management. We should be very clear that there are three legacies that this new Rudd Labor government has to deal with as a consequence of the policy of the former Liberal government. The first, of course, is high inflation.
Senator Minchin interjecting—
We will get to Senator Minchin’s performance soon. The second legacy is higher interest rates, and the third is government spending, which has been out of control for some years.
Let us just look at each of these. The underlying inflation rate in Australia, a legacy from the former Liberal government, has hit 3.6 per cent. That is the highest underlying inflation rate in 16 years. The highest inflation rate in 16 years! Of course, higher inflation equals higher interest rates. That is what we have seen in this country. On interest rates, hard-working families are being slugged as a consequence of this higher inflation—the legacy that the opposition left us when they were defeated. Australia has now had 12 interest rate increases in a row. That puts us amongst the highest in terms of home interest rates for advanced economies in the OECD.
Thirdly we have aspects of government spending. We all know that in the current financial year, according to the budget figures of the previous government—presided over by the former finance minister, now Liberal leader in the Senate, Senator Minchin—government spending was escalating at an increasing rate of 4½ per cent in real terms. That is totally unsustainable. Not only is it totally unsustainable, Senator Minchin—through you, Mr President—it was totally reckless and totally irresponsible. What was the former finance minister, Senator Minchin, doing over the last couple of years? Clearly he was not imposing any discipline whatsoever on any of his ministerial colleagues, particularly the Prime Minister.
The Rudd Labor government is committed to delivering a higher budget surplus. We are committed to increasing the surplus from one per cent of the gross domestic product to 1½ per cent of gross domestic product in the next financial year. We are especially committed to eliminating wasteful spending, to putting downward pressure on inflation and to putting downward pressure on interest rates.
As I have already said, this was under the previous finance minister, now Liberal leader—he has been rewarded for this reckless spending and failure to impose discipline—in the Senate. The Department of Finance and Deregulation have provided data—
Senator Ronaldson interjecting—
Order! I cannot hear the minister’s answer. Order, Senator Ronaldson!
I know that people do not like this—particularly the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Minchin, who was the finance minister—but the Department of Finance and Deregulation have provided data on the use of discretionary grants under the former Liberal government. Let us have a look at some of the data and the blowouts this has led to, because this budget explosion in expenditure has put upward pressure on inflation and interest rates in this country. The figures are actually incredible. I do not know how Senator Minchin let this through to the keeper. We are looking not at an increase in discretionary expenditure of 50 per cent, 100 per cent or 200 per cent but at a staggering 547 per cent explosion in discretionary grants. Liberal and National Party ministers—those opposite—when they were in government approved more than $9.1 billion of discretionary grants between 2005 and— (Time expired)
I have a supplementary question. Can the minister further inform the Senate of any new approaches to the management of Commonwealth government discretionary spending?
Senator Chris Evans interjecting—
Order! Senator Evans, I cannot hear Senator Polley’s supplementary question when there is shouting across the chamber. I ask you to start again, Senator Polley.
Can the minister further inform the Senate of any new approaches to the management of Commonwealth government discretionary spending?
As I indicated, from 2005 through to 2007 there was $9.1 billion worth of discretionary ministerial grants. If we go back to 2002-04, it was $1.6 billion. So it went from $1.6 billion to $9.1 billion over that period.
Who was finance minister during that period?
Yes, who was finance minister? It was Senator Minchin. The number of discretionary grants approved by Howard ministers—and presided over by Senator Minchin, then finance minister—increased from 12,006 in 2004 to 49,060 in 2007. As I have said before in this place, it is a pity Senator Minchin did not put as much energy into overseeing grants as he is now putting into his interjections in this place. The annual cost of discretionary grants grew from $729 million in 2004 to more than $4.5 billion in 2007. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Given that the minister’s own department’s review of the qualifications and work experience of overseas trained doctors has found gaps that were of concern in the history of some doctors, will the minister commit to continuing the review and reject reports that the review is being shelved?
I thank the senator for his question. It is good to get an immigration question from him.
It would be good to get an answer.
If you desist from interjecting, you will get an answer.
Opposition senators interjecting—
When you are ready. In terms of the question about the inquiry ordered by the former minister, Mr Andrews, I am informed that at his request the department did a small survey—
Senator Abetz interjecting—
I think of just over 100 cases, Senator Abetz—on the issue surrounding the foreign doctors who had come into Australia. I understand, following that survey, they reported to then Minister Andrews on the outcome of that survey. I also understand from recent briefing that he actually did not respond to that, because the report came up, as I understand it, at the start of the caretaker period, and the brief was not formally responded to by him. But, certainly, as a result of the review initiated by Mr Andrews, the department sought to consult with the various states about the regulation of doctors, their conditions and their experiences. There has been, as I understand it, toing and froing between the states and the Commonwealth about the management of these issues. Immigration obviously has responsibilities for the visas and those sorts of things; the question is the interaction between the state governments, the immigration department and particularly medical registration boards, which are responsible for the registration of the qualifications of doctors in order to practise inside Australia.
I understand there were issues and concerns raised as a result of this interaction. I have asked the department to brief me on the progress of those matters, and I intend on listing that matter on the agenda when I meet with state ministers, because there are a range of issues that have emerged, including state claims to privacy over the records of doctors et cetera. I am very keen to see if we cannot progress this matter. Clearly, though, there are issues of privacy. There are questions of registration. I think it is appropriate that the medical registration boards in each state continue to take responsibility for checking the qualifications of doctors. I do not see that as being Immigration’s core business, but we do need to be satisfied that those proper checks have occurred.
As you are aware, foreign doctors are essential for the provision of health services in this country. Due to the failure to train enough of our own doctors in recent years, we have severe shortages. All senators would be aware that we have large numbers of foreign trained doctors operating inside Australia. Obviously, there has been some concern, particularly in Queensland over the Dr Patel incident, but I can assure the senator that I intend to pursue the issues that the former minister first raised, one of which is to make sure we have integrity in the system in relation to overseas medical practitioners brought into this country. A lot of that involves better coordination between the states, the medical boards and the department of immigration.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In view of what the minister has said, can he now give an assurance that he has total confidence in the history and qualifications of overseas trained doctors in this country? If he cannot give that assurance then can he say what he is going to do to make sure that he can give that assurance, having regard to the fact that it is his department that gives these visas to overseas trained doctors?
The buck may well stop with me, but I would point out that the vast majority of doctors now practising in this country who came from overseas were approved under the previous government, so I would take any assurance from Senator Ellison that he has complete confidence that all those doctors came in and were legitimately registered in this country. As I indicated to him, some concerns were raised about the proper processes as a result of the review that occurred. There has been consultation with the states. I have asked the department to provide me with a briefing, which I have not received, on the progress of those matters. And I will pursue with the states—
So you’re having a review into the review?
Well, Senator, the former minister did not respond to the previous review. I have taken up the issue, I will raise it with the state governments and we will continue to pursue best policy.
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Conroy. Through you, Mr President: Minister, given the concern about inflation and high public spending, is the government presently intending to reduce both direct budget spending and indirect tax expenditures? Does the minister recall the recently released OECD study that said that in Australia tax reform has mainly benefited higher income groups? Is the government aware of criticisms that upper- and middle-class welfare has become entrenched? Is the government aware of criticisms that the government supports rich seniors getting the same benefits as poor pensioners? To contain costs, will the government introduce means testing wherever possible and end welfare to those who can afford to pay their own way?
I thank the senator for his question. As the senator would know, the government is engaged in the budget process and I do not intend to pre-empt the May budget. But the government have an obligation to ensure that the most vulnerable in our community are looked after, and we intend to do that. We do face a serious economic challenge ahead. It has fallen to the Rudd government to deal with the consequences of the reckless big spending of the previous government and their inattention to capacity constraints. This has led to rising inflation levels in the economy outside the target range of two to three per cent over the course of the economic cycle. In fact, core inflation is now at a 16-year high. Inflationary pressures in the Australian economy have built up over a long period of time.
Government senators interjecting—
Absolutely right. We will keep making the point that this opposition is completely out of touch and is in complete denial about the state of the legacy that it has left this country. It is in complete denial about ignoring the Reserve Bank’s 20 warnings and in complete denial about the state of inflation in this country. We will keep reminding those opposite of the state of the economy consistently and at every opportunity that we get, because it will take sober and responsible government policy to turn these pressures around, and it is no easy task. Left unchecked, inflationary pressures will cause significant damage to the Australian economy, including contributing to increased cost of living pressures and the erosion of personal savings, and will threaten our international competitiveness. If we ignore these inflationary pressures now, the inevitable result will be a more painful adjustment later. That is why this government is committed to fighting the inflation problem as a matter of priority.
The opposition dearly want to dismiss the problem of inflation. They dearly want to dismiss it. They want to avoid responsibility for their failure to address the inflation threat during their time in office. The previous government failed to heed 20 warnings from the RBA over three years about capacity constraints and 10 separate warnings about inflationary pressures in a three-year period when interest rates went up seven times. They took no action to address the emerging problem. Indeed, they made the problem worse. We have the shadow Treasurer still claiming that inflation is just a fairy story.
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance. I have listened carefully to the answer, and the minister has not addressed the core question, which is whether the government will extend means testing. I might just say in passing that I am hearing a broken promise here. The promise from Labor was that they would answer questions.
Order! Senator Conroy, I would remind you of the question.
The government’s tax cuts are designed to encourage people into the workforce, boosting participation and productivity, which will help fight inflation, unlike the tax cuts proposed by those opposite. Unlike their tax cuts, ours are designed to help boost productivity in the economy. Effectively dealing with inflation means we need to have strategies that assist on the supply side of the economy, not just demand, which is exactly what those opposite were promoting. Skilled labour shortages and labour shortages generally are regularly reported as the greatest constraints on business expansion. It is anticipated that the tax cuts— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of widespread criticism that welfare for the well-off has embedded a sense of entitlement that does long-term structural damage to the Commonwealth budget? The first Costello budget in 1996 was nothing if not tough. Will the first Swan budget be tough enough to wind back unwarranted welfare benefits and tax concessions and to extend means testing?
Senator Murray is well aware that in the lead-up to a budget no government speculates on what measures are in—
Unless it’s carers!
I am not going to speculate on what measures are in the budget. I appreciate that you, Senator Murray, have now asked that question twice, and I have given the same answer now twice: that we have got no intention. But it is anticipated that our tax cuts will, over time, result in an additional 2.5 million hours of work, being approximately 65,000 additional people in the workforce. That is the difference with the tax cuts we are proposing. They are about boosting productivity, boosting incentives to get back to work and delivering on the challenges that you, the opposition, have left us. But you are not going to be able to slide away playing both sides of the street. Your leader once said— (Time expired)
Order! Before I call Senator Scullion, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the chamber of a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Lithuania, led by Mr Algirdas Sysas. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate.
Hear, hear!
My question is to Senator Evans, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Given the reports in the Northern Territory News today that Senator Crossin has been forced to apologise to the Prime Minister for her disgraceful comments on the Northern Territory intervention, will the Leader of the Government in the Senate now demand that Senator Crossin offer an apology to the hundreds of abused children and their families who she clearly belittled?
I am not aware of the report that Senator Scullion referred to.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I always try and get the Northern Territory News as early as possible to scour it but, on this occasion, prior to coming into question time I did not have a chance to see that. But if this again relates to the questions covered last week regarding—
Senator Sterle interjecting—
Order! Senator Sterle, you will withdraw that comment.
Mr President, I withdraw that statement.
I thank Senator Minchin for providing me with a copy. Can I just indicate, as I did last week when Senator Scullion asked similar questions—I thought I answered, on at least two occasions, the question he raised—that Senator Crossin made a statement to the parliament explaining her comments and putting it all in context. We covered this ground last week. I do not understand why Senator Scullion seeks to raise it again, other than to run off something that was in the paper. Can I again indicate that Senator Crossin has always supported the interests of Indigenous children in the Northern Territory. While I have not had a chance to read the article in full, the sub-headline—that Senator Crossin has been shunned by the party—is complete nonsense.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the Leader of the Government in the Senate is aware that when he continues to try to defend these outrageous comments people in the wider Australian public would see him as actually condoning them.
As I indicated last week, Senator Scullion, that does you no credit at all. That does you no credit at all. I would never accuse anyone in this chamber of condoning child sexual abuse. You ought to think about withdrawing that slur because it does you and it does the Liberal Party no credit at all.
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. In terms of clarification of my comment, I was not referring to—
Order! You may take a point of order. If you wish to clarify any statements, you will do it at the end of question time. Senator Evans, have you concluded your answer?
I have.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Wong. Can the minister outline to the Senate what impact Australian workplace agreements have had on the take-home pay of hard-working Australians? Can the minister explain how the government’s transition to Forward with Fairness bill will remove these unfair agreements from Australian workplaces?
I thank Senator Sterle for the question. Senator Sterle, like others on this side of the chamber, understands the impact that AWAs have had on Australian working families and on the pay and conditions of Australians. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics tells us that women in particular have been disadvantaged by Australian workplace agreements. Women on AWAs who work full time earned on average $2.30 less per hour, or $87.40 less per week, based on a standard 38-hour week, than those on collective agreements. Also, following the May 2007 announcement of the previous government’s pre-election stunt—the so-called fairness test—we know that the former government did measure the amount of money that hard-working Australians were losing under AWAs.
Between May and July of last year, 54,000 AWAs were lodged to be assessed against the former government’s so-called fairness test, and a sample of those that did not pass was examined, detailing the amount of pay that would have been lost under those AWAs in respect of the former government’s so-called protected award conditions. What we know is that a sample of 670 AWAs, from the 5,239 that were later found not to pass the so-called fairness test, was examined. These did not pass because the pay rate proposed did not adequately compensate those employees for the so-called protected award conditions that were removed or modified in those AWAs.
I would like to take the Senate through some of the impacts on these employees. Approximately 45 per cent of these AWAs provided between $1 and $49 per week below the required rate of pay for the protected award conditions only, not the required rate of pay under the full award. Approximately 50 per cent provided between $50 and $199 per week below the required rate of pay. Approximately five per cent provided $200 to $499 per week below the required rate of pay and, extraordinarily, about half a per cent provided more than $500 per week below the required rate of pay. And this was at a time, people might recall, that the former government was spending millions of dollars on advertising its Work Choices legislation.
What this limited analysis confirms is that under Work Choices working Australians lost take-home pay—plain and simple. No wonder the previous government did not want the Australian people to know. The majority of these AWAs were in the retail, accommodation and food services industries, with others from the manufacturing, wholesale sector and security industries. The reality is hard-working Australians—mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, parents—are worried about being able to pick up their kids from school or make their weekly budget balance. These are the hard-working Australians who lost pay and conditions. This is why I am very pleased that the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 was sent back to the House of Representatives last night after passing this chamber. It will stop the making of any new AWAs, it will introduce better protections for the making of workplace agreements through a new no disadvantage test, and it will start the important process of award modernisation to build a strong and simple safety net for Australian employers and Australian employees. Barring any delays caused by those opposite, by this Easter long weekend hard-working Australians can be assured they will no longer be forced onto AWAs. (Time expired)
My question is to Senator Carr. I refer him to his embarrassing and rambling answer yesterday. Can the minister inform the Senate exactly how much new money the Labor government has committed to the new square kilometre array, or SKA, telescope bid?
I want to thank the shadow minister for his interest in the SKA. It is belated but welcome. It is, of course, unfortunate that the opposition felt that they were not able to support this project. It is unfortunate, from their responses yesterday, that they felt it necessary to belittle this project.
This is a major piece of scientific infrastructure. This is a project of immense importance which this government has determined to pursue with vigour. This is a project which the former government failed to pursue with any vigour and which the former minister for science failed to embrace. This is a project that the former minister chose to ignore, in fact, because the former minister did not appreciate how significant Australia’s role in radioastronomy is, did not appreciate how significant this piece of infrastructure will be to world astronomy, did not appreciate the leading role that Australian radioastronomers have and did not understand the industrial and research implications for this project. Professor Brian Boyle, as an example, through CSIRO has led a team that has been able to demonstrate that to the world. Recently in Germany we signed a memorandum of understanding with the Max Planck Institute—
Mr President, I rise on a point of order to do with relevance. I asked a very simple question: how much new money has the Labor government put into this project?
I did listen carefully to the question. I am struggling to find some relevance in the answer. Senator Carr, I would draw your attention to the question.
It is obviously difficult for the opposition to come to grips with the fact that the world understands that Australia has an important role to play in this bid to secure this very important piece of infrastructure.
Senator Minchin interjecting—
You put 49,000 other bits of dollops of money in too, Nick.
Senator Faulkner, the question was asked of Senator Carr, not you, so I think you should let Senator Carr answer it.
As you can see, Mr President, I take some relish in answering it. I would have thought that an answer like this should have gone through the government’s tactics committee because it is the sort of question we enjoy answering. It demonstrates that this government is committed to international collaborations on major pieces of research infrastructure. It is true that the previous government did undertake some projects in this area. However, the previous government failed to acknowledge the role of the SKA in terms of its pursuit of international collaboration. It failed to appreciate the significance of this piece of infrastructure. It failed to understand just how significant this piece of infrastructure is for industry and for manufacturing in terms of skills development. This is a project which will last for 50 years; it is a 50-year commitment. This is a project which Australia is uniquely suited to pursue, although I note that the international community will have to choose between Australia and South Africa. So the bid is quite important. I invite the opposition to support the government in its determination to secure this project for Australia.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. It ought to be asked of the ‘Minister for Imitation’ because I remind him that the only money that has been committed to this project has been the $105 million committed by the former coalition government. I have a media release from former Minister Bishop indicating exactly that. Is the minister aware that trying to take credit for someone else’s work, plagiarism, is one of the most serious crimes for a scientist or a researcher to commit? Has the minister sought approval from the former science minister, Ms Bishop, to regurgitate her work and take credit for it? As Ms Bishop would say, ‘You’ve been a very naughty boy, Senator Carr, very naughty.’
Order! Senator Carr, if you have any further comments you wish to make, you may.
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I ask that you check standing order 73 in light of the question and the subsequent question to see whether they comply.
I will check, Senator Brown. I am quite sure that the initial question complied. I am not quite so sure about the supplementary question.
I am not sure overacting is the same as a question.
Senator Evans, that can apply to members on either side of the chamber. Senator Carr, do you wish to add anything further?
I do not think Senator Abetz should try humour; he is not good at it. He ought to stick to what he is good at, and that is rolling his leader.
Order! Senator Carr, that is not relevant.
In all seriousness, this bid is extremely important in terms of global scientific infrastructure. This is a project for which $117 million has been provided. We are working with the government of Western Australia to enhance that and additional sums of money have been allocated for that. There is a major international forum to be launched on 9 April in Western Australia with Premier Carpenter. I will be participating in that and we will be pursuing this bid with all the vigour that the Australian government can muster. I would invite the opposition to support this bid. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Wong. I refer to recent media reports that the rules on welfare payments to single mothers will be overhauled by this government. I draw the minister’s attention to the experiences of single mothers being placed under pressure to withdraw from further education due to the participation requirements of Welfare to Work. Furthermore, the restrictions on the Jobs, Education and Training Child Care program, commonly known as JET, to only one year of childcare subsidy are leading single mothers to abandon university degrees before completion, particularly in areas where skill shortages are rife such as teaching and nursing. Given the government’s commitment to meaningful workforce participation and its acknowledgement of the link between education outcomes and meaningful work, does the government agree that current Welfare to Work rules relating to single mothers are unfair? How is the government intending to overhaul the Welfare to Work rules for single mums?
The government is aware of a range of views that suggest that the previous government’s Welfare to Work policies reduced the incentives for parents and also people with a disability to move into work. We are aware of a recent NATSEM analysis reported perhaps less than a week ago which looked at some of these issues. We also believe that it is critical, if we are to move people from welfare to work, that they be provided with the training and skills they need to move into sustainable and meaningful jobs. That is why the government is investing in the Productivity Places Program to provide 175,000 places over the next four years for people who are currently outside the workforce. We clearly understand that, for parents and those with a disability who want to move into work, we need to ensure that they are assisted to gain the skills they need to gain meaningful, lasting and sustainable jobs.
As I have previously indicated in this place to senators, Minister O’Connor has announced a review of employment services to ensure that employment services are properly designed to develop job seekers’ skills and to help the most disadvantaged Australians. This review will focus on early intervention to minimise long-term welfare dependency and to create better and stronger links between people with a disability and employers and also to look at the ways in which parents can be better assisted. This government absolutely recognises that having a job is one of the best routes to social inclusion and wellbeing. A key goal of the government’s social inclusion policy is to help those who are on the margins of the workforce and who have the capacity to contribute to employment. I do not have any information on one of the specific questions Senator Siewert asked in relation to parents. I will see if I can provide anything further at a later date.
Mr President, I thank the minister for her response and ask a supplementary question. Would the minister also outline whether the government will guarantee that single mothers can access childcare subsidies through the JET program to enable them to access and complete their higher education courses?
I can inform Senator Siewert that the JET program is amongst the programs that Minister O’Connor has announced a review in relation to. We want to look at the suite of employment services funded by the government to ensure that both taxpayers and the people accessing those services are getting the best and most efficient services possible. I am advised that JET is one of those programs. This government is very aware of the importance of increasing the participation of parents in the workforce and the importance of child care. That is why, prior to the election, we announced a range of childcare policies to deal with these issues. As I said, we are very conscious of this issue and I am sure that these issues will be fully canvassed in Minister O’Connor’s review.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Carr. Now that the Rudd government has confirmed that it will break its promise to begin building a national broadband network within six months of taking office, has it dawned on the minister that Labor’s parallel promise to begin connecting computers in schools to the new network this financial year will be technically impossible?
I thank the senator for the question. I am not certain that the commitment was that we would begin connecting this year. When the present government was in opposition, we outlined a program to provide greater access for all students in Australian schools to computers and a curriculum that supports computer programs. Labor’s education revolution was spelled out in detail during the election campaign, and Minister Gillard is in the process of implementing that program. She has already commenced detailed discussions with the states and territories to ensure that every child does have access to a computer. I am absolutely convinced that the program will be implemented fully and effectively in line with our election commitments.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Following Labor’s first cabinet meeting on 6 December 2007, didn’t the Minister for Education claim that the rollout of the ‘fibre to the schools’ plan would commence during the course of this financial year? Without a network to connect to, rather than new leadership, isn’t this nothing more than old-fashioned Labor incompetence?
What Minister Gillard did outline is that our promise was to provide access to a computer for every student from years 9 to 12. On 5 March we opened round 1 of our funding initiative, the first $100 million of the $1 billion digital education revolution, inviting 937 schools from across Australia to make a submission. These schools were identified as having a ratio of one computer for every eight students or worse in a recent national audit. The government are now implementing those policies consistent with our election commitments.
My question is to the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Carr. Can the minister explain to the Senate the significance to Australia of Holden’s VE ute export program?
I thank Senator McEwen for her question. The importance of this announcement to South Australia cannot be underestimated. This is a project of considerable significance to the Australian automotive industry in general but to South Australia specifically. Senator, I am sure you would appreciate this has considerable and quite far reaching consequences. It was my pleasure to take part last Sunday in Holden’s announcement that it was about to start exporting its VE ute to the United States.
You know why?
The ute has already been exported to South Africa and New Zealand—
Because of the free trade agreement you opposed!
I have got an interjection from the opposition. I welcome once again the opposition’s interest in the automotive industry. I would have thought by now we would have heard a great deal more from the opposition.
Senator Abetz interjecting—
I know Senator Minchin has a deep appreciation of the value of this industry; I acknowledge that. It is a pity his shadow minister does not share that conviction. What we have here is a ute that is being exported to the United States and the Middle East. Holden sells vehicles and engines into Asia and Europe. That is exactly the direction in which we want to see this industry go. It is a project that does highlight the capacity of the industry to focus on innovation and on exports. The car industry has shown the way on many of these fronts. If we can just compare the figures: in 1982 exports totalled only $277 million; in 2007 they topped $5 billion. Even allowing for inflation, these are remarkable transformations. Twenty years ago, less than one in 10 of vehicles that were built in this country were exported. In 2006, the figure was 40 per cent. The automotive industry now accounts for 17 per cent of the elaborately transformed manufactures exports.
There are people in this country, including Senator Abetz, who take the view that they would be happy to see this industry go out the back door. They need to explain what they would do to replace those exports. They need to explain what the consequences of the removal of this industry would be for the 60,000 Australians employed in high-skill, high-wage jobs. They need to explain what they would replace this industry with in terms of the massive investment in R&D that it contributes to the Australian economy. R&D is the key to Holden’s success. This is a company that has seen Detroit sit up and take notice of the capabilities of the Australian automotive industry. We have seen it from the Commodore Coupe a decade ago to the Coupe 60, which was unveiled at the Melbourne International Motor Show last month. These cars are tangible proof of Holden’s design and engineering expertise. They give us a glimpse of the future and they provide us with an opportunity for—
Senator Abetz interjecting—
I pity the shadow minister, who has so little understanding of these issues, yet has been given responsibility by the opposition to actually be a spokesperson for the Liberal Party on these questions. It is a shame, Senator Minchin, that more effort has not been made to educate your shadow minister on just how important these questions are for Australia. (Time expired)
Mr President, unless there is a supplementary question, which I would enjoy, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I am pleased to announce that Mr Alan Thompson has accepted an offer to take up the position of Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services. Mr Thompson has extensive public sector leadership and policy experience at state, territory and national levels. He is currently Secretary of the New Zealand Ministry of Transport and in that role he is overseeing major changes to the New Zealand land transport sector’s funding and organisational arrangements and developing a new transport strategy for New Zealand. He has served as secretary to three Victorian government departments—Justice; Conservation and Natural Resources; and Housing and Construction. Mr Thompson was also Chief Executive of the ACT Department of Urban Services from 1999 to 2004. In 2003 he was seconded to lead the Canberra bushfire recovery team.
Mr Thompson was selected in an open and transparent merit based process from a strong field. His appointment will be for a period of five years commencing in May 2008. He replaces former secretary Hilary Penfold QC, who was recently appointed as a judge to the ACT Supreme Court. The Deputy Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services, Mr David Kenny, will continue to act as secretary until Mr Thompson’s arrival.
I have a very short additional response to a question from Senator Cormann yesterday regarding Green Corps and Work for the Dole. I make the following statement in response to Senator Cormann’s question yesterday regarding the continuation of the Green Corps and Work for the Dole programs. This information has been provided to me by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The current contracts for employment services, including Green Corps and Work for the Dole, conclude on 30 June 2009. The Minister for Employment Participation, Brendan O’Connor, is undertaking a review of all employment services programs, including the Work for the Dole and Green Corps programs. Final decisions will be made in the best interests of all Australians, particularly those who need help to enter the workforce.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Chapman today relating to electricity prices and the renewable energy target.
In my motion, I could have used the term ‘responses’ because for two weeks now, in these sittings, we have not had one single answer from the government on any question—not one answer. It is patently obvious that they are not across their briefs, are not able to digest the most fundamental of facts associated with their portfolios and come in here with preset speeches to ramble away on the side to look like they are saying something when in fact they cannot answer even one question in two weeks.
That would not be so bad save for the fact that the emissions-trading scheme is bigger and more significant to our economy than the GST. It is going to do absolutely horrendous things to the costs incurred by electricity generators, particularly gas and coal generators. Can I draw the minister’s attention to an article in the Australian today, written by Matthew Warren. He starts his article by saying:
LABOR’S plan to dramatically increase the mandatory levels of renewable energy will cost the economy $1.5 billion and drive up power bills by 6 per cent.
That is just the renewable energy quotient: 20 per cent by 2020. What is going to happen if the minister happens to agree with Mr Garnaut—whom she has said is the touchstone of the Labor Party’s policy on an emissions-trading scheme—and Mr Garnaut says there is to be no compensation for gas or coal electricity generators, particularly on the eastern seaboard? What is going to happen to electricity prices? I can tell you, Mr Deputy President: they will go through the roof. The minister and her party have spent 11 years in opposition. They ran around during the campaign talking about renewable energy targets and all of that, but when they get into power they have absolutely nothing to back it up with. What that means is that mum and dad are going to have to foot the bill for this.
What we are saying is that the government needs to be very, very careful. An emissions-trading scheme is a very, very good thing for this country, but it must be implemented with tremendous care. The minister has given us absolutely no confidence that she understands the commercial risks in this policy. Can I quote the words of John Boshier, the Executive Director of the National Generators Forum. He talks on behalf of 21 major generators, and I want to quote what he has had to say in the Financial Review today:
Coal generators will be faced with the situation where they not only cannot recoup their high carbon costs but also find themselves generating far less electricity in a carbon-constrained nation. This will slash their asset values and render some unviable, leading to premature closure of plant ...
He went on to say:
If we accept what Professor Garnaut is advocating – no adjustment assistance – existing generators will have their asset values significantly reduced. These are the same owners and investors who will be central to introducing the new technologies that will underpin Australia’s transition to a low-carbon economy.
He then went on to say:
If electricity is not there when homes and industry need it, then the costs to the nation are immediate and immense.
These are the things that the minister should be acknowledging and saying that their policy will focus on seeking to avoid—that is, that they will go for the soft landing in implementing this policy and will be absolutely careful and conscious of not damaging the economy, by looking after those big gas and coal fired power stations, so that when the goalposts are moved they are in a position to play ball with the government’s policy and we go forward in a positive way. But the minister does nothing about this. She says nothing about fuel prices. She says nothing about grocery prices. She is going to impose mandatory targets on transport companies. Regional Australia is going to pay through the nose for this unless she gives us some confidence that they are at the forefront of her mind when considering this policy. It is absolutely crucial that she come in here and reassure Australia that she is concerned to look after business when she is instituting her emissions-trading scheme.
Unlike those opposite, those of us on this side, on the Labor side, have always been very clear with the Australian public. We have always been very clear about the need to address the challenges of climate change, and the establishment of an emissions-trading scheme is part of that. We have never sought to shy away from that debate. We have been very clear with the Australian public. It is our priority; it is their priority. That is one of the many reasons that the Rudd Labor government was elected. As the minister has said repeatedly, the establishment of an emissions-trading scheme is one of the most far-reaching reforms in Australia’s economic history. We acknowledge that; Minister Wong has acknowledged that; the Prime Minister has acknowledged that. We have always said that that is the case. That is why one of the first things that we have done—bearing in mind that the Rudd Labor government has only been in existence since 24 November 2007—and one of the first actions we have taken is to outline our proposals to establish that emissions-trading scheme. In seeking to establish that emissions-trading scheme, the government is extremely mindful of the range of impacts that any emissions-trading scheme will have on all of the community. But it is a priority for our community that this be addressed, that climate change be addressed and that an emissions-trading scheme be established as part of addressing that challenge.
We are, therefore, focusing on designing measures that will assist households, particularly low-income households. That should be a priority, and it is a priority. We are focusing on designing measures that will assist them to adjust to the impact of carbon prices. Everyone in Australia understands that if we fail to act on climate change—which for too long those opposite did—the costs will be much greater than if we start to take responsible action now. Part of that responsible action is consultation with our community and consultation with all of the players. That is why we have a process by which we will unveil any proposed emissions-trading scheme. The central principles of this government’s approach to establishing an emissions-trading scheme are: the scheme will be a ‘cap and trade’ scheme that has maximum practical coverage of greenhouse gas emissions and industry sectors; the scheme caps will be designed to place Australia on a low-emissions path in a way that best manages the economic costs of transition and provides incentives to develop and invest in low-emission technologies; the scheme will address the competitive challenges facing emissions intensive trade exposed industries in Australia; and the scheme will also address the impact on strongly affected industries.
The government will also develop measures to assist households—as I say, particularly the low-income households that those of us on this side are quite rightly concerned about. We will develop measures to assist them in adjusting to any potential impact of carbon prices.
In acknowledging those priorities and in acknowledging the importance of this issue not just to this government, not just to the Australian community but to the world, the Rudd Labor government has announced a timetable for introducing the emissions-trading scheme. We have announced a timetable that allows for consultation and development. There will be an emissions-trading scheme and it will start in 2010. In the lead-up, between now and 2010, the government will release a green paper on emissions-trading design in early July. That will outline various potential approaches to establishing what is a very significant economic reform within the Australian economy. So we will release a green paper—we have already announced that. In December 2008 the government will publicly release exposure draft legislation, because what is most important when you are establishing this significant economic reform is that you need to look at the development of measures that will assist industry to adjust, and that will assist low-income earners, and that there is consultation with the community and the development of certainty. (Time expired)
The cost of living is affecting struggling families right around Australia. Let me remind the Senate that throughout the last election campaign we saw the current Prime Minister and the current Treasurer wandering the country, talking endlessly about the cost of living, the cost of petrol, the cost of groceries—deliberately creating the false expectation that they would fall under a Labor government. But since the election we have had an eerie silence on this issue. Can I remind the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that the real problem is that the cost of living is vitally important to all Australian families, but particularly to struggling families.
All we have seen over recent months from the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and other ministers is an attempt to lay the blame for this on the Howard government. We saw this again today with Senator Sherry’s answer to a question, claiming that the previous government had increased expenditure at the average rate of 4½ per cent per year. Let me remind the Senate that the then opposition, the Labor Party, matched that expenditure with their promises every inch of the way. But of course what they ignore is that those increases in expenditure by the previous government, apart from ensuring that Australia’s security was established and was firm, were designed to share the benefits of the buoyant economy which our policies had created with those who were less fortunate and those who were in need.
Senator Sherry’s comments remind me of the statement from St Augustine: ‘Lord, help me to be pure, but not yet.’ They did not want to be pure back in the days of opposition. They wanted to win votes by matching the policies and the initiatives of the then Howard government. But, now they are in government, they want to be pure and they want to condemn those increases in expenditure which, as I said, provided for the needy in our community. They want to use that to try to rewrite history with regard to the outstanding performance of the Howard government in building a strong economy.
But what else did we hear today? From Senator Wong we heard bluff and bluster in response to the question I asked, a very simple question about the impact of Labor’s increased mandatory renewable energy target on electricity prices—a massive increase in that MRET to 20 per cent, compared with what it was under the previous government. That is going to have an enormous impact on electricity prices, and that again will be most detrimental to those who are struggling, who find it difficult to make ends meet. They are going to introduce this mandatory renewable energy target at a much greater level without any inclusion of clean coal or clean gas as part of that target. It will apply only to solar, geothermal and hydroelectricity, and they are not going to offer any incentives to industry to meet that MRET. As I say, a massive increase in electricity prices will be the result of that—again, unaffordable for so many people in our community.
Apart from those initiatives that are going to increase the cost of living, what have they done? Establish one inquiry after another—an inquiry every four days—rather than taking responsibility for policies, making decisions and announcing decisions that will be of benefit to the Australian community. It is because they have no answer that they are establishing these inquiries. They went around the country creating this expectation that they would reduce petrol prices, that they would reduce grocery prices, but they do not have one policy to put in place to bring that about.
Of course, the cost of living affects every single parent, affects every pensioner and affects every self-funded retiree. Every time one of those people visits the shops, every time they fill their shopping bag with the necessities of life, they know that the cost of living is going up and they judge their pension, their allowance or their wage against what they can buy with the money they have. But Labor do not address these concerns. They simply set up another bureaucratic based inquiry that will not solve the problem.
It is also informative to look at statements that Labor made before the election. On 10 June they said their sole purpose was to ensure that Australian families are not paying 1c more to fill up their car than they should. Of course, that depends on what you mean by ‘1c more than they should’. Labor obviously have a different interpretation of that from the opposition. But that leads us on to the issue of groceries, where they created the expectation that they were going to wave a magical wand and reduce the price of groceries. But what have they done in relation to that? They are now going to increase the fuel tax on trucks and increase the cost of truck registration, a major component in the cost of groceries. (Time expired)
I can understand why you are laughing, Mr Deputy President. It is just amazing when we come into this place today and hear these same people who had 11½ years to do something about petrol prices and grocery prices. The compassion they are demonstrating and their sudden care for low-income families in our community is quite laughable.
You had 11½ years to tackle these problems and you did nothing. The attitude that you took to the last election and the previous three elections was: spend, spend, spend—whatever it takes as long as we get back into power and have the red leather seats. That is all you were interested in. But, when it came to climate change, I remind you gentlemen on the other side who are still in the chamber that you were the sceptics. You were the ones who went to the last election and told the Australian community, ‘There may be a problem with climate change, not too sure, but let’s see what the polling says and we might actually respond to it.’ It was the Rudd Labor government that took the most decisive action by signing the Kyoto agreement. The Rudd government is out there delivering on the promises that Labor took to the last election. We are not the ones with an 11½-year record of core and non-core promises.
Let’s get a few facts on the table. Regarding the questions that were asked today, to all ministers but including to Minister Wong, if people on the other side actually listened they would have found that the answers given were fairly, clearly and decisively. Let me remind senators, when it comes to climate change, the Rudd Labor government has the record up to now. We are the ones who, in the first 100 or so days that we have been in power, have taken action that shows we understand that it is a huge problem. It is not going to be resolved overnight. When it comes to issues like emissions trading, we are very mindful of its impact on our communities and our households. We will be consulting with the community and with the experts to make sure we come up with a plan that will have long-term benefits for the Australian community and the global community. We do not take our responsibilities lightly. We have been in government for a very short period of time—
But you’re claiming credit for a lot of things!
but, if you look at the opposition, they had 11½ years to put some runs on the board and failed to do so. The interjections from those opposite I find quite interesting. The government are committed to ensuring that the benefits and costs of emissions trading are spread fairly across the community. The government will take a careful and deliberate approach to finalising the scheme design, drawing on many sources of advice to achieve the best-quality policy outcomes.
We heard the sudden compassion that senators have espoused in this debate, so let’s go back to the real legacy of the former Howard Liberal-National government. They left us with the worst skill shortage this country has ever experienced. They did nothing about skilling up Australian workers. Their quick-fix solution was to import workers and undermine Australian workers in their workplace.
What did you do with the one million unemployed?
My comment to those senators on the other side is very clear.
Don’t waste your time on them.
I do not believe that we do waste our time when we get up and speak, even though there are interjections opposite. The Rudd Labor government has a plan to address the inflationary problems left by the Howard government, who went to the last election espousing that they were the great economic managers. Quite clearly the Australian people saw them for what they were. Now we are in the process of addressing those inflationary problems, as well as problems such as climate change and petrol prices. We are out there looking after Australian working families. We are also looking after those from low-income backgrounds within our society to ensure that they get a fair go. One thing about the Rudd Labor government that will be recorded in history is that we are there delivering on our promises. We will keep our election promises and ensure that all Australians have a fair go.
The Labor Party is very rapidly developing a reputation, well earned, for being incapable of answering questions during question time. Today we had this spectacle of Minister Wong, Minister Carr and the leader, Minister Evans, simply unable to address a question. Very simple questions were asked. I do not think Senator Wong has yet answered one question she has been asked. Senator Carr tried, I have to say, but simply could not answer the question: how much will it cost? It is very simple, and he was not capable of answering it. His actions today were the same as they have been since we came into this new parliament: Labor ministers simply incapable of answering the most simple questions.
Senator Polley raises the issue of petrol prices. I will tell you what the Howard government did about petrol prices: we actually stopped the automatic half-yearly indexation of petrol prices that the previous Labor government had implemented.
In all these things you have to look at what Labor do in office, not what they said, when in opposition, they would do in office. During the time of the last Labor government, we saw record interest rates of 17½ per cent on housing loans—I have my bank statement to prove it. You might recall inflation being in double-digit figures. They are accusing us of three per cent inflation and saying how terrible that is. When we came into power inflation was about seven or eight per cent, but it had been 11 per cent under Labor, and now they are again trying to make the public of Australia believe that they will do something about inflation.
Petrol prices under the Howard government dropped because we did the only thing a government can do, and that is stop the automatic indexation. If you want to do something about petrol prices, Senator Polley, get Mr Rudd to slash the excise on petrol and then you can do it. Before the election, the Labor Party and Mr Rudd wandered around Australia promising that grocery prices would come down, that interest rates would come down and that petrol prices would come down. What have we seen since the Labor government came to power? Petrol prices have gone up, and what have the Labor government done? They have set up a committee or something. Since the Labor government have been in power, grocery prices have gone up. What have the Labor Party done? They set up another committee. Since the Labor Party have been in power, interest rates have gone up twice, and yet we are looking again to the sorts of interest rates that we saw at the time of the last Labor government.
There is a report out today that the Labor Party would be very interested in having a look at. A new economic analysis says that Labor’s mandatory renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020 is unnecessary, will cost the economy $1.5 billion and will drive up power bills by six per cent. How is that going to help working families: petrol prices, energy prices, electricity prices up by six per cent? Labor have also whacked a new charge onto transport—a new charge on trucks. Of course, trucks carry food, and those of us who live in rural and regional Australia are particularly dependent upon trucks moving goods up to where we live. But the additional charges that this Labor government and the state Labor governments are going to put on trucks will mean that our costs for groceries will rise even further; hence, the cost of living will go up. There is another thing that they are talking about—well, I think they are talking about it. You never know with Mr Garrett—remember, he famously said before the election, ‘We’ll promise everything before the election and then change it after the election,’ and you can never be quite sure whether he has got to the change area yet—but he says he is going to put an extra tax on shopping bags. What are shopping bags used for? To take home the groceries. So, again, ordinary working Australian families will be attacked by this government. The increased energy price, the increased petrol price, the increased trucking price and the increased cost of shopping bags are all adding to inflationary pressure. Quite frankly, the Labor government have no idea what to do—(Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Murray today relating to taxation.
During question time I asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Conroy: given the concern on inflation and high public spending, is the government presently intending to reduce both direct budget spending and indirect tax expenditures? Frankly, his answer was less than adequate. It is clear from the statements of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation in particular and of others in the government that the government is taking a fairly broad look at direct budget spending and has indicated it is looking at indirect tax expenditures. Recently, the OECD released a study that said that in Australia tax reform has mainly benefited higher income groups. That might be a bit unfair to the previous government since they did indeed make welfare cuts to lower income groups which might or might not have been taken into that study, but the criticism is that upper- and middle-class welfare has become entrenched.
We were recently faced with a ridiculous media campaign which failed to distinguish between providing genuine income support for carers and pensioners and giving gifts to rich seniors. It does not make any sense that somebody who is a well-funded, self-funded retiree gets the same seniors payment as somebody who is a poor pensioner struggling to put two dollars together. It does not make any sense to give carers a bulk one-off payment annually which is not in the budget papers when you would be far better off actually building that payment into their fortnightly payments and making sure they get a regular stream of income. I and my party are supporters of carers getting that $1,600, but it should not be in a lump sum. If you are going to have a lump sum component it should surely just be dedicated to capital needs, because there are times when carers do need to buy capital items such as special chairs or equipment for those they are caring for. But the greatest need is to have an increase in their regular income. The government, quite rightly and sensibly, was looking at that. But there were the media, particularly the electronic media, patting themselves on the collective back for having forced the government to back down from implementing a better policy, which would have been to provide carers with a permanent increase in their income on a fortnightly basis. As I understand it, that is the direction the government was going in.
Similarly, why should rich seniors get the one-off bonus payment? The media were so obsessed with poor pensioners not getting their bonus payment that they forgot to say, ‘Let’s means test this payment and, what’s more, if we think they should get a payment, perhaps we need to look at other ways of delivering it.’ I would say, though, that a one-off payment does have the virtue in the hands of poor people of enabling them to buy capital items which they otherwise might not have accumulated the funds to do—for instance, replacing an old fridge or an old washing machine.
I asked the minister whether, to contain costs, the government would introduce means testing wherever possible and end welfare to those who can afford to pay their own way. The problem with the Australian system is that it has extended the wonderful concept of providing for the poor, the vulnerable and the needy to providing for everybody. Frankly, if you earn enough money and you have enough savings and assets you should be paying your own way and not be supported by welfare for middle-income and wealthy people. There is the criticism both from thoughtful people in the media and thoughtful people in the policy community that welfare for the well-off has embedded a sense of entitlement that does long-term structural damage to the Commonwealth budget. Brian Toohey, for instance, is amongst many who have been making that comment.
I hold to the view that the first term of a new government, the first years of a new government, is the time when it has both the courage and somewhat of the support to take tough action. The Democrats think that unwarranted welfare benefits and tax concessions have to be wound back in the national interest and in the long-term interests of this country and to restore some of the principles of good government which, unfortunately, waned in the last two terms of the Howard government.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Leave granted.
In response to a supplementary question during question time, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans, had some things to say with regard to my question. I considered that I was very careful in the use of my language, and I direct him to Hansard. I did not say that he was condoning child abuse. What I actually said was that the people listening may think that Senator Evans was condoning Senator Crossin’s comments. I was being verballed. The notion that I was referring to child abuse is something I utterly reject, so I direct him to Hansard so he can check the question.
Senator Ian Macdonald to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Stott Despoja to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Allison to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Ludwig to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Hurley to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Bernardi to move on the next day of sitting:
An examination into the effectiveness of the broadcasting codes of practice operating within the radio and television industry, with particular reference to:
Senator Birmingham to move on the next day of sitting:
Management of Australia’s waste streams, with particular reference to:
Senator Bob Brown to move on the next day of sitting:
At the request of Senator Stott Despoja, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today relating to a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics.
I present the third report of 2008 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 3 OF 2008
The committee recommends accordingly.
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Fair Bank and Credit Card Fees) Amendment Bill 2008
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
An earlier version of the Fair Bank and Credit Card Fees Bill was referred for inquiry by the Senate Economics Committee last year, but the inquiry did not finish because of the election.
Family First’s bill is to stop banks slugging customers with unreasonable bank penalty fees on their accounts and credit cards by:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Choice, Consumer Action Law Centre, Australian Bankers Association, Australian Securities and Investments Commission, Law Council of Australia, St Vincent de Paul Society.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
18-20 August
Possible reporting date:
16 September 2008
(signed)
Steve Fielding 13/3/08
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill(s):
Families, Housing, Community Services And Indigenous Affairs And Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration
Transmission of pornography via broadcast
Transportation of pornography through computers
Reinstatement of permit system
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Child Welfare agencies
Committee for NT intervention
Women & Child Representatives Groups
Victims advocacy groups
Indigenous representatives
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional
Possible hearing date(s):
Hearings in all states recommended.
Possible reporting date:
30 th April 2008
(signed)
Stephen Parry
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill(s):
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Communications Fund) Bill 2008
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration
Labour wants to use the Communications Fund, plus its interest to pay for its fibre to the node network, which will predominantly service people in and around our capital cities. There are very real fears that this money, responsibly locked away by the former government for use in rural and regional Australia in perpetuity, will be reckessly used to displace private sector investment in sectors of the market that are already commercially viable. This was a measure that had longevity. The perpetual fund was fiscally conservative. It was forward looking but it is being abandoned by the Rudd Labor Government.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Industry and Consumer groups
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
Possible hearing date(s):
-
Possible reporting date:
30 th April 2008
(signed)
Stephen Parry
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill(s):
Telecommunications (interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2008
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration
To examine the provisions of the bill; and in particular the device-based interception warrant regime and whether the proposed amendments:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Law Council
Electronic Frontiers
Australian Privacy Foundation
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Possible hearing date(s):
-
Possible reporting date:
1 May 2008
(signed)
Andrew Bartlett
Senator Andrew Bartlett, Australian Democrat Whip
by leave—I move:
That the report be adopted.
I support the motion that the report be adopted. I simply feel compelled to put on the record the contrasts. The Selection of Bills Committee is recommending four bills to be referred to various committees for consideration, one of which is the government’s legislation which makes some small modifications to the Northern Territory emergency intervention. I support that committee reference. I simply feel compelled to put on the record the contrast between last year and now. Last year a massive set of four bills, putting in place the intervention in the Northern Territory, was forced through this chamber in the space of a week, with a one-day hearing in Canberra begrudgingly provided to the committee, with no opportunity to go to the Territory to hear from people directly affected and with the authors of the Little children are sacred report prevented from even giving evidence to the committee.
I contrast that with now, when some small modifications to those large pieces of legislation regarding a couple of matters are being sent to a committee and there will be two months between when the legislation was first introduced and when it is debated in this chamber—a proposal that the coalition suggested be referred and which I support. The same coalition that denied this Senate the opportunity to properly examine four pieces of legislation is now requesting two months to look at minor modifications to that legislation and, in its proposal for referral, suggested—to quote from the appendix to this report—‘hearings in all states’. As far as I know, it affects only the Northern Territory. It might have minor implications for Cape York in Queensland—I am not sure—but the contrast between how the previous government operated and what it forced on this Senate in terms of consideration of important legislation and what it is now seeking to do is stark, to put it politely. I think the hypocrisy needs to be highlighted in this chamber if for no other reason than to try to reduce the chances of it happening again.
Question agreed to.
The following items of business were postponed:
General business notice of motion no. 41 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Bob Brown) for 20 March 2008, proposing the introduction of the Commonwealth Electoral (Above-the-Line Voting) Amendment Bill 2008, postponed till 13 May 2008.
General business notice of motion no. 55 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Allison) for today, relating to funding of schools, postponed till 20 March 2008.
I move:
Question put.
by leave—I move:
That the provisions of Schedule 1 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008 be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report by June 2009.
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I seek advice before voting on this motion. Can I clarify that referring this schedule of the bill does not prevent it from being debated by the Senate prior to then? Can I also clarify whether referring it until June 2009 is accurate or whether it is a typographical error?
In answer to your first question, it only refers to the provisions of the bill, not the bill itself. Senator Parry, is that a mistake?
It is not a typographical error; it is 2009.
Question agreed to.
by leave—Could the record show that the government has voted against this motion?
Certainly.
by leave—For the record, I indicate that the Democrats opposed this motion.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 4 standing in my name for today relating to a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics, Australia’s space science and industry sector, before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.
Leave granted.
I, and also on behalf of Senators Hurley and Stott Despoja, move the motion as amended:
That the following matter be referred to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report no later than October 2008 with an interim report by 23 June 2008:
The current state of Australia’s space science and industry sector, examining options to strengthen and expand Australia’s position in fields that strongly align with space science and industry, giving consideration to any national strategic coordination requirements and taking into account findings and policy options of the National Innovation System Review, with particular reference to:
Question agreed to.
I move:
Australia’s mandatory Last Resort Home Warranty Insurance scheme, including:
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for inquiry and report by 4 September 2008:Concerns in relation to meat marketing, with particular reference to the need for effective supervision of national standards and controls and the national harmonisation of regulations applying to the branding and marketing of meat.
Question agreed to.
I move:
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to general business notice of motion No. 49 standing in the name of Senator Scullion.
Leave granted.
This motion seeks to establish a select committee dealing with the intervention in the Northern Territory. There has been discussion between the parties and I seek leave that the matter continue by way of short debate, as has previously been done in relation to other select committees which have been set up.
Leave granted.
At the request of the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Senator Scullion, I move:
There has been some discussion, I understand, in relation to Senator Siewert’s amendment. I can foreshadow that if it is in the same wording as we understand it to be then it will be acceptable to the government—I mean the opposition. The government can speak for itself. This select committee is a very important one and the terms of reference outline why that is so. Firstly, the select committee, which is to be known as the Select Committee on Remote Indigenous Communities is to inquire into and report on the effectiveness of Australian government policies following the Northern Territory emergency response specifically on the state of health, welfare, education, and law and order in remote Indigenous communities. The select committee will also be looking at the impact of state and territory government policies on the wellbeing of remote Indigenous communities.
This is indeed a very important part of public policy in this country today. Other aspects of the terms of reference deal with the employment and enterprise opportunities in remote Indigenous communities and the health, welfare, education and security of children in remote Indigenous communities—and that is perhaps the most important of all. Under this reference, the committee would report to the Senate on 30 September 2008, 30 March 2009, 30 September 2009, 30 March 2010 and 30 September 2010. What we have are rolling reports. This is in the model of a standing select committee which will have the purview of a very import part of Australian public policy dealing with remote and Indigenous Australia.
It is important that we have these ongoing reports, and of course there has been much debate about the intervention in the Territory. This committee will continually monitor and benchmark outcomes in such things as law and order, health, school attendance, community development and employment. It will also compare conditions in communities covered by the intervention in the Northern Territory with adjacent communities not under intervention and communities in other jurisdictions. As I say, it will provide reports to the Senate on an ongoing basis and that, I believe, will be of great assistance not only to the government but also to the Senate and the other place in dealing with legislation and measures in relation to the intervention.
This is a select committee which will have its hands full. It will be busy. The extent of the issue is such that it does need that length of time that I have mentioned to deal with this. It also demonstrates a commitment that the intervention in the Northern Territory is not a one-off situation but an ongoing situation which is designed to achieve a better outcome for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. Senator Scullion had given notice of this motion as a result of his longstanding interest in this area and of course, as a senator for the Northern Territory, he knows this area only too well. The details of the select committee are in the terms of reference, and I commend the reference to the Senate.
I have circulated an amendment to this motion which seeks to expand the motion slightly to ensure that the committee addresses regional as well as remote Indigenous communities. In fact, the Greens would have preferred to have seen this issue referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, as that is the committee that has been extremely involved in looking at issues affecting Indigenous communities. We do, however, think that an ongoing inquiry such as this is very important, because we do agree that this is going to have ongoing implications for Aboriginal communities. We want to ensure the long-term sustainability of interventions also deals with Indigenous disadvantage.
It is no secret that the Greens have been critical of the nature of intervention, although the Greens are very supportive of federal government involvement and a significant increase in expenditure on addressing disadvantage. Actually looking at the impact of the intervention, the effectiveness of the policies, and the impact of state and territory government policies is also very important. We think it is broad enough to ensure that it goes beyond the existing emergency response to look at all the other issues that relate to the health, welfare, education and the security of children in regional and remote Indigenous communities. So although we think it should have been referred to the community affairs committee, we think that this is the next best option and we will be supporting referring it to a select committee. I would also like to signal that we will be supporting Senator Bartlett’s amendment. I move the Greens amendment to the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber yesterday:
Omit paragraph (1), substitute:
I support the Greens amendment, which seeks to expand the focus of the committee to regional and remote Indigenous communities rather than just remote Indigenous communities. I think it is important to be able to do that. The Democrats in general support the proposal of having a substantial committee inquiry into this very important issue. Given that I have spoken for a number of years now in this chamber about the need to give a much greater and concerted focus and priority to Indigenous issues across the political spectrum, it would only be reasonable for us to support the proposal to do just that. But the hypocrisy we are seeing from the coalition again has to be noted. After three years of preventing a single Senate select committee being established, we now have a fourth Senate select committee being set up in the space of a couple of weeks. As I said a few minutes ago in regard to the Selection of Bills Committee report, the hypocrisy of the coalition putting in place a comprehensive Senate committee inquiry stretching out over 2½ years—it is proposed the committee make its final report in September 2010—into an intervention that this Senate was given one day to examine is unbelievable. I know we are meant to all smile wryly and go, ‘Oh well, that’s politics,’ but I just find that too hard, frankly. The gall is beyond belief—even for politicians. That is very different from agreeing with—
Although you support the motion.
I do. I have no doubt at all—
Senator Kemp interjecting—
I can see why Senator Kemp cannot see the difference between supporting a proposal and supporting a proposal whilst recognising that it is dripping with hypocrisy. It is not surprising Senator Kemp cannot differentiate those two things, because he has shown that he is incapable of recognising gall and rampant hypocrisy throughout his career. It is no surprise that he cannot see it now, but it is overwhelming to anybody who has the opportunity to look at this objectively. We have an opportunity here to examine this issue and look at the impacts of the intervention—and, I might say, Indigenous issues more broadly. That opportunity is welcomed and I do hope the Senate engages with it constructively.
So you are supporting it?
Yes, I am supporting it. It is very observant of you, Senator Kemp! It is amazing: it is good that you have finally followed a debate well enough to realise that when I say, ‘I support something,’ then, yes, I support it. I appreciate that when you stand up and say, ‘I support something,’ you usually have half of your brain looking for the excuse to back out of what you have just said, because you are used to saying one thing and doing another. As my record shows in this chamber, when I say I support something, I support it. I appreciate that is a strange concept for you, Senator Kemp—who is, I might say, interjecting from somewhere far removed from his actual seat. But, again, following proper process and having respect for the Senate is not something I have expected from Senator Kemp for a long period of time. The simple fact is that the intent of what is being done here is welcomed.
Tedious.
You are right, Senator Kemp; you are incredibly tedious.
Senator Kemp, I have to call you to order. If you wish to interject, please do so from your seat.
It does need to be put on the record, though, the disparity between the actions of the coalition when they were in government in preventing inquiries, including into the Northern Territory intervention, and what they are doing here. I called for a proper examination of the issues when the Liberals were in government. It is sad that it took them until they got into opposition to actually allow proper scrutiny, but now that we have the opportunity for proper scrutiny, it is something that should be welcomed.
It should be stated that this does not just concern the Northern Territory intervention and its effectiveness; it also concerns the impact of state and territory government policies—which also need to be thoroughly examined—the health, welfare, education and security of children in remote and regional Indigenous communities across the board and employment and enterprise opportunities.
I do not have any particular objection to a Senate committee going for 2½ years. Senator Sherry would know; he was, I think, part of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation that went for about three or four parliaments. The Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare back in the 1980s and early 1990s also went for about six or seven years. So a committee going for a prolonged period of time is not necessarily a bad idea if—and this is the key issue and I do hope the Senate committee is able to achieve it—the committee operates constructively with a genuine attempt being made to leave the politics out of it, to take the point scoring out of it, to stop the ideological arm wrestling, to stop the using of Indigenous people as political footballs and to actually look at the issues. That is part of the reason why I have foreshadowed my amendment.
The other thing we have seen with this proposal, as with every other select committee that the coalition have now suddenly seen a need to set up, is that they are taking the chair for themselves. It may well be that the best person for the role of committee chair is one of the coalition members, but I think we really need to be looking at the principle of the best person getting the job. In my view, and this is the reason behind my foreshadowed amendment, once the members of the committee are known, the committee should—and it could be an early test of its ability to work in a non-partisan way—determine for itself who should be the chair, and then the deputy chair would be from a different party from that of the chair. I can say this now as I clearly have no self-interest in this as this committee will obviously not feature any Democrat, but it will have a person from the crossbenches. I expect this would be a Green, but that is still to be determined.
Depending on who those people are, it is quite possible that the best chair for that committee could be a Green or a government person. The select committee should not be set up specifically—
It certainly won’t be you, Andrew.
No, it will not. You are right, Senator Kemp. You have indeed listened to me once again. As I said, I will not be here and neither will you. Can I suggest that your not being part of this prolonged inquiry is a massive chance for this committee to actually operate in a constructive way, because your record, particularly on using Indigenous people for opportunities to score cheap political points and smear people, is one that is clearly on the record in this chamber. And you are doing it once again right now. Thank you for being true to form and proving my point. It also demonstrates that instantly giving the chair of the committee to a coalition senator, regardless of who it is, is not necessarily the best way to guarantee that the committee can do its job effectively.
I welcome the fact that the Senate will decide to have a comprehensive examination of regional and remote Indigenous communities. I very much urge whoever serves on the committee to do all they can to make it a constructive, non-partisan series of inquiries and reports over the 2½ years for which it will be operational. We do need to remember why it is that we are doing this. We are doing it to try to improve the situation for Indigenous Australians. We are not doing this, I hope, to try to provide a rolling opportunity for political point scoring and ideological wedge making in regard to the Indigenous affairs policy debate. Unfortunately, we are still seeing that from time to time in this chamber and we are still seeing it from time to time from some in the mainstream media. Indigenous peoples deserve far better than that.
If there is one area where all of us in all political parties have failed comprehensively across the board decade after decade, it is in our approach to Indigenous Australians. This inquiry and the committee itself will be a big test of whether we have managed to evolve beyond that and whether we are mature enough to do our jobs responsibly. I hope whoever serves on the committee is able to do that. One way of improving the chances of it doing that is to pick the best person for the job of chair—it is a bit of a novel concept, I suppose—rather than just handing it automatically to a coalition member.
The Labor government opposes the establishment of this committee. This is the fourth such select committee that has been established in recent months.
It is a bit like your superannuation committee. Remember the select committee on superannuation that you served on?
I do remember it. Senator Kemp, you are not going to be here from 1 July. Go and have a cup of coffee. You are being totally disruptive. People want to get away for Easter. You will not be here after 1 July so, in the nicest possible terms, please stop disrupting the chamber so that we can get on with business.
The terms of reference for the proposed committee are clearly a grab bag of issues encompassed by the Northern Territory emergency response. In relation to the Northern Territory, it is too early to establish such a committee when the government has committed to establishing an independent and transparent review to operate from the 12-month mark. It is expected that the review will report by the end of September 2008.
The review of the Northern Territory emergency response will provide an independent assessment of the effectiveness of each of the measures that comprise the emergency response. In relation to the other terms of reference, the matters to be addressed are extraordinarily wide and it is inevitable that the committee will cover so much ground it will fail to come up with sensible advice and policy recommendations.
The suggestion that the Commonwealth parliament should assess the impact of state and territory government policies, whilst perhaps well intentioned, will inevitably get bogged down in claim and counterclaim. The Australian government, in contrast to the previous government, is committed to strong evidence based policy formulation in relation to Indigenous disadvantage. The government has committed to closing the gap in relation to key social indicators of Indigenous disadvantage: halving the gap in life expectancy within a generation, halving the gap in mortality rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children under five within a decade and halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievement within a decade.
We are committed to open and transparent policy formulation processes which assess progress objectively. Already the Productivity Commission’s Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage reports are making real progress in providing a robust and independent framework for assessing progress in addressing Indigenous disadvantage, including in remote Australia. It is not clear to us on this side of the Senate that the proposed committee will add value in terms of developing appropriate policy responses.
In relation to the Senate committee system, we already have an appropriate set of committees. There is no reason why the existing community affairs committee ought not be asked to inquire into any specific issues arising in remote Australia. All this proposal will do is establish yet another select committee, the fourth, which will trawl for media stories and opportunities to be negative. The real need is for the Senate and its committees to focus on developing policy solutions for the very real needs of remote Indigenous communities. To do that would require a much greater focus than is evident in the motion before us today. It will require the identification of particular issues and terms of reference to provide a road map of the sorts of issues that the committee will examine. This motion from the Liberal opposition has just been cobbled together at the last minute.
The proposal before the Senate is an abuse of the Senate processes. It is attempting to lock in for the next 2½ years a committee structure which is designed to frustrate the legitimate right of the next Senate coming in after 1 July to structure its own approach to addressing these issues. The Liberal opposition should be taking on board the Prime Minister’s visionary offer of bipartisanship in the Indigenous affairs area, and commit to working within the committee structure that they themselves established. The current opposition when in government established the existing committee structure of the Senate. Because it no longer suits them, because they now find themselves in opposition, they are creating select committee after select committee. That is what they are doing. It is an abuse of the Senate process.
Senator Bartlett’s foreshadowed amendment to the motion makes sense—but it is essentially a second-best outcome given the fundamental flaws in the motion from Senator Scullion. We call on senators opposite to reconsider this motion. It is setting a precedent for the future for the creation of select committees. Oh! The lights have gone out. Has the microphone gone out? That is probably more important. We have the thumbs up; the sound system is working. Fortunately, I can still read in the dark. We call on members opposite to reconsider this motion. It is poorly conceived, it will be poorly executed and will only serve to detract from the potential role of contributing positively to addressing Indigenous disadvantage and closing the gap. Therefore the Labor government will be opposing the creation of this committee.
I will address my remarks to Senator Bartlett’s amendment, which has not been moved yet. The opposition believes that Senator Bartlett’s amendment is flawed because if the decision by the committee for a chairman cannot be reached then it has to come back here to be determined in this chamber. It is our view that that would delay the very good work of this committee and that furthermore—
Government senators interjecting—
Those opposite might think that overseeing a matter as important as this is to Indigenous affairs is not important and that that good work can be delayed, but we in the coalition do not believe that. We also believe that there is a precedent with prior select committees—where the committee elect a chairman from amongst the opposition members—and that is exactly what is proposed. It is normal Senate convention that those who propose a Senate select committee have the chair of the committee. That is the normal convention. Those are the reasons the coalition will not support Senator Bartlett’s amendment, and we believe that it is important that the committee be able to appoint a chairman from its members as quickly as possible and get on with what is very important work.
The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I foreshadowed these amendments and I have spoken to them, so I will move them now. I will just clarify this; I think it is important. It has been stated that convention is that the opposition have the chair of the select committee; that is not correct. There have been a number of select committees. The very last select committee that was established before the clampdown in 2005 was chaired by Senator Allison from the crossbench. The superannuation committee that I referred to earlier that Senator Sherry was a longstanding member of—
Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Bartlett is misrepresenting my remarks. I said the convention was that the person who sought the establishment of the select committee normally had the chair.
There is no point of order. Senator Bartlett, please continue.
Thank you, but that is still incorrect. The superannuation committee sat over a long period of time and it was not just the person or the party that came up with the idea that said, ‘We’re taking the chair, thank you.’ The superannuation committee chair varied, and there were chairs from both parties; it was not necessarily matched with who was in government or opposition. It appeared to me—perhaps I was being naive—that they picked the best person for the job. Senator Watson was the chair of that committee for some time because he was recognised as being extremely capable.
Senator Bartlett, could you please just move your amendments. You have already spoken in the debate.
I thought I was speaking to my amendments because I could not move them earlier, because I had to foreshadow them.
Senator Bartlett, you need leave to move your amendments.
by leave—Having corrected the record, I move:
Question negatived.
Question put:
That the motion (Senator Ellison’s), as amended, be agreed to.
I present the second report of 2008 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 2 of 2008, dated 19 March 2008.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to have my remarks incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
In considering the bills that come before it, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee places considerable reliance on the explanatory material that accompanies each bill, in particular the explanatory memorandum. If this material fails to clearly explain the operation and impact of the legislative proposals under consideration then the work of both the Committee and the Parliament is made more difficult.
The Committee remains concerned that it has to regularly seek information from Ministers that should be included in explanatory memoranda. This includes information on issues such as retrospectivity, delayed commencement, the rationale for absolute and strict liability offences, and declarations or exemptions under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
Examples are included in the Committee’s Second Report of 2008, whereby Ministers have provided explanations for strict liability, in the case of the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Review of Prudential Decisions) Bill 2008, and declarations under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, in the case of the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008, that are acceptable to the Committee.
Had these explanations been included in the explanatory memoranda to these bills the Committee could have satisfied itself that these provisions did not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties or undermine parliamentary scrutiny, without recourse to the Minister.
The Legislation Handbook developed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet states that explanatory memoranda:
should not simply repeat the words of the bill or restate them in simpler language. The notes should explain the purpose of the clause and relate it to other provisions in the bill, particularly where related clauses do not appear consecutively in a bill. Examples of the intended effect of the clause, or the problem it is intended to overcome, may assist in its explanation.
Despite this direction, the Committee regularly sees explanatory memoranda that simply regurgitate words from the bill or fail to explain the purpose of potentially significant trespasses on personal rights and liberties, such as the imposition of absolute or strict liability.
If legislation is to be accessible to and understood by the Committee, the Senate and the community, it is essential that those preparing explanatory material include clearer and more fulsome explanations of provisions than currently occurs. The Committee urges Ministers to ensure that explanatory memoranda are put through a rigorous quality assurance process so that such materials can best meet their aim of assisting members of Parliament, officials and the public to understand the objectives and detailed operation of the clauses of the bill.’ (1999, Legislation Handbook)
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present four reports of the committee, as listed at item 12 on today’s Order of Business.
Ordered that the reports be printed.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the reports.
I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
71ST ANNUAL REPORT; HMAS CRESWELL REDEVELOPMENT, JERVIS BAY TERRITORY; LAND ENGINEERING AGENCY TEST SERVICES RELOCATION, MONEGEETTA, VICTORIA; REFURBISHMENT OF STAFF APARTMENTS, AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY COMPLEX, TOKYO, JAPAN.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the Committee’s first, second, third and fourth reports of 2008.
Report 1, 2008 is the seventy-first annual report of the Public Works Committee. Under the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the PWC is required to table a report of its activities within fifteen sitting days after the year ended 31 December.
This report covers the activities of the PWC of the 41st Parliament during 2007. The Committee of this Parliament felt unable to comment in any substantial nature on the work of its predecessor, so this report fulfils its obligations under the Act, but does not offer any detailed commentary of the activity of the Committee.
Likewise, reports two, three and four are reports of inquiries that were finalised by the PWC of the 41st Parliament. These reports relate to the following referrals:
These referrals were originally made to the PWC of the 41st Parliament in the first half of 2007. The Committee had finalised, and adopted, its report into each inquiry but had not tabled the reports due to the dissolution of the 41st Parliament. Proponent agencies for each work have assured the Committee that there are no changes to the proposed works.
Taking this into consideration, the PWC of the 42nd Parliament did not wish to delay the progression of these works any further so rather than undertake the inquiries again or spend time writing its own report, it has adopted the reports as adopted by the PWC of the 41st Parliament. While these reports bear the name of the PWC of the 42nd Parliament, they are entirely the work of the PWC of the 41st Parliament.
Mr President, I would like to thank the PWC of the 41st Parliament, for all its work in relation to this inquiry. In particular, I would like to thank the former Chair of the Committee, the Hon Judy Moylan MP, for her work.
Mr President, I commend the reports to the House.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I table and present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 28th AIPA General Assembly and to Indonesia, which took place in August 2007. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I wish to make a few comments in relation to the report. The 2007 delegation to the 28th General Assembly of AIPA, and to Indonesia, demonstrated the enormous value of parliamentary delegations in building economic and social cooperation. It is a unique occasion to go to AIPA with parliamentarians from the ASEAN region and further afield, to hold dialogues, to establish friendships and to learn more about the culture of individual nations. This 28th general assembly was held in Kuala Lumpur and was characterised by warmth and friendliness towards our country, Australia, and towards its delegates.
In addition to the formal meetings and dialogues, the social events and the entertainment of the assembly were wonderful opportunities to engage with our neighbouring parliamentarians, to learn a lot about each other’s cultures and to share in the diversity of our region. I would like to point out that Australia is indeed held in very high regard by countries of the region. Australia has a vital leadership role in promoting peace and unity in the region. Many parliamentarians have been educated in Australia or have family connections with Australia. So these personal and professional connections reinforce the importance of the Australian assistance programs in the region—whether we are speaking of educational scholarships, governance programs, capacity rebuilding or the participation in regional fora.
My own parliamentary experience has spanned almost 30 years, and over that time I have been on many delegations. However, I must say it was one of the highlights of my parliamentary life to have attended and experienced the AIPA 2007 conference. I have great confidence in the future of ASEAN as it develops its own character and even perhaps, in time, its own parliaments.
Following the AIPA presentation in Kuala Lumpur, the delegation moved on to Indonesia. We were privileged to have a program that not only encompassed formal meetings but also included opportunities to see the lives of everyday people in Indonesia. This range of activities enabled us to better understand the culture, challenges and diversity of one of our closest neighbours.
At this point I would like to pay tribute to the deputy delegation leader. I refer to Mr Sercombe, who was a MP at the time. This was the final delegation for Mr Sercombe, and I wish to acknowledge the commitment to the peace and prosperity in the ASEAN region that he showed at all times. In particular I point out his special interest in, and the work he has done in relation to, Papua. In terms of my other colleague, Ross Lightfoot has also shown close ties with the Indonesian region and a commitment to promoting stronger business connections with that region.
It is my pleasure to table this report, because some of the dialogue at the AIPA conference demonstrated just how important Australia’s commitment has been to nations in that region, particularly to countries like Cambodia—I think we are their third largest donor. One delegate gave a particularly moving account of how, as a young girl, she was to come out here as a Colombo student but was denied because of Pol Pot. She is now in high office within the parliament and respects Australia and the particular contribution that Australia has made to her country. The stories we heard were really quite moving. A lot of the other major countries received criticism; Australia received nothing but praise. It is interesting to note that, at the follow-up presentation where delegates had the opportunity to meet with the Australian delegation, the attendance was overflowing and went outside the room. I think this is a tribute to the country and to what Australia has contributed to that region over so many years.
I would also like to extend my thanks to the very dedicated delegation secretary, Dr Anna Dacre, and I would like to formally offer her my sincere sympathy for the bereavement that has occurred in her family in recent days. I would like to refer to the dedication of the embassy staff in Indonesia and to the ambassador and his wife, who provided such extensive support to the delegation. I commend the report to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
At the request of Senator Ludwig, I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the minister’s second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
INTERSTATE ROAD TRANSPORT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 2008
The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 enables nationally agreed new Heavy Vehicle registration charges to be applied to heavy vehicles registered under the Australian Government’s Federal Interstate Registration Scheme (FIRS).
The new charges are set out in the 2007 Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination, which was unanimously endorsed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Transport Ministers at the Australian Transport Council meeting in Canberra of 29 February 2008.
The new heavy vehicle charges are one component of the Rudd Labor Government’s broader heavy vehicle productivity and safety agenda.
The Bill will ensure that Federal Interstate Registration Scheme charges are consistent with state and territory registration charges as of 1 July 2008.
National consistency in heavy vehicle regulation is important for our nation.
Heavy vehicles operate right across our country transporting freight across state and territory jurisdictions.
There are approximately 365,000 Heavy Vehicles operating in Australia. Industry needs to be certain that it can operate nationally, without excessive red tape or confronting access issues at state borders.
In 2006 Heavy Vehicles moved a total of 1.69 billion tonnes of freight, representing 70% of the total domestic tonnes carried by all transport modes.
Successive Governments at both Commonwealth and State and Territory levels have supported the principle of cost recovery from the heavy vehicle industry for road construction and maintenance costs incurred through the collection of Heavy Vehicle Charges.
In a speech given on 28 June 2007 entitled The Coalition Government’s Transport Reform Agenda, the Member for Lyne, then Federal Transport Minister and Leader of the Nationals said:
The National Transport Commission will develop a new heavy vehicle charges determination to be implemented from 1 July 2008.
The new determination will aim to recover the heavy vehicles’ allocated infrastructure costs in total and will also aim to remove cross-subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes.”
Recovery of road expenditure under the nationally agreed heavy vehicle charges is achieved through a combination of a fixed registration charge, collected by the states and territories and a road user charge collected by the Australian Government. This Bill deals only with the registration charges.
The most recent heavy vehicle charge determination was introduced in 2001. It established charges to recover past expenditure from the heavy vehicle sector, that at the same time, lowered registration fees for some larger trucks, effectively cross subsidising them.
Registration charges were indexed while fuel charges were not.
As a result of this, the amount of money raised does not recover the cost of providing infrastructure for heavy vehicles.
This was confirmed in the December 2006 Productivity Commission Report into Road and Rail Infrastructure Pricing.
The National Transport Commission estimates that the current under-recovery is in excess of $100 million per annum.
In April 2007, the Council of Australian Governments directed that as part of an overall transport reform package, Australian Transport Ministers should require the National Transport Commission to prepare a new heavy Vehicle Determination.
That determination was to deliver revised charges for introduction in 2008, which fully recovered the heavy vehicle industry’s share of aggregate government road expenditure, to index those arrangements so as to not lead to further under recovery, and to remove cross subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes.
During 2007, the National Transport Commission undertook a comprehensive consultation process which informed its final recommendations.
A six week consultation process on the draft Regulatory Impact Statement was undertaken. This process involved written submissions, provision of industry briefings and a series of focus group consultations with industry, trade unions, state and territory governments, peak industry associations and freight customers.
As a result of these consultations, the National Transport Commission made a number of changes to its recommendations, which were discussed with industry and jurisdictions.
The Determination proposed by the National Transport Commission recommended a new set of registration charges which rebalance the relative contribution of different heavy vehicle classes.
These new charges will result in larger trucks, the B doubles and road trains, paying more in registration charges. To assist the industry adjust, these increases will be phased in over three years.
They will also result in a reduction in charges for smaller trucks.
No longer will owners of smaller trucks have to subsidise the B doubles and road trains.
These changes better align charges to the impacts of those vehicles on our roads.
The Determination also increases the Road User Charge from 19.633 cents per litre to 21 cents per litre, indexed annually.
After consulting with the industry, the Government has decided to delay the increase in the Road User charge until 1 January 2009.
As I outlined earlier, this charge is not part of the Bill before the House, but a separate Declaration under the Fuel Tax Act 2006.
The Rudd Government has decided to supplement the Determination with a $70 million, four year Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Package that will fund:
The Government will consult with industry and state and territory Governments to determine the best combination of projects for the use of the $70 million package.
Since taking carriage of an issue that we inherited from the previous Government, the Government has been carefully listening to the views of the industry.
Our decision to implement the $70 million safety and productivity package, and to delay the implementation of the Road User Charge until 1 January 2009 were taken after consultations with industry.
On 29 February, Stuart St Clair from the Australian Trucking Association said:
“The trucking industry and working families will benefit from the Australian Government’s decision to delay increasing the fuel tax paid by trucking operators…”
“Minister Albanese has listened to the industry and delivered a strong result for trucking operators and Australian Families…”
The heavy vehicle industry needs to pay it’s fair share of road construction and maintenance costs.
It is also important that the very largest trucks pay their full share and that they are no longer subsidised by smaller trucks.
The new charges will be fairer to both those in the industry and to the wider community. Importantly, the new charges deliver the Council of Australian Governments’ requirement for full and ongoing cost recovery.
The new charges will encourage state and territory Governments to facilitate access to the road network to higher productivity heavy vehicles.
This, in turn, would make better use of the nation’s infrastructure—a key element of the Rudd Labor Government’s plan to raise productivity, fight inflation and maintain economic growth.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
ROAD TRANSPORT CHARGES (AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY) REPEAL BILL 2008
The Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill (the Bill) 2008 meets the Australian Government’s obligation, under the Inter-Governmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Road, Rail and Intermodal Transport, to repeal any road transport legislation that has been enacted by the Commonwealth on behalf of the ACT.
The bill will repeal the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1993, which will allow the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government to introduce new heavy vehicle registration charges into its own legislative arrangements, in the same manner as the other states and territories and by the agreed implementation date of 1 July 2008.
The new charges are set out in the 2007 Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination, which was endorsed by the Australian Transport Council at its meeting on 29 February 2008. The new heavy vehicle charges are one component of the Rudd Labor Government’s broader heavy vehicle productivity and safety agenda.
That Determination will be implemented in part by The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 which enables nationally agreed new Heavy Vehicle registration charges to be applied to heavy vehicles registered under the Australian Government’s Federal Interstate Registration Scheme (FIRS).
The repeal will become effective from midnight on 30 June 2008, to coincide with the implementation by the ACT of the new charges to ensure a seamless transition.
It is necessary to allow the ACT to implement the new charges within its own legislative framework.
The ACT and other jurisdictions have been consulted on this amendment.
I commend the bill to the senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator O’Brien) adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
Consideration resumed.
The committee is considering the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008 and Greens amendment (5) on sheet 5464, moved by Senator Milne. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Before we adjourned at lunchtime, I was putting the case in support of my amendment, which is to refer infrastructure projects worth more than $50 million to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. I was arguing that, where Infrastructure Australia recommends to the minister that a project over $50 million be approved, the minister should be required to refer it to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. The reason for that is, as I outlined previously, to allow for appropriate public scrutiny of the recommendation and to look at whether alternatives have been considered, whether the parliament thinks that the financing mechanism is appropriate and so on.
The committee will recall that the minister said the government would not be supporting the amendment on the basis that Infrastructure Australia will be giving advice on a whole range of things, not just on projects, and to a range of people. The point that I would make to the government, though, is that my amendment refers particularly to advice in support of infrastructure of which the estimated cost exceeds $50 million. It is obviously not saying that every piece of advice on anything that Infrastructure Australia gives the government be referred; it is only those pieces of advice that it comes back with recommending infrastructure projects in excess of $50 million which would go to the committee.
The second issue is that the minister said there may not be public money involved, but clearly all of these major public infrastructure projects involve public money. Whether you are talking about public-private partnerships, increasing government debt or local government raising extra borrowings, you are talking about public money being involved in public infrastructure projects. That is the whole point here. We are talking about public infrastructure and spending public money in the public interest. That is why I am arguing that, where that money exceeds $50 million on a public infrastructure project, it be referred for appropriate scrutiny to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.
I believe that this would have avoided a number of the disasters that have been built around the country, particularly the tunnel projects in Sydney which form the basis of today’s media reports showing that they are ‘white elephants’ and that the projections that were made to support them were wrong. And that is on top of any number of other projections you look at for AusLink funding where state transport departments have underestimated the costs, and you can only assume that that is either negligence or deliberate action in an attempt to get the projects up and get public money.
The other reason why these projects deserve to have appropriate scrutiny is in today’s media reports from Tasmania. There is now some dispute about what was or was not promised for various bypasses in the course of the federal election, when the former government promised $30 million for a bypass in southern Tasmania. The present government said at the time that it would match that infrastructure funding. Now we have the Labor government saying no, it is not going to put up the $15 million and so on. That is the kind of ad hoc lack of scrutiny that went on with those infrastructure projects in the last period of government, and that is why I am supporting moving to a more strategic blueprint for infrastructure planning.
But we will not get real scrutiny of that infrastructure planning unless it comes back for the parliament to have a look not only at what people are recommending but at how they are going to finance it, whether it is actually in the public interest and whether there might have been better alternatives to satisfy broad government policy objectives—and, of course, as I pointed out earlier, parliament also needs to look at infrastructure planning in relation to climate change. I would just like to seek the government’s response as to why they would object to advice relating to the recommendation of projects in excess of $50 million and why they would object to that coming back to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for scrutiny.
On behalf of the minister, I say that, again, I think Senator McLucas probably addressed some of these points earlier. This amendment does not show a clear understanding of this bill. Infrastructure Australia is a statutory advisory council and is designed to provide advice to governments, to investors in infrastructure and to owners of infrastructure. If the government responds to such advice provided by Infrastructure Australia, and that response involves project funding, then the proposed government action would go through the normal parliamentary scrutiny and accountability processes.
In other words, the amendment is seeking to address a function which is not a function of Infrastructure Australia as designed in this bill. Rather, it is designed to move into the areas of scrutiny that exist currently through parliamentary processes of this parliament if, indeed, it is a government response to the advice involving government money. However, given that Infrastructure Australia’s role is advisory in nature and does not include powers to determine spending on public works or to undertake public works, this amendment is not necessary. It is therefore not going to be supported by the government.
By way of further illustration, in some cases Infrastructure Australia may advise that it is more appropriate that a specific project be funded by the private sector. If the private sector—a private industry or body—decides to pursue the project, it is clear that a privately funded infrastructure project would not have to be reviewed by, for example, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. Also, Infrastructure Australia may advise in favour of regulatory reform rather than proposed investment. Again, no review by the Public Works Committee would be necessary.
Responses to Infrastructure Australia’s advice may also come from other levels of government which have their own accountability arrangements. In these instances, it is easy to see how the proposed amendment does not even apply to the responses of governments to the functions of Infrastructure Australia, let alone the functions themselves. So we will not be supporting this amendment. It is simply proceeding down an irrelevant path to pursue it.
I have just made it quite clear that the amendment applies to cases where Infrastructure Australia recommends a project that has a value of more than $50 million. It is not talking about referring all the other advice that Senator O’Brien has referred to. I know that. I am talking about specific projects. As to whether Infrastructure Australia recommends that it would be better for the private sector to fund a particular project, that is not a recommendation that that project proceed. That is the point. One of the terms of reference says specifically that Infrastructure Australia can recommend projects. I am saying that, where those projects are worth $50 million or more, they should be scrutinised. But I can see that the government has no intention of doing that, and with respect I would say that the current parliamentary processes do not allow for appropriate scrutiny.
All of those election promises based on cherry picking the AusLink funding recommendations out of the states were based on both the federal Liberal Party and the federal Labor Party grabbing projects out of long lists put up by state governments through the AusLink funding process, and there was no guarantee at all that those projects had been through any kind of parliamentary scrutiny. They were grab-bag lists from the states. It was their wish list. They had not done social and economic analysis of those projects; they had not looked at alternatives; they had not looked at alternative routes; they had not done public consultation. They had not done any of those things.
Basically, the promises came out of a grab bag of the wish lists of state transport bodies and planning authorities, and the parties picked up those bits of the wish lists that applied to electorates where they thought they could win. It is as simple as that. That is why they picked up items 17 and 18 out of a state government list. You would think that if you were serious about prioritising things you would go for items 1 and 2 out of the state projects—but no. Each party looked through, found the electorates, found the projects, pulled them off the AusLink lists and did not go back and see if there had been any public scrutiny—because there had not been public scrutiny. These had been wish lists out of bureaucracies, ticked off by state cabinets and put up there, and now the public purse is going to fund them because the Rudd government is now saying that it will honour all its election promises.
I think it is disingenuous to say to this Senate that there are appropriate parliamentary processes for scrutiny, leaving the community to think that there was some appropriate assessment of all of these projects that found their way into what can only be described as pork-barrelling election promise lists. We do not have appropriate scrutiny and what I am now hearing is that we are not going to have appropriate scrutiny. I find that really disappointing. I might also say that I am really disappointed we are now onto our fourth minister in terms of dealing with the infrastructure bill—having had Senators Carr, McLucas, Ludwig and now O’Brien. It does not augur well—
He’s not a minister.
Not a minister—all right, thank you for the correction. We have had some ministers; all up we have had four senators from the government handling this bill. It is one of the most critical bills, I would argue, for the future of this country and yet we have no consistency here at all. And, in my view, we have a lack of understanding of the real import of what this bill will mean, particularly in terms of, as we have said before, greenhouse gas and oil implications.
Anyway, I do not think there is much to be gained by continuing to debate this. But I find it very disappointing that the opportunity to get real scrutiny of infrastructure projects—the opportunity to actually give the public input; the opportunity for this parliament to see whether, indeed, greenhouse gas and oil depletion alternatives were even considered—is not going to be taken on board. We are going to go back to what will be backroom arrangements, where recommendations are made—recommendations for public-private partnerships—and the community is not going to have an opportunity to be able to unpick those.
I regret the fact that the government is not going to support the amendment, but I would hope that the opposition will. Given that they wanted parliamentary scrutiny of the ministerial directions for Infrastructure Australia, I am sure they would want the parliamentary oversight of recommendations where more than $50 million is to be spent.
Question put:
That the amendment (Senator Milne’s) be agreed to.
This amendment amends opposition amendment (2) on their sheet 5463 which removed the ability of the minister to request that Infrastructure Australia investigate and advise on the full range of issues that are described in the bill under clause 5, from proposed subclause (2)(a) right through to (2)(k). The opposition amendment provided that:
(3) Infrastructure Australia may perform a function under subsection (1) or paragraph (2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) or (i) if it thinks fit.
My amendment is to include a capacity for Infrastructure Australia to perform tasks related to the items listed on the opposition amendment if the minister requests that of Infrastructure Australia, as well as ‘if it thinks fit’—that is, Infrastructure Australia. I hope that is clear. I move Democrat amendment (1) on sheet 5467:
(1) At the end of subclause 5(3), as amended, add “or on request by the Minister”.
It is more consistent with the government’s legislation in the first instance than the amendment was. I understand the opposition will support this amendment.
I am just seeking clarification, Chair. I am very happy to reinsert ‘the Minister’. I thought it was a big mistake to take ‘the Minister’ out earlier, so putting ‘the Minister’ back is very desirable; but what I would like to know is how clause 5(3) now reads in its entirety. Is it as follows:
Infrastructure Australia is to perform a function under subsection (1) or paragraph (2)(a), (b), (e), (f) or (i) …
Could somebody read me the entire subclause (3), please, so that I can see what the amendment will do.
Senator Allison, could you help us with that.
I am happy to do that. Subclause (3) would now read:
(3) Infrastructure Australia may perform a function under subsection (1) or paragraph (2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) or (i) if it thinks fit or on request by the Minister.
Senator Allison, I am not sure if that is a typo, but the current bill says:
Infrastructure Australia is to perform a function ...
You just read out ‘may perform a function’.
That is what we have on the document before us. The opposition amendment has superseded subclause (3) in the bill; that might help. Senator Allison has moved an amendment to an amendment previously moved by the opposition and agreed to. This amendment stands on its own.
Did the opposition intend to change ‘Infrastructure Australia is to perform a function’ to ‘Infrastructure Australia may perform a function’? That is a serious change that I had not picked up when I was discussing this amendment with Senator Allison, because what it means is that there is no requirement for Infrastructure Australia to do as the minister asks.
Senator Milne, would it help if I asked the clerks to give you a copy of sheet 5463 listing the opposition amendments?
So am I to understand that it is ‘may’, then?
The amended clause under opposition amendment (2) is now part of the bill.
Thank you. In that case, I am really alarmed that we have gone from saying that Infrastructure Australia is to perform a function if it sees fit or on request by the minister to saying that it may do that. This gives Infrastructure Australia’s board the power to not take the request of the minister. It may consider those things if it sees fit, but it has the right to say, ‘No, we don’t see fit,’ and it may or may not act at the request of the minister. We now have an Infrastructure Australia board which is a law unto itself, and that contradicts everything that was promised by the government earlier in terms of Infrastructure Australia taking on issues such as climate change, because it is only in the additional functions and now it may consider whether it does that or not.
I recognise that the amendment has passed, but I am just expressing my alarm that the bill has now been weakened even further to give Infrastructure Australia ultimate power over what it will or will not consider. I would assume that, when this gets to the other place, the government will really look at this seriously, because I cannot imagine it wants to be in a position where Infrastructure Australia can disregard a requirement by the minister. I will support Senator Allison’s improvement to the amendment, but I am seriously concerned about where this is going. I might allow Senator Allison to say something while I think about this.
It would be helpful if we heard from the government and the opposition on the issue of ‘may’ or ‘is to’. I would be perfectly happy to change my amendment to reflect that if the opposition finds that acceptable and if the government indicates whether it would accept that or not.
Just in terms of assistance, the word ‘may’ was part of the amendment. I am relying upon the fine scholars who crafted this amendment. I am sure they would have thought that, because it is actually a change from the original. That is not a typo, I understand. That is part of the amendment, and we want that to stand.
I will give an indication of our view to save some time. We do not support the opposition’s amendment. We do not support the other amendments that have either been foreshadowed or moved. We support the original language in the bill. That is our position. We do so because the bill as it currently reads ensures that Infrastructure Australia is engaged in work that allows it to provide advice where it is needed most and focuses its limited resources on issues of national significance. It would not be an efficient use of Infrastructure Australia’s time to be reviewing thousands of business cases it might randomly receive from individual organisations. What is being proposed is a very inefficient approach. Nor would it be a good use of time to duplicate work that is being undertaken by other bodies or other ministers. It is for these reasons that subclauses (3) and (4) have been drafted as they currently read. The current formulation prevents Infrastructure Australia from being diverted from its major task and allows it to respond to national issues and support decision makers at the Council of Australian Governments. For that reason, we will not be supporting any of the proposed amendments. I put that on the record now because I do not want to waste the Chamber’s time by having a division in opposition.
I will just point out to Senator Sherry that the opposition amendment has already been dealt with. It was passed. We are now talking about amending that. It would be helpful if the government could indicate whether it has a view on this specific amendment to the amendment.
I have just indicated to you that we opposed the amendment that has been put and carried and we oppose any amendments to this area full stop for the reasons I have outlined. For the sake of saving time, we will not divide on this amendment, but we will not be supporting any amendments in this area.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed.
(Quorum formed)
I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I would just like to draw your attention to the fact that when that quorum was called I was in a part of the building where, as far as I know, the bells did not ring. I know there were some power difficulties in the chamber previously and I would ask that action be taken to ensure that the bells are operating in all parts of the building. Otherwise it is confusing for senators on some occasions.
I understand that the button was not pressed properly, so we reset the clock after that was discovered and then the bells rang throughout the building.
The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 and the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008 make adjustments to the charge-setting mechanism that applies to the trucking industry. The two key elements of the charge structure that apply to Australia’s road freight sector are registration fees and the diesel fuel excise system known as the road user charge. The determination of the appropriate level of these charges occurs through the National Transport Commission, which makes recommendations to Australia’s transport ministers, meeting as the Australian Transport Council, to recover road expenditure attributable to heavy vehicles.
The principle behind the charge-setting arrangements that apply to the trucking industry is that the industry should pay its way. The trucking sector accepts this. Specifically, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 updates definitions contained in the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 and grants the Australian Transport Council the power to determine the charges that will apply to Commonwealth registered heavy vehicles. The Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008 ends a system whereby the Australian Capital Territory set the reference charge for other jurisdictions to follow, currently based on the Commonwealth provided ACT law, the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1993.
Senators may be aware that, on 29 February 2008, Commonwealth, state and territory transport ministers at the Australian Transport Council agreed to a revised set of charges that will apply to Commonwealth registered heavy vehicles. These charges will be used as reference fees by the states and territories in relation to their own heavy vehicles. Essentially, that is what these bills are about: the application of charges agreed to by the Australian Transport Council to heavy vehicles registered under the Commonwealth and the subsequent take-up of those charges to vehicles registered under states and territories. We are talking, therefore, about the costs that are imposed upon Australia’s road freight sector.
The opposition, however, has some specific concerns regarding these bills. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008, for example, will require the Commonwealth to always impose the charges agreed to by the Australian Transport Council to trucks registered under the Commonwealth. This is known as the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme or FIRS. This provision may be found in proposed section 5(4) on page 9 of the bill. The relevant part reads:
Regulations made for the purposes of this section must implement the national charge imposed on the registration of heavy vehicles, and any adjustment process of that charge, that is agreed by the Australian Transport Council.
This provision is dubious in the extreme, since under it the Commonwealth loses its discretion to dissent from the ministerial council and would be unable to determine in its own right the charges that should apply to Commonwealth registered vehicles. Given the charges agreed to by the Australian Transport Council are reference fees used by the states and territories, should the Commonwealth wish to apply competitive pressure on the charges imposed by the states and territories on its own heavy vehicles it would be unable to do so. Moreover, decisions made in the Australian Transport Council are not always made by consensus. In the case of disagreements between jurisdictions, it is possible for a majority decision to occur and, in theory at least, it could be possible for the Commonwealth to be saddled with a decision it does not like.
While I accept that when it comes to regulatory issues the states and Commonwealth are essentially sovereign, I am still uncomfortable with a legislative provision that removes the right of the Commonwealth to dissent from a charge regime agreed to by the states. This is something that seems to have escaped the Rudd government. It is the job of the Commonwealth to provide national leadership and to ensure, where possible, that competitive pressure applies to state based charge-setting arrangements. What we are seeing is the abrogation of this role: the Labor run federal government is letting its state Labor mates have a free rein when setting fees that will have to be carried by a crucial sector of the economy—Australia’s road freight industry. I suspect this is another example of what is meant by ending the blame game: that the Commonwealth is walking away from any attempt to impose accountability upon the decisions of the states. This is, at best, highly regrettable.
The second unpleasant element of these bills is the associated regulation that will be tabled in parliament after the passage of the bills. This regulation will schedule the details of the heavy vehicle registration charges. These charges will contain significant increases, to be implemented over three years from 1 July 2008. The basis for these increases is the view of the Rudd government that the trucking sector is somehow not paying its way. This is by no means clear, with independent research commissioned by the trucking industry suggesting that the sector is already overcharged by $130 million per year.
Yet, in spite of the case for these increases in charges being unclear, the Rudd government has decided to press ahead anyway. It will determine these charges by applying an annual road cost adjustment formula. This formula is largely based on the expenditure costs associated with the impact of trucks on our road system. It will be a particularly expensive formula for Australia’s road freight industry, since it is common knowledge that costs associated with road maintenance and construction, such as steel, concrete and asphalt, are skyrocketing.
Registration costs will go up higher than the CPI. What does this mean? It means that 69 per cent of Australia’s truckies are going to be paying more, underwriting rising costs associated with road expenditure that are completely outside of their control. Secondly, the structure of the charges penalise productivity, since the costs agreed to by the Australian Transport Council fall heavily on highly productive multicombination vehicles such as B-doubles and B-triples. For example, the registration charges for B-doubles will increase from $8,041 to $14,340, including a multicombination prime mover charge of $7,050. B-triple charges will skyrocket to $20,340, including a multicombination prime mover charge of $7,050.
The result of this fee structure will be to remove the incentive for operators to use high-productivity vehicles. Operators will be inclined to use prime movers to pull semitrailers instead. For a government that has long proclaimed its greenhouse credentials, it seems extraordinary that it has now agreed to a charge arrangement that will in fact encourage more greenhouse emitting vehicles on our roads. Shocking though that seems, there is more. As the second part of the fee structure imposed on heavy vehicles, the Australian Transport Council decided to increase the road user charge, or diesel excise, from 19.633c per litre to 21c per litre. And, most importantly, this fuel excise will be indexed to the same formula used for heavy vehicle registration charges.
This regulation under the Fuel Tax Act 2006 was tabled by Labor on the quiet, on the sly, in the House on 13 March. It will take effect from 1 January 2009. In other words, the indexation of fuel excise is back. Indexation of fuel excise, people may recall, was introduced by the Keating government and then abolished by the Howard government, thankfully, in early 2001. After a seven-year absence it is back, pegged to a formula that will lock in a tax take greater than the CPI. This is a highly significant decision by the Rudd government. In one of its first acts of office, it has sneaked in a new tax that will increase at a rate greater than the cost of living.
Who will pay for it? Initially, it will be the sector that is responsible for moving 75 per cent of Australia’s domestic freight. Those who drive the nation’s 365,000 trucks, many of whom are struggling small business operators—that is who will pay. So much for defending working families. But Australia will also pay. The increased costs will be passed to the consumer and raise the prices for every one of the everyday items working families need—from cornflakes to building materials, from medicines to school shoes. For the Rudd government to increase taxes when so many Australians are hurting due to interest rate rises exposes the emptiness of its claim to be serious about fighting inflation.
Remember the Prime Minister’s promises in the election campaign about putting downward pressure on grocery prices? He has done exactly the opposite. This is not a Prime Minister; this is a heartless bureaucrat. The decision also clarifies another element of what ending the blame game means. It means that now we have wall-to-wall Labor governments no Labor transport minister will blame another for raising taxes. It is also worth recalling that this increase is similar to the one the coalition government blocked two years ago. Now it appears there is no longer any protection for Australia’s hard-working truckies or, indeed, the struggling farmers and cash-strapped mums and dads who will have to pay more as the increases flow down to them.
It also flies in the face of the reassurance by Labor frontbencher Martin Ferguson who, when shadow spokesman for transport, told the trucking industry at the Australian Trucking Convention in Cairns in April last year that ‘squeezing profitability from the trucking industry is in no-one’s long-term interests’. I am glad one member of those on the other side has got it right, but certainly his view has not persevered. Either the member for Batman was being indifferent to the truth or he got rolled. Regardless, the Rudd government has introduced a new tax that is inflationary and will make life harder for working families.
Let us look at the revenue implications of raising heavy vehicle registration and reintroducing fuel indexation via the road user charge. Labor state and territory government revenue will rise substantially as a result of increased fuel tax and registration charges, with the annual revenue stream to Labor governments growing by $168 million. Put another way, the fuel tax take to Labor states and territories will rise from $1.146 billion in 2007-08 to $1.226 billion in 2010-11, an increase of $80 million.
The increase in heavy vehicle registration charges will put up the tax take for Labor state and territory governments from $638 million to $727 million in the same period of time, an increase of some $88 million. Labor run New South Wales will see its registration tax take rise from $150.3 million in 2007-08 to $166 million in 2009-10. Victoria’s registration revenue will rise 15 per cent, from $171.4 million to $197.9 million in the same period. Given the poor track record of the Labor states in project management, we do not have any guarantees that we will actually see an improvement in transport infrastructure arising from these higher charges.
These bills support a new fuel tax and an increase in registration charges, the case for which is unclear. The fees will discourage the use of efficient vehicle combinations and will increase truck traffic on our roads. The taxes and charges are inflationary and will make worse the financial struggle of not just the families of transport operators but all Australians. They include a new tax—an indexed fuel excise—that will rise faster than the CPI. The taxes fly in the face of the Rudd government’s statements about fighting inflation. The decision represents an abrogation by federal Labor to ensure that the taxes imposed by their state Labor mates are competitive. For these reasons, the opposition will oppose the bills.
I am a bit surprised by the contribution of Senator Scullion. In relation to how this legislation got to this place, Senator Scullion may not be aware that in 2006 or 2007 the then coalition Treasurer, Peter Costello, referred the whole issue of heavy vehicle charges to the Productivity Commission. As a result of this course, last year your then federal leader, Mr Vaile, put heavy vehicle charges on the agenda of the Council of Australian Governments. As a result of taking that path, the National Transport Council was then advised to prepare a new heavy vehicle charges regime. This all happened while your party was in power. If you had won the last election, these charges would be being introduced today.
No, they wouldn’t be.
They would be. We got to this point because your government put it on the agenda—not this government; your government. I find it very interesting that you say that you would not have done it, because you put it on the agenda, you put it through the bodies that make the recommendations and the council that your minister was the chairman of put it through. So do not mislead anybody who may be listening to this broadcast that the coalition would not be acting in the same way. The various bodies, from the Productivity Commission to the National Transport Council to COAG, all had undoubtedly reasonable cases put to them to make the decision that they did.
As a result of the changes, 25 per cent of the transport fleet in the country will get a decrease. For 69 per cent of the fleet, there will be a small increase. The remaining five per cent get a significant increase. However, the previous government was going to introduce these charges on and from 1 July this year. The decision made by this government was to introduce the road user charges from 1 January next year and to phase them in over three years. That is what this government is doing. Let us get it right: for 25 per cent of the transport fleet there will be a decrease; for 69 per cent there will be a small increase; and for five per cent there will be a heavy increase indeed.
In that period, one of the things that was recognised by the ministers was the fact that safety and transport are inextricably bound. On 29 February this year, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Anthony Albanese, announced a $70 million heavy vehicle safety and productivity plan. My old union—Senator Sterle’s old union—has been subject to a bit of controversy in the last few days. One of the things that the Transport Workers Union has been very serious about for some time is making sure that heavy vehicle drivers—and small vehicle drivers as well—are able to operate in a safe environment. Senator Sterle and I know the pressures that truck drivers are under. One of the things that the TWU has done in New South Wales, and which it wants to launch nationally, is to make sure that chain of responsibility legislation is in place.
As my colleague and I know, and as I want people to understand, people put goods on vehicles to get them from A to B. Ultimately, the people responsible for that are the driver and the transport operator. What we know actually happens is that vehicles are expected to get from A to B in unrealistic times. Vehicles are also overloaded. The unrealistic times and the overloading are unsafe. The unrealistic times mean that they speed or they spend too long in the cabin of the vehicle. That means—and this has been proven—that they use illegal drugs to make themselves stay awake. That is why I welcomed the announcement by the minister on 29 February this year. That will take on that problem.
I go back to what I was saying earlier about the chain of responsibility. Up until this point, what happened was that the driver and the transport operator were responsible. But now their client and the person at the other end who wants something delivered earlier than is possible are being held accountable in New South Wales. They are not going to be let off the hook, as they have been for many years. If a big retailer says, ‘We want that vehicle out of Western Sydney and into Coffs Harbour, we want it there in about three or four hours and if you can’t do it that’s not my problem,’ then under New South Wales awards it is that big retailer’s problem if there is an accident. They can no longer just wash their hands of it and say, ‘It’s not my problem.’ They are now held accountable because they are in the chain. That chain of responsibility is important, because that is where the difficulties have been occurring. The transport operator—the owner of the truck—is undoubtedly held accountable. So is the driver. But so now are the clients.
The union has been pushing for this to become national so that no-one can wipe their hands and say that it is not their problem, that they are not responsible and that it is the truck driver’s fault or the truck owner’s fault. No, it is their fault, because they are the ones who said that it must be got here in unrealistic times. That has been a campaign by that organisation for some time. There were, across Australia in 2006 and 2007, 228 fatalities in the heavy transport sector. In New South Wales, there were 1,000 injuries last year in road transport. It is one of the most dangerous occupations in the country. Legislation to make sure that drivers and owners are looked after by the authorities is very important. The TWU has been pursuing the issue of the chain of responsibility. As a result, there will be fewer deaths on the road of drivers and of other road users.
I also want to comment on some of the strange beliefs held by some of the senators who spoke yesterday on the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008. Those of us who have followed and been involved in the transport industry for most of our lives know very well that there is not a conflict between road and rail. Road and rail are integrated and the companies are almost the same. There is not the competition there that some people simplistically think there is—road versus rail. And it is not a matter of getting it off the road and onto a railway and the congestion problems would be solved and it would be safer. As you may be aware, a number of rail lines and companies have been privatised over the past few years and some of those companies have actually been bought by large transport companies which have had to divest themselves into two separate boards, like Toll and Asciano.
So it is not an issue of competing modes of transport. In fact, here in Canberra only a few weeks ago, the Australian Logistics Council held its annual conference at which all the users of transport met to work out more effective means of maritime, air, road and rail transport. Often the same companies are involved in the same areas from that chain of responsibility or supply chain. So it is simplistic to think that it is just a matter of road versus rail, as some of the senators said yesterday.
No-one likes to pay more than they have to. It will be up to the various authorities to ensure that any decreases in fuel and transport fleet costs are passed on to consumers. The vehicles I am referring to are the rigid vehicles, the smaller vehicles that do a lot of the transport tasks in cities and regional Australia. Undoubtedly the heavier vehicles will face significant increases over three years from 1 January next year. But a lot of the freight tasks are in the smaller areas. If rigid vehicles have their registration costs decreased, the government should ensure that those savings are passed on to consumers—and, undoubtedly, we would argue that the increases should be balanced against each other. This is a result of initiatives of the previous government, and I am sure the previous government would be implementing those charges that are before the Senate now if they had won government.
Those Australians who might be driving home at the moment and listening to this broadcast might consider these things next time they go to the grocery store. When they notice their grocery bill increasing yet again, they should understand that it is the Rudd Labor government that is adding to the cost of their grocery bill, adding to the cost of their electricity bill and adding to the cost of their fuel bill. This government is putting upward pressure on inflation and that will mean increased interest rates. And we all know the Labor government’s record when it comes to interest rates—17½ per cent on housing loans back in the Keating days. This bill continues the approach of the Labor government to continue adding to the cost of the weekly grocery bill.
I understand that this bill effectively brings back the indexation of the fuel excise. Mr Acting Deputy President, you will remember the half-yearly indexation of the fuel excise, which was brought in by Mr Keating, the last Labor Prime Minister. It increased the price of fuel enormously back in those days, probably from something like 70c a litre to 75c a litre, and then to 80c as the excise went up each six months. That is how Labor manages the economy and their money. They sneak a bit in every six months by stealth. It does not go through the budget; it just automatically increases every six months. That was a disgrace.
One of the best things the Howard government did was to stop back in 2001 the automatic indexation of the fuel excise that the last Labor government introduced. That was seven years ago. Since then, the Commonwealth’s take from the taxes on fuel has remained constant in finite terms, which means that in real terms it has actually gone down. That is what the Howard government and the coalition were all about—reducing costs, reducing imposts, reducing pressure on inflation and pressure on working families.
Under this legislation—one of the first pieces of legislation from the next Labor government—what do we have? We have the indexation of fuel excise being brought back in. That is a disgrace. No-one from the government side has talked about it. My understanding is that the Fuel Tax Act—which is related to this and which was introduced on the sly in the House on 13 March to take effect from 1 January next year—is in fact bringing back the indexation of fuel excise. That is just going to add to grocery prices each day.
I pointed out in an earlier speech today that this is on top of the Labor Party’s approach to the mandatory renewable energy target, which, according to the experts, will add a cost of around $1.5 billion to the economy and drive up power bills by six per cent. You do not have to be a great economist to work out that, with those sorts of imposts on the Australian people, the cost of living is going to skyrocket. I am particularly distressed for people who live in rural and regional Australia, as I do. I live 1,500 kilometres from my capital city, and a lot of the produce that is produced up my way is, under the arrangements that seem to be the norm these days, sent down to Brisbane or Sydney or Melbourne and then trucked back to Woolworths or Coles or IGA up in the north. Just imagine the cost of transport on that—it is horrendous. But if you then think of what the cost of transport will be in the future under this legislation from the Labor government, you can understand that the cost is going to escalate enormously.
Another thing that is wrong with this bill—there are lots of things wrong with it—is that it will selectively have a greater impost on the more productive vehicles. As Senator Scullion quite rightly pointed out, the registration on B-doubles is going to increase from $8,000 to $14,000-odd and on a B-triple the charge is going to skyrocket to $20,340, to be exact. That impost on the more productive transport vehicles is going to discourage the trucking industry. I hear Senator Hutchins’s pious words about the tough time the Transport Workers Union has. Well, with him and Senator Sterle and Senator Conroy being part of the TWU, does one wonder why the truckies have not been terribly well looked after? Senator Conroy is a very senior man in this new government and obviously knows the trucking industry back to front—well, he knows the union industry back to front; I am not sure he knows which is the steering wheel on a truck. But one would have thought that at least someone like Senator Conroy, as an old TWU executive, would have been in there fighting for the industry and fighting to keep costs down and therefore to keep jobs in the industry. It seems that this government has absolutely no interest in the trucking industry and certainly no interest in those who use the trucking industry.
As I mentioned, these imposts in this legislation, this huge increase in taxes on the trucking industry, will impact more heavily on those who live outside the capital cities. I am trying desperately to think of any of the ministers in this government who might live out of the capital cities.
I do!
You do? You are not in Hobart anymore, Senator Sherry?
The fourth in Tasmania.
The fourth in Tasmania?
Senator Polley, Senator O’Brien—
I was not sure that Senator Polley was a minister. Anyhow, I take your word for it. Senator Sherry, you used to live in Hobart. You must have been shuffled out of there by the powers that be in the Labor Party. But there cannot be too many in the Labor Party cabinet who live outside the capital cities. Perhaps you could help me there, Senator Sherry, if you could name one or two, because I am struggling. I think it is symptomatic of this government, which has no real interest in people who live outside the capital cities. All the votes come from the capital cities; there are lots of people there—look after them and you will win the election. But for those of us who have to rely on transport and particularly road transport to get the food we eat, these imposts are going to have an enormous impact.
I understand some independent research commissioned by the trucking industry—I think Senator Scullion might have referred to this research—has suggested that the sector is already overcharged by $130 million a year.
Senator Sterle interjecting—
Is that not right?
They are supporting the bill.
Order! Senators, would you please direct your comments through the chair.
It is indicating that the industry is already overcharged by $130 million a year, so where is the argument for this industry to be slugged with additional tax? Senator Sterle, according to Senator Hutchins, is also a good TWU man. I would be very interested to hear his contribution to this debate and to hear how he justifies another impost on his industry, an industry that is already said to be overcharged by $130 million a year. So why do we have this additional increase? Senator Sterle is from Western Australia. If there is anyone who should be opposing this bill it would have to be a Western Australian. You are probably even worse off than we are in North Queensland. Everything you get comes by road or rail transport, most of it by road these days. So I am sure Senator Sterle will get up in this debate and join us in opposing this bill to make sure that these additional taxes are not put on the road transport industry.
Order! I am sorry, Senator Macdonald, I was going to intervene in relation to the time for this debate. You can continue.
Until when, Mr Acting Deputy President?
Ten to seven.
No, no!
You have 10 more minutes.
I will take your timely intervention as a suggestion that perhaps I have had my say. I know my colleagues Senator Boswell and Senator Nash want to have a few minutes in this debate. I would not want to deprive them of time to do so before 10 to seven, and I know Senator Sterle will want to enter the debate as well to oppose this horrendous legislation.
But I will conclude on the point on which I started. The Howard government will go down in history as a government that has produced the best economy this country has ever known. We have taken this country from a $96 billion deficit to a position where, in the last couple of budgets, we have actually locked money away for the future in surpluses. Well, we thought we had locked it away, but I understand the Labor Party are already attacking one of the funds we had set up to pay for the future—but you expect that from Labor.
We left this new government an economy which was the envy of the Western world. There were huge surpluses, low interest rates, low unemployment and low inflation—a dream economy—and already, in a few short months in power, the Labor Party are turning it round. In spite of the promises made by Mr Rudd to decrease grocery prices, to decrease interest rates and to decrease petrol prices, we find that not only are they not decreasing the things they said they would but they are actually, by this bill and by some other measures, increasing those taxes. The horror of again getting those automatic fuel excise indexations is too much to fathom. I certainly hope that the trucking industry and those of us who live remote from the capitals and rely on transport start to understand just what this automatic indexation does. I hope that Family First are listening to this as well because they seem to have a lot to say about fuel prices. I wonder if Family First have caught up with the fact that, from 1 January next year, this bill will reintroduce those automatic excise indexations. If the government were intending to honour its commitments to reduce fuel prices, what they should be doing is cutting the excise, not putting it onto the automatic indexation, as it used to be under the Keating regime. I conclude on that point.
As people who are listening to this broadcast drive home tonight, they should not be surprised when the grocery bill goes up in a few months time. The reason the grocery bill will go up in a few months time is that legislation like this, brought in by an inexperienced government, will add taxes to the transport industry and therefore add pressure to the costs of the weekly grocery bill and put real pressure on inflation. Those particular points, I hope, would be understood by those who might be listening to this broadcast.
The Senate is debating the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 and the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008. As Senator Macdonald has said, these bills are very important for people who live outside the metropolitan areas.
On 29 February 2008, Commonwealth, state and territory transport ministers, who are all Labor, agreed at the Australian Transport Council to a revised set of charges that will apply to Commonwealth registered heavy vehicles. These charges will be used as reference fees by the states and territories on their own heavy vehicles. These bills concern the application of charges agreed to by the Australian Transport Council to heavy vehicles registered under the Commonwealth and the subsequent take-up of those charges to vehicles registered under the states and territories. This debate, in other words, is about what costs are imposed upon Australia’s road freight industry. The costs have a direct effect not only on the many small business truck operators and their productivity but also on the final price paid by consumers for the goods being transported, particularly food. In addition, there are environmental concerns. It is important to get the policy settings right to provide incentives for lower emission vehicles.
The two key elements of the charge structure that apply to the road freight sector are registration fees and the diesel fuel excise system, known as the road user charge. The real impact of these bills will be felt in regulations that are to be tabled in parliament after the passage of the bills. The regulations will schedule the details of the heavy vehicle registration charges. These charges will contain significant increases to be implemented over three years from July 2008. The key feature is the way in which the government will determine these charges by applying an annual road cost adjustment formula. This formula will be particularly expensive for Australia’s road freight industry due to the rising costs of materials associated with road construction and maintenance. This means that registration costs are going to go up at a higher rate than the CPI.
Close to 70 per cent of Australia’s truckies and all those at the heavier end of the industry are going to be paying more tax. This means that there will be a rise in costs associated with road expenditure that will eventually flow through to consumers. Productivity is affected because the costs agreed to by the Australian Transport Council of all the Labor ministers fall heavily on the highly productive multicombination vehicles such as B-double and B-triple trailers. For example, the registration charges for B-doubles will increase from $8,041 to $14,340, including a multicombination prime mover charge of $7,050. B-triple charges will skyrocket to $20,340, including the multicombination prime mover charge of $7,050.
The government is imposing very substantial increases in charges on the most efficient sector of the road freight industry. The government’s fee structure will reduce the incentive for operators to use high-productivity vehicles. Operators will be inclined to stick with semitrailers instead—so much for the government’s concern about greenhouse gases and climate change. While it plans to make working families pay through the nose for plastic grocery bags, it has agreed to a charge arrangement that will actually encourage more greenhouse gas emitting vehicles onto our roads.
At its February meeting, the Australian Transport Council decided to increase the road user charge—or diesel excise—from 19.633 cents per litre to 21 cents per litre. This occurs by reducing the amount of rebate going to on-road diesel users. Most importantly, this fuel excise increase will be indexed. This is the first time it has ever been indexed since 2001, and it will be indexed using the same formula that is used for the heavy vehicle registration charges. This regulation, made under the Fuel Tax Act 2006, was tabled by Labor on 13 March, before this legislation had been brought into the parliament. It will take effect from 1 January 2009.
The coalition will be moving to disallow this instrument. Why? Because this instrument brings back fuel excise indexation. One of the great achievements of the coalition government was to put a stop to the rise and rise of fuel excise and fuel prices because of the impact on working families and inflation. Well, senators on the Labor side, you can walk the walk and you can talk the talk, but you have nowhere to hide on this one. This is against every principle that Prime Minister Rudd went to the election on: working families, the environment—the lot. Yet Labor is bringing back taxation indexation on fuel. Paul Keating has re-entered the parliament! The indexation of fuel excise was introduced by the Keating government, and the Rudd government is bringing it back for the road transport industry—only the Rudd version uses a formula that will lock in a greater tax take than under the old CPI method. Rudd is Keating on steroids! Seventy-five per cent of Australia’s domestic freight is moved by trucks on our roads. The Rudd Labor government has just raised those transport charges.
Many of the country’s 365,000 trucks are operated by small business. They will be the first to suffer by being slammed with the increased charges. It is a difficult life being an owner-operator in the freight transport business. The hours are extremely long, the debt is extremely high and the competition for the contracts is fierce. An extra squeeze on profit margins is totally against the interests of the small transport operators. The small operators will find it more difficult than the larger operators who move groceries to pass on the increased costs. The extra costs will ultimately be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for everyday items that people need to buy to survive: food, groceries, medicine, clothes, building materials, water tanks and all kinds of products. Here we have a government that on one hand says they are doing something about rising grocery prices and on the other hand slugs a new tax that raises the transport costs of getting the groceries to the market and to the consumer.
Labor state and territory governments’ revenue will rise substantially as a result of the increased fuel tax and registration charges, with the annual revenue stream to Labor governments growing by $168 million. The fuel tax take to Labor states and territories will rise from $1.146 billion in 2007-08 to $1.226 billion in 2010-11—an increase of $80 million. The increase in heavy vehicle registration charges will push up the tax take for Labor state and territory governments from $638 million to $727 million in the same period—an increase of $88 million. But that is okay: more money for the state Labor governments to use on giving their former premiers cushy overseas jobs at $200,000 or $300,000 a year. The fundamental flaw in the Rudd government’s road user charge scheme is that the money collected from the registration or the fuel excise does not have to be spent on better roads, road maintenance or transport infrastructure for heavy trucks. There is no guarantee at all that any of this money will actually be spent on roads. They can spend it anywhere they like—even on sending a former Premier on a $200,000 or $300,000 excursion to America.
I remind the Senate that, contrary to the myths recently put out by Labor, the coalition’s funding commitments for land transport were at a record high some years before the last election. In fact, not only did we build new and more roads; we had to pay for the ones Labor built before us and put back on the national bank card. It now looks likely that the Labor government will halve the coalition’s AusLink commitments of $31 billion between now and 2013. Labor could end up spending $15 billion less than what the coalition promised. That is a huge hole in the road. It means that there will be projects right around Australia at risk from Labor’s razor gang. We already know that there will be $500 million slashed from the Bruce Highway funding for work between Cooroy and Curra. Labor has made no commitment on continuing Roads to Recovery and the $350 million funding that has been so essential for local governments to keep their roads up to date. Labor has also made no commitment as to the $300 million we had committed to spend on the development of roads around regional Australia.
We are a big country. We cover a huge geographical area. We have responsibilities to those Australians working hard, thousands of miles from here, to see that they can live a decent life with access to basic goods at a fair and reasonable price. Roads are our lifeblood, whether they are bringing exports to ports or consumer goods to the independent grocery store at Cloncurry. We rely on an efficient road transport system. The change in government is certainly going to change this country. Bit by bit, day by day, tax by tax, the Rudd government is unravelling what makes Australia tick.
I rise tonight to make a contribution to the second reading debate on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 and the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008. I am very honoured to follow my National and Liberal colleagues who spoke last night in the other place and then here today on this particular legislation, because I do not know that a bill that shows such hypocrisy from a government has come into this place for quite some time.
On 29 February, as people would realise by now, the Australian Transport Council made adjustments to the cost recovery charge setting mechanism that applies to the trucking industry—that is the formal term. Basically, they lifted registration charges and made changes to the diesel fuel excise system. Those registration charges on the trucking industry go straight to the hearts of those truckies, their families, the trucking companies and the people that they deliver to. The Labor government know this and they are hiding behind weasel words over there to try to justify what is an incredibly bad decision and very bad legislation.
What we have seen with the heavy vehicle registration charges is that there is some kind of belief that the trucking sector is not paying its way. I know that the trucking sector takes its responsibilities for paying its way very seriously. It knows that it has a responsibility to the Australian people, to the communities out there, to ensure that it does pay its way—and it does. But what have we seen from the Labor government? We have seen them bring in legislation that is going to mean that truckies are going to pay 69 per cent more in registration fees. I do not know if I am missing something here, but slugging truckies with an extra 69 per cent charge is not something that is productive either for the industry or for the country as a whole and yet we see the Labor government, with no qualms at all on the other side, speaking about this as the best thing since sliced bread. Well it is not. It is hurting those industries and it is going to hurt communities right across the board.
Let us look at what this will actually do. For example, the registration charges for B-doubles will increase from $8,041 to $14,340, including a multicombination prime mover charge of $7,050; and B-triple charges will skyrocket to $20,340, including, again, that multicombination prime mover charge of $7,050. Do you know who drives these trucks? Mostly people in working families. To my mind it is appalling to be slugging them with more charges when they come from working families that the Labor government professes to know so much about. It is not fair and it is not right.
The other thing the government is doing with this legislation is increasing the diesel excise, or the road user charge. I have only been in this place for three years, but I have been involved in politics for quite some time and one of my very first memories of becoming involved in politics was when people were complaining about the indexation on fuel. They complained and complained about it, so the previous coalition government did the right thing seven years ago and removed it. Yet what do we see with this legislation? It is back. The wonderful indexation that we saw under the Paul Keating government is back—in another form, mind you—under the Rudd government. What this government has done is to increase that excise from 19.633c to 21c. That might not sound like very much, but I can tell you it is. Billions of litres of diesel fuel get used by the trucking industry in this country every year, and this indexation is coming back. Whilst it might have escaped the notice of people out there in the Australian community until now, I can tell you right now that they are going to know about it from today, because it is wrong. I cannot understand how the Labor government can sit over there and profess to be doing everything it can for working families—and, mind you, making sure it does everything it can to bring down inflation—when this very measure targets both those things.
What is really interesting is that on 12 April last year at the Australian Trucking Convention in Cairns—Innovation and productivity in Australian trucking: unlocking tomorrow’s prosperity—Martin Ferguson, who was the then shadow minister for transport, roads and tourism, said:
We appreciate the importance of the trucking industry and we are committed to investment in the infrastructure and regulatory framework needed to improve its efficiency and viability for the long term.
I started my speech by talking about hypocrisy. If that is not the most hypocritical thing that we could possibly see coming from the Labor government, I do not know what is. Last April the then opposition were saying, ‘We’re going to support the trucking industry; we’re going to make sure we get the regulatory framework right.’ What have they done? They have brought in bills that slug the trucking industry, that raise registration and that bring back indexation.
I might not be particularly bright, but putting those two things together—this quote from the then opposition and what they are bringing into this chamber today—shows the absolute hypocrisy, and they should be ashamed that they would on the one hand profess to support the trucking industry and on the other hand rip the rug out from underneath it with these bills. Unfortunately, time precludes me from saying more on this matter, but it is indicative of their approach in a whole range of policy areas—all the things they said prior to the election, now we are seeing something different; all the flip-flops from what they said before,
Like on the wheat bill.
Thank you, Senator Boswell, I will take that interjection—the wheat bill. Before the election they were talking about supporting the single desk and now what are we seeing? A move towards deregulation. They cannot be trusted.
The other interesting thing is that this bill actually discourages the use of efficient vehicle combinations. It will actually increase truck traffic on the roads. We do seem to hear quite an amount, colleagues, about the environment from the other side of this chamber—and rightly so. I am a farmer from out in the middle of New South Wales, and probably no-one more than farmers understands how important the environment is. So it is vitally important we continue to talk about it. The hypocrisy of this! How can the Labor government talk about how important the environment is and then introduce bills which introduce measures which discourage the use of efficient vehicles?
Crazy.
It is crazy, thank you, Senator Scullion. It does not make sense. It just highlights the hypocrisy of the Labor government. They say one thing and expect us to believe it and then they do another. They are hoping that the people of Australia will not notice that what they say is not what they do. But they will notice, because it is not right, it is not fair and it is not on.
Then we come to the Australian Transport Council. Under these bills the Commonwealth actually loses its discretion to dissent from the ministerial council. What it means is that in its own right it is not able to apply charges that should apply to Commonwealth registered vehicles if they choose to do so. I understand that the decisions of the group that make up the Australian Transport Council are often not by consensus. So the federal government could be held to a decision with which they do not agree and have no mechanism to dissent from and apply a different charge to their Commonwealth registered vehicles. What does that do? First, it reduces competition, because there is no ability then for any competition out there within the charges, and it is absolutely locked up tight. Again, the Commonwealth would be bound by a decision that it may well not agree with. This might be about ending the blame game, but obviously the current Labor government is just giving a free kick to the Labor states—including, as my very good colleague here, Senator Boswell, said, about $170 million in taxes to the states. I bet they are delighted about that, because there is no requirement on where that funding should go—there is none. There will be no check and balance about where it is going to go. It is a windfall in tax for the state governments; it is a slamming of working families through the trucking industry through this bill.
I think Labor senators on the other side should be hiding, not speaking on this bill. I note that Senator Sterle, who I know has a very, very longstanding and genuine interest in the trucking industry, is not even in the chamber. He has not spoken. I wonder why that might be, colleagues. Because he knows and he understands how important the trucking industry is to this nation. It is often the backbone of this nation.
Where is he?
Where is Senator Sterle, I wonder. Thank you, Senator Ronaldson, for that interjection. For those of you who did not know, 75 per cent of the freight task, which is going to double in this nation by 2020, currently goes on trucks. We would like that to be different; we would like to see a lot more go on rail—and thank you very much to the ALP government for slashing $65 million from the Parkes to Cootamundra railway line. That was not very helpful either, in terms of getting freight off the roads. We see here the absolute targeting of an industry. If anything it needs assistance to streamline, to be better and to find ways to get the trucks off the roads. But, no, we are seeing an increase in the registration and indexation being brought back.
What is also interesting is the lack of understanding from the Labor government about the effect this is going to have on local communities. Real people living in real communities are going to feel the effects of this. Do you know what is going to happen? The charges the Labor government are imposing will be passed on to working families and people living in communities—and even more so to those people who live out in the bush and have the added burden of tyranny of distance. They live great distances from major cities and they cop extra costs anyway. Now we see these extra costs going onto the trucking industry. Guess where they are going to go? As I said, to those working families and those local communities.
Interestingly, this came up not very long ago. I was travelling up on the New South Wales North Coast, where I am duty senator. I had a range of discussions with people up there about the impact of rising costs and what was going to happen in the future. Which brings me to the fact that running up to the election the Labor government said they were going to bring those costs down—they were going to bring down the cost of petrol and it looked like they were going to bring down the cost of food. What has happened? Exactly the opposite, because these charges will be passed on to people in those local communities—local homes and local businesses—and they are going to have to wear the costs. I notice that the Labor members for Richmond and Page last night both blindly supported these ALP bills. On one hand they are up there in their electorates, saying, ‘We’re such a great government; we’re going to address the cost of living,’ and on the other hand, in the very next breath they are supporting bills that are going to increase costs for their working families. That is not right. It is not on. These bills—the charges themselves and those flow-on effects into the community—will do nothing but hurt this country.
I do not comprehend how the Labor government can think these bills are in any way, shape or form a positive change to the laws of this country, because they are going to hurt an industry that is the very backbone of this country. They are going to hurt the families that operate those businesses and drive those trucks. These families, including working families in all of our communities, are going to bear the brunt of these increased costs. For those reasons, the opposition will be opposing the bills.
in reply—I would normally thank members who have contributed to the debate on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 and the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008, but unfortunately on this occasion, despite my generally courteous manner, I am not going to thank members opposite for their contributions.
In the descriptions of this legislation we have heard such terms as hypocritical, crazy, not fair and not right, and the last speaker said, ‘I do not comprehend how the Labor government believes the bills are a good thing and in the best interests of the country.’ What we have heard, frankly, is a set of speeches that represent some of the greatest hypocrisy and cant that I have heard in this chamber in the last 18 years, and I will explain why shortly. According to members of the now opposition, you would think the previous government had no role in developing this bill. In fact, it comes from the previous government. I will explain how it came—
But we never voted for it. We knocked it back and voted against it.
Senator Boswell is getting himself in a lather and getting all red-faced. If he was so concerned about this issue, why didn’t he say this to his own leader last year? What we have today is a real example of how an opportunistic opposition that cannot adjust to opposition has really lost its way. The genesis of this package of legislation goes back to work touted and boasted about by the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard. He was the one who commenced this work, back in 2004, when with great fanfare he announced an energy white paper as the policy framework for ‘securing Australia’s energy future’. Mr Howard presumably signed off on it. The document said:
The transport sector has long argued that the current excise arrangements for heavy vehicles, defined as those with a gross vehicle mass of 4.5 tonnes or more, are inefficient and need reform. The government—
that is, the Liberal government—
has listened and will introduce reforms to remove inefficiencies and ensure the excise system plays a more positive role in supporting Australia’s transport task.
Mr Howard went on:
The existing partial excise applying to fuel used in heavy vehicles will be formally recognised and set as a non-hypothecated road user charge from 1 July 2006.
Mr Howard, the former Liberal Prime Minister, went on:
The value of the charge will be set in accordance with the National Transport Commission’s heavy vehicle charging determination process. This cooperative federal-state process—
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order, regarding his honesty. It may be true that the Prime Minister did put those plans—
Senator Boswell, there is no point of order.
The coalition never once voted for these increases and rejected them on about five occasions.
There is no point of order.
I acknowledge Senator Boswell’s intervention. He admits that Mr Howard led the charge to develop these bills that we are considering in the Senate today. Mr Howard, the former Liberal Prime Minister, went on:
The value of the charge will be set in accordance with the National Transport Commission’s heavy vehicle charging determination process. This cooperative federal-state process assesses the impact of heavy vehicles on road costs, and is used by the states and territories to set and adjust registration charges for these vehicles.
Mr Howard, the former Liberal Prime Minister, went on:
The excise-based charge will be adjusted annually in the way that the states and territories adjust registration fees. Changes to the charge will be made by varying the level of effective excise through adjustments in the level of the excise credit paid for fuel used in heavy vehicles.
This is Mr Howard, the former Liberal Prime Minister, outlying the basis of this legislation which you are now voting against. What monumental hypocrisy!
But the evidence gets even better, Senator Boswell—and I will get to a National Party minister in a moment. The 2006 Productivity Commission study into road and rail infrastructure pricing commissioned by the Howard government found underrecovery of infrastructure costs occurring in the heavy vehicle industry. In April 2007, COAG, led by the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, required the ATC to devise new charges determinations that fully recovered costs from the heavy vehicle industry, ended cross-subsidisation between heavy vehicle classes and indexed charges to ensure costs continued to be recovered—which is exactly the content of the bill we are dealing with tonight. The National Transport Commission and the independent body devised a determination with these charges and commenced consultation with the industry in July 2007, when the now opposition was in government.
Here is a speech that was given on 28 June 2007 entitled ‘The coalition government’s transport reform agenda’—note: the previous government’s transport agenda—by the member for Lyne. Who is the member for Lyne? The former National Party minister Mr Vaile. The federal transport minister and Leader of the Nationals said:
The National Transport Commission will develop a new heavy vehicle charges determination to be implemented from 1 July 2008. The new determination will aim to recover the heavy vehicles’ allocated infrastructure costs in total and will also aim to remove cross-subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes.
That is exactly what we have in the bills being presented to the parliament tonight, outlined in principle by the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and endorsed in principle and commenced in detail by the former National Party leader, Mr Vaile. So what we have here in opposing this legislation is monumental hypocrisy from the now opposition.
It is disingenuous of the so-called coalition to oppose these bills. Previous governments—Labor and Liberal-National Party—have set the principles of cost recovery and established the process. In terms of impact on cost, let me remind the Senate that registration charges will be decreased for 25 per cent of the fleet who currently pay too much by any objective criteria. Senator Boswell might like to explain to those ‘struggling truckies’—as he refers to them—why 25 per cent of them will not have their fees decreased. Go and explain that, Senator Boswell, to people who are currently paying too much. They are paying too much and you want to prevent them having a reduction in their fees, which any reasonable and rational examination shows are too much. Go and explain that, Senator Boswell.
The small three- and four-axle rigid heavy vehicles currently cross-subsidise B-doubles. That is a gross injustice. This legislation will bring an end to that injustice. The larger increases are for the fleet B-doubles because the principle is to recover costs of the vehicles on the roads. It might not be apparent to members in the Liberal-National Party that B-doubles cause greater harm to the roads and therefore there is a greater cost to the roads. Not even that logic has sunk into the particularly thick heads of members of the National Party. The impact will not be to bring more trucks onto the road; it will be to do exactly the opposite, Senator Boswell and members of the National Party. It will put road and rail on an equal footing. Hasn’t that got through to members of the National Party? Obviously not.
The opposition have said that the indexation arrangements will be higher than inflation. That is untrue—again. The principles involved in indexation were developed by Mr Vaile, the former head of the National Party, and the former Liberal Party Prime Minister Mr Howard. They are making an untrue claim. It is not indexed to inflation—that is not right. The indexation is linked to historical road funding. The National Party is wrong again.
The opposition have also claimed that the bills would force the Commonwealth to adopt charges forced on it by the states. That is nonsense. Why did the former Prime Minister Mr Howard sign off on this arrangement? Why did he think this was a reasonable approach? Were the members of the Liberal-National Party getting up and saying to the former Prime Minister, ‘Mr Howard, you’ve been dudded; Mr Vaile, you’ve been dudded by the states’? They did not say it. They are saying it now but they did not say it last year when they were in government. It is utter nonsense.
The previous government played the blame game against the states. They did not on this particular issue because it was their own proposal. So we have got a lot chest-beating from members of the Liberal-National Parties and lots of posturing in dealing with the states. It is nothing more than rhetoric. I know it is tough adjusting to opposition. I have been there myself; I know it is tough. But when you come into a chamber and oppose what you yourself initiated and developed when in government it is just a bit hypocritical.
In terms of the road user charge, this Labor government has made the decision to delay the increase in the road user charge to 1 January 2009. We have listened to industry and we have given them a chance to adjust—unlike the previous government. We have actually put back the operative date that was proposed by the previous government. The former Howard government were going to introduce this on 1 July 2008. They were actually going to be tougher than us. Now that they have moved to opposition they have suddenly discovered that they can no longer deliver on their own policy package.
The new charges will be supplemented by the Rudd Labor government’s $70 million heavy vehicle safety and productivity package, and that will ensure trials of new black box technologies that will facilitate better speed and fatigue management. Fatigue management is something that the National Party in particular need, given where they are headed. It will provide more heavy vehicle rest stops and bridge strengthening projects. The package has been warmly received by industry.
In 2007, 1,611 people died on the roads. Accidents involving heavy vehicles account for nearly 20 per cent of these deaths, with speed a factor in around 30 per cent and driver fatigue in up to 60 per cent of cases. The opposition has not referred to this particular element of the package at all. They have remained silent on this particular element that we have added.
There are two bills before the Senate. There is the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008, which adopts new national heavy vehicle charges for vehicles registered under the federal interstate registration scheme from 1 July 2008 and ensures federal charges are consistent with state and territory registration charges. There is also the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008, which repeals the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1993. This will allow the ACT government to introduce a new heavy vehicle registration charge into its own legislative arrangements in the same manner as the other states and territories. In total the bills deliver road transport reform requested by the Council of Australian Governments with broad agreement of industry. The reform was endorsed by the former Liberal-National Party government before they were defeated, was initiated by the former Liberal Prime Minister Mr Howard and was endorsed in detail with work starting under the former National Party leader Mr Vaile when he was transport minister. That is what we are dealing with here today.
The reform follows the self-evident principle that the heavy vehicle industry should pay its way for its share of infrastructure costs by government. I commend the bills to the Senate. We will be dividing on this legislation to show the rank hypocrisy of those opposite who come in and rant against this set of bills in a totally irrational and illogical manner—legislation that their own leadership developed when they were in government. We will expose that hypocrisy. There will be a vote. The other hypocrisy in all of this is of course that there will be a loss to revenue. As I have said, it is hard adjusting to opposition. I concede that. But what we have is this opposition opposing any cutbacks to the budget, anywhere, in any shape or form—except for a tree in Queensland. I will concede that there is one area where the Liberal-National Party have suggested we can save on the budget, and that is a tree in Queensland. That is their one positive suggestion to delivering savings in the budget.
Here we have a revenue measure which they themselves endorsed and ensured was developed in government, and they are opposing that. What fiscal irresponsibility! It is no wonder we have got 3.6 per cent inflation. They ignored that. It is no wonder we have got upward pressure on inflation, because, in that last year in particular, they lost total control of the budget process. What we have got here tonight is yet another contribution of a totally irresponsible approach to a budget process. This will cost revenue if they vote it down. It costs revenue. It is an unfair approach. We have got the monumental hypocrisy of the former government voting against their own legislation that they developed while in government. We are happy to see the vote on the record.
Question put:
That the bills be now read a second time.
Order! I have received letters from party leaders seeking to vary the membership of committees.
by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Economics Committee–– Appointed, as participating members: Senators Campbell and Stott Despoja Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee–– Appointed, as a participating member: Senator Campbell Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade––Joint Standing Committee–– Discharged: Senator Eggleston Appointed: Senator Payne Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee–– Appointed, as a substitute member:Senator Hogg to replace Senator Hurley for the committee’s inquiries into the Rights of the Terminally Ill (Euthanasia Laws Repeal) Bill 2008 and the Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008 Appointed, as a participating member: Senator Hurley Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities––Select Committee–– Appointed: Senators Crossin and Moore Appointed, as participating members: Senators Bishop, Carol Brown, Campbell, Forshaw, Hogg, Hurley, Hutchins, Kirk, Lundy, McEwen, McLucas, Marshall, O’Brien, Polley, Ray, Stephens, Sterle, Webber and Wortley.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That consideration of government documents be not proceeded with today, and that government business continue until 7.20 pm.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Senator Faulkner:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2007-2008 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2007-2008 are being dealt with cognately. The Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2007-2008 appropriates additional money for the ordinary annual services of government. The bill provides for expenditure of $2.436 billion. Among other things, it provides $242.1 million for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. For the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, $50.8 million in additional funding is provided for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park structural adjustment package, and an additional $31.8 million for rebates to households for installing solar hot water heaters, an additional $50.8 million for the National Solar Schools Plan and an additional $15.2 million for early action on the National Plan for Water Security. The National Water Commission gets $25 million to assist groundwater licence holders in New South Wales to adjust to reductions in water access entitlements.
The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will be provided with $189.8 million to assist people with disabilities, their families and carers. There are appropriations for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Department of Defence. The balance of the amount in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) relates to estimates variations, reclassifications and other minor measures.
The Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2007-2008 provides for expenditure of $898.5 million for various projects and new expenditure. This compares with $636.9 million in the equivalent act for the year 2006-07. For instance, the Department of Defence will receive $26.8 million for payment to the Queensland government for the relocation of Amberley State School as a result of the expansion of RAAF Amberley, and $33 million will be provided under the Commonwealth, States and Territories Disability Agreement for grants to the states for people with disabilities and their carers. The biggest item in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) is for AusAID, which will be provided with $466.4 million for Australia’s contribution to the International Development Association, which is the concessional lending arm of the World Bank.
My principal reason for speaking in this debate is that I want to address the ongoing dispute over what should be in Appropriations Bill (No. 3), which is for the ordinary annual services of government, and Appropriations Bill (No. 4), which is for new expenditure. Section 83 of the Constitution states:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law.
Section 53 says:
The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.
That is very wise, as the basic ongoing machinery of government must continue and remain funded and operative. But of course the Senate does want to have its say on bills that do not appropriate revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of government. Wanting, as always, to have their way, the executive has long mixed up new money into the ordinary annual services money in the appropriations bills. In particular, the Senate and senators have objected to completely new programs, and projects starting up, using money appropriated previously for the ordinary annual services of the government. This makes it difficult to distinguish between the ongoing activities and new programs and projects, or to separately identify the expenditure on each of those areas. This is a problem that is exaggerated when the outcome on which the appropriation hangs is so broad and generalised as to be virtually meaningless.
The Senate has never abandoned the sound, longstanding principle that all new policies would and should be classified as not part of the ordinary annual services of the government. There are two broad categories of appropriations: annual appropriations and special or standing appropriations. There has long been cross-party support for easy passage of appropriations for additional money for the ordinary annual ongoing services of government. But there has long been cross-party support for new expenditure to be open to rejection or amendment, and for much greater scrutiny.
Governments have long tried to mix up the two appropriation types to avoid rejection or amendment. The dispute between the two houses on such matters led eventually to the 1965 Senate compact. This compact has been amended in the past, but there is a dispute now as to its interpretation. Since the year 2005, the Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee has been endeavouring to resolve this issue. The Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration has also explored this issue, not least in estimates. The history of the disputes is set out in the Appropriations and Staffing Committee annual report 2005-06, appendix 1, incorporating the committee’s 39th report, and the Appropriations and Staffing Committee annual report 2006-07, appendix 1. The committee and the then minister disagreed over the interpretation of what the committee agreed to in correspondence with the then minister in 1999, which the committee said had resulted in a significant departure from the compact of 1965.
In the report of the Finance and Public Administration Committee tabled this week on the 2007-08 additional estimates, the committee commented on a continuing lack of clarity in the portfolio additional estimates. This is some of what they had to say—and I am going to quote it in full:
1.32 A key component of the Estimates process is the examination of Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) and Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements (PAES). The relationship between Appropriation Bills and PBS or PAES is an essential aspect of the committee’s examination of the expenditure and performance of departments and agencies.
1.33 The primary function of the PAES is to assist members of parliament in the scrutiny of changes to proposed expenditure. This is clearly outlined at the beginning of each PAES:
The purpose of the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements (PAES), like that of the Portfolio Budget Statements, is to inform Senators and Members of Parliament of the proposed allocation of resources to government outcomes by agencies within the portfolio...The PAES include new measures, and summarise the changes by Appropriation Bill, and, where relevant, by Special Appropriation and Special Account.
The PAES facilitate understanding of the proposed appropriations in Appropriation Bills (Nos. 3 and 4) 2007-08. In this sense the PAES is declared by the Additional Estimates Bill to be a ‘relevant document’ to the interpretation of the Bills according to section 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
1.34 The relationship between the PAES, the PBS and relevant Budget Papers was discussed in detail in a previous report of the committee: Transparency and accountability of Commonwealth public funding and expenditure. In relation to the level of information provided in these budget documents, the committee made the following recommendation:
The committee recommends that expenditure should be reported at the levels of programs in the budget documents, including in the schedules to the Appropriation Acts.
1.35 As part of the Estimates process, the committee seeks to determine whether funding for newly established programs has been correctly allocated in Appropriation Bill No. 4 (bill no. 4), and not in Appropriation Bill No. 3 (bill no. 3) which is for the ordinary annual services of government as specified in the Compact of 1965. Disclosure of appropriations in the PAES is an important component of overall government transparency and disclosure to Parliament. For this reason, understanding the PAES is central to the Estimates process.
1.36 In scrutinising the most recent PAES of the three portfolios under the committee’s purview, insufficient information appears to have been provided, making it unclear to which appropriation bill funding for new programs had been allocated. There was little detail provided of appropriations in bill no. 4 across all portfolio areas. In many instances, such information was limited to equity injections. This may indicate that newly established programs (not considered to be ordinary annual services of government) had been inappropriately placed in bill no. 3.
1.37 Furthermore, the appropriation bills for each portfolio were highly aggregated, posing further difficulties for the committee in ascertaining whether funding had been correctly appropriated or not.
1.38 The committee has identified the following list of programs or projects that may have been inappropriately placed in bill no. 3. Because of the lack of information provided in PAES, the list below is somewhat uncertain and certainly incomplete.
Prime Minister and Cabinet
Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Reform Council ($3.57 million over four years to establish a Reform Council as part of new initiatives arising from the COAG);
Community Cabinets ($8.4 million over four years to conduct regular community cabinet meetings);
Homeland and Border Security—review ($114 000 over one year to conduct a review of homeland and border security arrangements in Australia);
Lobbyist Register—establishment ($1 million over four years to establish and maintain a register of lobbyists);
Office of National Security—establishment ($3.8 million over four years to provide coordinated and integrated whole-of-government advice on national security policy and strategic implementation oversight);
Office of Work and Family—establishment ($6.3 million over four years to provide policy coordination and advice on work and family matters);
Review of recognition for the battle of Long Tan ($161 000 over one year to meet the costs of the Independent Review Panel into Recognition for the Battle of Long Tan);
Social Inclusion Unit—establishment ($6.7 million over four years to establish the unit within the department); and
Design of the Emissions Trading Scheme ($6.3 million for the 2007–08 financial year).
That is a very long quote, but it is a very important quote. The committee has unanimously said that it is just fed up—to use my words, not theirs—with the continuing misallocation of appropriation items in the appropriation bills. This is a vital matter. The Senate does not ever want to get into a situation where it is faced with having to reject bills which cover the ordinary annual services of government. But, if governments continue to put new projects and new matters within appropriation bills, you might eventually get to a stage where the Senate majority would reject a bill—and you would have the potential for a constitutional crisis, as we had in 1975.
The treatment of budget bills is an extremely important matter constitutionally, from an accountability perspective, from a transparency perspective and from a propriety perspective. The Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration has viewed this matter as extremely serious over many years, as has the Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee. What is concerning is that the unresolved issue with the previous government is continuing with the new government, who put out as their mantra that they intend to improve this situation. And yet here the report of the Senate finance and public administration committee into the additional estimates statements, which I have just quoted from, clearly indicates that these practices carry on unchanged. Put simply, this is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the Senate from any perspective.
It is not just the Democrats who have a long history of arguing for full transparency with respect to expenditure proposals. Whenever any Senate committee has dealt with this matter they have taken a unanimous view, and that is that appropriations bills for the ordinary annual services of government need to be identifiably, transparently and absolutely distinct from appropriations bills for new projects and new expenditure. That is a cross-party opinion which has been maintained whoever the executive is. I expect that that view will continue.
This is not the sort of matter which brings people out on the streets, but it is the sort of matter which, if not resolved and attended to, can cause a great deal of trouble in due course, and it is very, very dangerous for any government to continue in this way without resolving the matter with the Senate. I would urge the new Minister for Finance and Deregulation to take personal responsibility for this matter, to personally get involved in this matter, to push aside those who may be advising him who are far too attached to past duplicities and to help the Senate resolve this matter with the executive.
I will briefly cover this issue as outlined in a report that has previously been published by the Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee. In their annual report for 2005-06 there were some expositions of the case I have just been making with respect to the ordinary annual services of the government. What they say with respect to the compact of 1965—so that it is clear what it means—is:
The classification of appropriations was the subject of an agreement between the Senate and the Government in 1965, known as the Compact of 1965. It was then agreed that appropriations for the following matters would be regarded as not part of the ordinary annual services of the government:
in other words, the one that deals with the ordinary annual services of government. The report goes on:
The agreement was subsequently confirmed by the Senate, including by a resolution of 1977 ...
… … …
The application of the Compact of 1965 was the subject of correspondence between the committee and the government, tabled in the Senate on 3 November 1988 and 4 April 1989. It was agreed that expenditure on computers, which, due to changes in technology, are no longer major items of capital equipment, and expenditure on the fitting out of buildings, should be regarded as part of the ordinary annual services subject to certain limits.
The point of quoting that, of course, is that the Senate attended to very practical details about equipment, accounting matters and precise elements with respect to appropriations. The paper provided by the committee then went on, in reference to the modifications of 1999:
In February 1999 the then Minister for Finance and Administration wrote to the President of the Senate suggesting that there should be some “modest changes”, consequent upon the impending introduction of accrual budgeting, to the Compact of 1965 between the Senate and the government on what constitutes the ordinary annual services of the government under section 53 of the Constitution.
The proposal submitted by the minister was:
It should be noted that only administered expenses (as distinct from departmental expenses) falling within “existing outcomes” would be ordinary annual services.
… … …
The minister’s proposal was referred to the committee by the President.
The committee, and the Senate by endorsing the committee’s report, agreed that:
However:
... this interpretation of the effect of the 1999 agreement was put before committee in May 2005 and endorsed by the members of the committee.
The question was again raised by ANAO ...
The point is that the Department of Finance and Deregulation and the minister disagree with the Senate’s interpretation, and the Senate’s will should prevail. Frankly, that is it. We are the representatives of the people, and our view as a house should prevail. It needs to be resolved.
I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:
At the end of the motion, add:
“, and the Senate, noting the comments in the report of the Finance and Public Administration Committee on the 2007-08 additional estimates in relation to the lack of clarity in the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements, and programs or projects that may have been inappropriately included in the appropriation bill for the ordinary annual services of the government, calls upon the government:
I also rise to speak to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2007-2008 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2007-2008. I note that within those appropriation bills there are a range of issues, including for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. I would like to gear my comments towards that particular area of policy, given it has been such a major priority of the Rudd Labor government in its first 100 days. I note that we have successfully passed the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 in this place and we are on our way to changing that system, particularly to remove the unfair impacts of AWAs but also to transition the system to one that, as people now know, looks forward with fairness.
The particular points I want to make are about the impact of Work Choices on women in areas of non-traditional employment for women and why, at a time of severe skills shortages, we have seen female workers leave non-traditional areas of work. For many years—as I know many of my Senate colleagues would know—Labor sought to alert the Howard government in their term to Australia’s developing skills shortages. The situation we have inherited in government is that of a skills crisis.
I remember, even prior to me being elected, before 1996, Labor in government had a forward-thinking policy of encouraging women into non-traditional work areas. I was familiar with this, working in the building and construction industry, and, as an organiser for the CFMEU, was often at the forefront of many of those policies being implemented in the building and construction industry. The policy changes that took place back then, however, quickly diminished when the Howard government was elected. We now find, by doing statistical analysis, that the numbers of women entering blue-collar trades over the past decade have not significantly increased. In some areas we have lost female workers from areas regarded as non-traditional for female workers. It is claimed that the Australian labour market is now the most sex-segregated amongst OECD nations.
In fact, according to an article that was published I think in late 2006 in the Business Review Weekly: ‘Women are fleeing the technical professions, but nowhere is the problem so pronounced, and the effects so widespread, as in the declining participation of women in the information and communications technology sector.’ Information technology, as everybody knows, now underpins every industry and profession. Women make up about 20 per cent of the ICT workforce but only 15 per cent of specialist roles. However, what we have observed over the last few years is that student enrolments in university information technology courses have fallen, with the major decline in enrolments being those of young women. We witnessed a 50 per cent decline in 2005. Despite convening a summit on women’s participation in ICT back in June 2005, the then minister responsible, Senator Helen Coonan, failed to address the problem with the introduction of any useful measures. Unfortunately, the Howard government’s discredited Work Choices legislation actively worked against any efforts that may have been able to be made at the time.
Studies of the participation of women in other non-traditional areas reveal similar trends. The rate of women enrolling in engineering courses fell from 20.5 per cent in 1997 to 14.2 per cent in 2004. In architecture the enrolment rates were higher, but retention rates are a problem. Less than one per cent of women achieve top positions in architectural practices. Only six per cent of engineering managers are women, only three per cent of building construction managers are women and just four per cent of mechanical engineers are women. Raising the participation rate of women in the mining industry, too, will be necessary to overcome the skills shortage that is being experienced there. Only 12 per cent of the mining workforce is female, and at the site level women represent only three per cent of the workforce, including office staff and professions. Manual strength is no longer a primary requirement for most jobs in the mining industry and it is now vital for the mining industry to seek the extra workers it needs from non-traditional backgrounds, such as female workers and Indigenous workers. I do acknowledge that many are making an effort in that regard, but I think you will see, as I make my presentation this evening, that there are some structural inequities that have been put in place by the use of AWAs in those sectors.
We have long recognised that, to attract women, companies must be prepared to provide more family-friendly conditions and facilities such as child care, flexible hours and conditions, maternity and childcare leave, and the availability of part-time work. Equal pay and opportunities for advancement are important too. There is no doubt that some of those occupations that require being isolated from towns and the sorts of places where families would like to live present an additional challenge. Although the business sector generally realises that the skills shortage has become the primary issue of concern, individual companies have been reluctant to implement these policies to attract the female workers they need. I can speak from experience again in the building and construction industry: there are chronic skills shortages, but we are not seeing the changes in behaviour across that sector as far as making workplaces more family friendly is concerned. As an example, at the managerial level and the governance level, only six per cent of mining companies have even one woman on their boards.
The problems of retention of skilled women workers in non-traditional employment were exacerbated specifically under the Howard government’s Work Choices legislation. If we had needed yet more proof of the devastating effect that Work Choices had on Australian workers, women workers and families, it was provided by the recent report from the Workplace Research Centre at the University of Sydney. The centre examined every new collective agreement in the retail and hospitality industries in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland in the first nine months after Work Choices. It found that the average pay dropped between two and 18 per cent, with the worst hit employees losing more than one-third of their salaries through so-called ‘legal’ agreements. Most AWAs removed penalty rates and overtime, increased managerial power and gave inadequate compensation for what the employees lost. The fairness test that was later introduced, in May 2007, did not apply to people already on those agreements, and in any case it did not protect many of the lost conditions, such as casual loadings, severance pay, rostered days off, minimum length of shifts and workers’ rights to control hours or changes of roster.
The study found that only 10 per cent of the agreements mentioned child care, job sharing or part-time work. Those agreements which did keep award conditions or improved on minimum standards had mostly been negotiated by unions or were in larger workplaces. But the Howard government wanted us to think that these agreements were negotiated through a one-on-one employer-employee process. The truth was that there was a growth industry of consultants and lawyers producing minimalist templates for businesses to use in order to cut wages costs. Wage-fixing arrangements established under the Work Choices legislation led to a real wage decline for most low-wage workers—that is, women, part-time and casual workers.
I have set the context of the general impact of AWAs, particularly on women workers. I will go now to studies comparing wages and conditions of AWAs and collective agreements, using Australian Bureau of Statistics wage data. These studies found that not only were women workers in female dominated areas of employment—the ones I have just described—disadvantaged under AWAs, but those in non-traditional areas suffered as well. ABS data showed that, for non-managerial employees, the most disadvantaged group appeared to be female labourers and related workers—that is, women in non-traditional areas of employment. In 2006 those women workers were being paid 26 per cent less than women on collective agreements employed in similar work: $13.40 per hour compared to $18.20 per hour for those on collective agreements. In the last 10 years the percentage of labourers and related workers who are women has decreased from 38 per cent in 1997 to 35 per cent in 2007. In employment classified as intermediate production and transport, male workers dominated in 2007, with only 13 per cent of the workforce being female—a proportion which has not changed since 1997.
Tradespersons on AWAs in 2006 were also paid less than those on collective agreements, with the shortfall for female tradespersons on AWAs being even greater than for their male counterparts. Women tradespersons on AWAs were paid 18 per cent less in 2006 than their counterparts on collective agreements—$16.80 per hour compared to $20.40 per hour for those on collective agreements—whereas male tradespersons on AWAs were paid eight per cent less than their counterparts on collective agreements—$26.50 per hour compared to $28.90 for those on collective agreements. You can see that the disparity there is far greater for women in those areas, but when they are on AWAs as well the disparity is greater still.
Data from the studies showed a widening gender gap in wages. One example was of women workers in transport and intermediate production. Those on AWAs in 2004 earned 81 per cent of the male AWA wage, whereas back in 2002 they earned 91 per cent of the male wage, so they lost 10 per cent compared to their male counterparts in a period of just two years. Over the last two years of the Howard government the gender pay gap increased by 1.4 per cent, despite a longstanding general commitment to attaining equal pay.
The bottom line with all of these statistics is that they illustrate a direct disadvantage to women working in non-traditional areas. It might seem like a lot of statistics, and I have to say it took a lot of research to analyse what data was available in order to be able to make these observations, but the disadvantage they show was being felt by women in non-traditional areas of employment. Whether talking to women in the Institution of Engineers or to women who are operating in the building and construction industry or other non-traditional areas of employment, what was found was a sense that it was getting tougher for women to survive in that environment. I have a great deal of empathy for women working in this tough environment. It is very heartening to be standing here today knowing that legislation which takes the first major step in the transition to Forward to Fairness passed this place just yesterday. We can now start dismantling the discrimination that has been occurring for women in non-traditional areas of employment.
Debate interrupted.
Order! It being 7.20 pm, I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
I rise this evening to speak in support of Prime Minister Rudd’s commitment to tackling the growing problem of homelessness around Australia. At the beginning I would like to introduce senators to the story of Ben. This is a composite story taken from the stories that are typical of long-term homeless people in our community. Ben is a 41-year-old man with a nine-year history as a rough sleeper. He was taken from his mother as an infant and placed into foster care. He went through many foster placements, boys homes and, later, juvenile detention centres. He has been involved in crime and has had periods of imprisonment. Ben has extremely challenging behaviour, which often brings him to the attention of the police. He is often verbally abusive and threatening. He is alcohol dependent and also uses amphetamines.
We are becoming familiar with the very concerning statistic that 100,000 Australians are homeless. Even more concerning is that the number of homeless people is increasing in Australia. There has been a national increase of 19.1 per cent in the number of people in primary homelessness—that is, sleeping rough—since 2001. In 2005 and 2006 at least one in every 126 Australians received assistance from the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, or SAAP, the major joint Commonwealth-state response to homelessness which incorporates a huge range of services to assist homeless people.
SAAP agencies accommodate many individuals on a daily basis—in fact, it is said amongst experts that, within the limits of their funding, government and non-government services for the homeless in Australia do a very good job of tackling the problem compared with many other countries, particularly the United States and throughout Europe. However, 2005 and 2006 data for Australia showed that more than half of the people who make a valid request for new immediate accommodation were turned away. Of those who were turned away, 74 per cent were family groups with children, 66 per cent were individuals with children and 47 per cent were individuals who were turned away from emergency accommodation. So, many people cannot get into accommodation when they are in a crisis, but many also cannot get out of temporary accommodation. Affordable accommodation, as we know, is in short supply. A common pattern for homeless people is to move between staying with friends or relatives—known as couch surfing—seeking emergency accommodation in several shelters and sleeping rough in a car or in the open. The proportion of SAAP clients exiting to independent housing and not returning within six months was 45.5 per cent in 2004-05. So this means that over half of those leaving SAAP services are moving on to continue their cycle of homelessness.
Some people think that putting money towards eliminating homelessness is expensive, but we have to consider the hidden costs of not dealing with it. Homeless people are vulnerable to becoming victims of crime, requiring repeated police responses. We know that homelessness leads to deterioration in health and the increased onset or exacerbation of mental health conditions, meaning more frequent ambulance trips to hospital and periods of hospital treatment. Homelessness leads to increased levels of crime, demanding court and jail expenses. There is also the perpetuation of the cycle of homelessness, which leads today’s homeless children to the likelihood of being tomorrow’s chronically homeless adults. Some people believe that homeless people are hopeless and troublesome and that the problem is not capable of a solution. But bold initiatives, not only overseas but also in our own backyard, are yielding exciting results and bringing people out of homelessness and in turn improving all the health, social and employment problems that go with it on a permanent basis.
So what are the initiatives that are helping to fight homelessness? In my home state of South Australia we have bucked the trend of the national 19 per cent increase in rough sleepers to a record 4.8 per cent decrease in numbers between 2001 and 2006. Ben, whose story I introduced you to at the beginning of my speech, was provided services via one of the South Australian government’s rough sleeper programs. After nine years on the streets, Ben was so isolated from the community that, when he was first visited by a worker and asked whether or not he wanted to get some help settling into housing, he politely told her where to go. In fact, it took several weeks of daily visits to Ben before he actually started to realise that these people were really serious about helping him. He had long ago stopped thinking that he had any choice other than homelessness. Several approaches have been trialled to appropriately house Ben. A comprehensive case plan addresses all areas of his life and includes a management plan for his violent behaviour and alcohol and drug taking. Over recent months Ben has had several long periods of sobriety. While Ben was initially resistant to attending day programs, more recently he has participated in activities such as the gym, weekly movies, barbecues, men’s groups and cooking class. He has started to address many of the issues of loss and grief with two of the support workers and, as a result, he has chosen to take some steps towards reconnecting with his family. Since this treatment, he has become noticeably more settled.
The Street to Home program, established in South Australia in 2004, is an assertive rough sleeper program which houses complex homeless people and then provides them with health services and other social services necessary to stay housed. This program has housed 40 of the inner city’s most chronic rough sleepers—including some people who have been sleeping rough for up to 20 years—and helped 120 rough sleepers into long-term accommodation, with a 99.5 per cent retention rate.
Anther project in South Australia that has contributed to the decrease in homelessness throughout metropolitan and regional South Australia is the Private Rental Liaison Project, which assists people who are struggling to find a house in the private rental market to find and sustain a tenancy. These might be people who have a history of difficult tenancies, those who are experiencing discrimination or those who lack basic living or budgeting skills. Since the project’s inception in May 2004, private rental liaison officers have housed over 1,400 households in accommodation in the private rental market, with a 98 per cent success rate in sustaining tenure whilst on the program and with many continuing on after exiting the program.
These success stories are certainly very, very positive, but there is a long way to go. The Rudd government knows it and is beginning the job of seriously tackling homelessness in Australia by establishing a steering committee, led by Tony Nicholson, Executive Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence. He has been given the task, with his committee, to develop a white paper by August this year on how Australia can systematically reduce homelessness over the next decade. I hope that, in the development of this white paper, the committee will attempt to build on the good work being done in our states, particularly in South Australia, and also by government and non-government organisations and the business sector. Homeless people are not a homogeneous group, so there is no one solution to the problem, but there are some general principles that are emerging as critical to the effectiveness of approaches that are reducing homelessness around the world.
No doubt it would have taken a great deal of courage for someone like Ben, the person I introduced you to during my remarks, to take what would have been a huge step of totally changing his lifestyle. But if Ben can be successful in staying in long-term housing with some assistance, then many others can also be given a hand out of homelessness and into housing stability with new opportunities to rejoin our community.
When rock singer and greenie activist Peter Garrett announced that he was standing for federal parliament as a candidate for the Australian Labor Party, a lot of people thought it was a fairly good joke, apart from the local branch people of the ALP who had another preferred candidate for Kingsford Smith in mind. Peter Garrett bravely took on the safe Labor seat of Kingsford Smith and an interesting new career in politics in 2004. He has since become the enfant terrible of the ALP and, while the new Prime Minister has felt obliged to give Mr Garrett a seat in his new cabinet, he must surely be hoping that Mr Garrett maintains a quiet profile and refrains from issuing forth with the sorts of gaffes he has recently become very well known for. After Mr Garrett’s campaign pledge to ‘just change it all’ when elected to government, we can now live in expectation of more significant and unexpected changes than his policy on plastic bags.
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of Mr Rudd’s new Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts is not only that the minister appears to have no teeth for his work but that he has become a prima donna for the photographic journalists of Australia. Back in December, it was interesting to note that, while only an irrelevant bystander to the main game at the climate change conference in Bali, Mr Garrett nevertheless managed to secure a constant flow of superficial media coverage throughout that important conference. But, unfortunately, his media opportunities were primarily photo opportunities rather than moments to be seized to pursue major issues of climate change policy for his government. The Prime Minister, along with the newly appointed Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, did the hard yards in Bali and provided the level of serious leadership one might have expected to have come from the cabinet-ranked minister for the environment. Mr Garrett’s presence in Bali was beautifully expressed by Mr Rudd when, just prior to the conference, he was asked on radio what Mr Garrett’s role would be in Bali. His reply was:
When I go to Bali, I’ll be there. Penny Wong as the principal negotiator will be there and Peter Garrett will be attending as well.
‘Attending as well’, indeed—but seemingly mainly for photo opportunities.
Following Mr Garrett being gagged in Bali, it was announced that, even though he is a cabinet minister—and minister for the environment at that—he was not to be allowed to answer climate change questions in the House of Representatives on behalf of the talented Senator Wong. Just in case he didn’t have enough on his plate as Treasurer, Mr Swan was dumped with the additional work of responding to climate change questions ahead of the minister for the environment. What an embarrassment for poor Mr Garrett. In actual fact, I have heard that Mr Garrett is allowed to answer some easy questions instead of Mr Swan nowadays, so maybe the climate change gag at least has been unofficially removed.
You might ask why I have risen to speak about Mr Garrett. I am no fan of rock music, but what really concerned me was his attitude towards my colleague, the former and respected President of the Senate, Paul Calvert. What happened to Paul Calvert? He was left off the invitation list for the first Antarctic flight by the CSIRO Antarctic Division’s Airbus to Wilkins base in January. Not only was Mr Calvert left off the invitation list but, when the great Mr Garrett got down there, he did not even recognise his work. Instead it was a wonderful opportunity for a photo beside that large aeroplane.
I remind the Senate that Paul Calvert was the major mover in this parliament to encourage this new and productive service. While Mr Garrett may have benefited from the work of his predecessors in the previous government, his failure to extend an invitation to Paul Calvert to join the first flight was, I believe, an act of discourtesy. That is why I felt I had to look into what goes on behind the facade of this minister for the environment. But, then again, it may have risked the amount of media attention given to Mr Garrett on that occasion in the Antarctic. Journalists may have even asked Paul Calvert some questions and therefore diverted the glory from Mr Garrett. Better to leave Paul Calvert at home to avoid such problems.
Equally discourteous was Mr Garrett’s refusal to recognise the contribution of his predecessor as environment minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who was instrumental in getting Bondi Beach nominated for National Heritage listing. Apart from not recognising Mr Turnbull’s presence and contribution towards the Bondi listing, when he was specifically asked by the media whether he would like to make a tribute to Mr Turnbull’s part in the process, Mr Garrett, as discourteous as ever, refused to do so. In a rather more conciliatory mood, Mr Turnbull kindly forgave Mr Garrett’s rudeness by admitting that, ‘Governments don’t often want to give a lot of air time to the opposition.’ Again, it was Mr Garrett’s photo which appeared in the Australian newspaper the following day, bestriding Bondi Beach and accepting all the glory.
In recent weeks, the Australian arts community has been shocked by the announcement that Mr Rudd’s razor gang will slash arts funding. In opposition, Mr Garrett loudly urged for more funding for Australian artists and music. With his background, it is fair enough that he would support his mates in the music industry. Sadly, one of his first actions as the minister for the arts has been to fail to defend the funding to Australian artists and music.
Finally, Mr Garrett was again rolled by Mr Rudd over the decision by the Bureau of Meteorology to abide by cost-cutting measures. After widespread outrage at the announcement of the closure of eight regional weather bureau offices, including the vital office in my home town of Launceston, the Prime Minister hung his minister responsible, Mr Garrett, out to dry and backflipped by saying that the bureau had now been instructed not to close any of the offices. We will monitor the future proceedings with interest and hope that the common courtesy of some recognition from a minister in such a responsible role as Mr Garrett’s will be given, especially to those who pioneered some great initiatives here in Australia. I thank the Senate.
Two-and-a-half years ago I stood here as Family First’s inaugural senator to explain why there was a need for a political party in Australia called Family First. We all know that big business has a voice in parliament, we all know that the unions have a voice in parliament and we all know that the environment has a voice in parliament, but ordinary Australians, their families and small businesses do not have a strong voice in parliament. We also know that the two major parties say they put ordinary Australian families as their top priority, but all too often they do not. That is why today the need for a political party called Family First is even greater. Family First is the only party fair dinkum about making life easier for ordinary Australians.
In my first speech to parliament I spoke about workers struggling to balance their paid work and their family life. I spoke about the loss of the model of the eight-hour day—eight hours of work, eight hours of rest and eight hours of family and community time. I spoke about the tragedy of relationship and marriage breakdown. I warned that often what are sold to the community as family-friendly policies by the two major parties are really market-friendly policies and that the market values of choice, competition and consumerism are in conflict with family and community. Over the last 2½ years Family First has been working hard for Australian families. I am now almost halfway through my term and I wanted to reflect on that struggle for cultural change from a market-driven focus to a family driven focus.
Australia’s future depends on ordinary Australian mums and dads raising the next generation of Australians. Parents are responsible for shaping and nurturing a nation. It is from within the context of family that our children learn right from wrong, how to get along with others, what a good work ethic is and how to navigate their way through life. The fact is that the strength and resilience of any nation is determined by the strength and resilience of its families, yet I think we forget too easily, in the bustle of daily life, just how fragile families can be. We can forget how much time parents need to be successful at raising the next generation for Australia.
It is important, wherever possible, to have at least one parent working in every family. That is why Family First supported the previous government’s Welfare to Work legislation—because children from low-income households suffer, both materially and in their future chances of earning a decent income for themselves and their kids, as a result of not having a parent in employment. Jobless families report more hardships than families with an income. However, Family First is still concerned about and wants changes to the payment for single parents to ensure they are no worse off under these changes and is also concerned about and wants changes to the harshness of the penalties for breaches.
As a country we should be using economic policy to help ordinary Australian families get what they need, not working families harder to serve the economy. Family First has long been concerned that there are not adequate safeguards in place to help protect family time from the time demands of work. Overtime and penalty rates were introduced to help achieve the eight-hour day. They were intended to discourage employers from employing workers for more than eight hours a day. They were not introduced to reward workers for working longer or antisocial hours. Working long hours is good for the market, working on weekends is good for the market and having temporary work also suits the market, but none of this suits the family, which is why family life is under threat.
Family First were in fact one of the first to expose the holes in the Howard government’s Work Choices laws, because we understood the effect that Work Choices would have on ordinary Australians and their families. Family First voted against Work Choices and went a step further and introduced legislation to give back to workers and their families the penalty rates and other basic working conditions that the Howard government had taken away.
Right now, Family First is concerned that penalty rates are not part of the Rudd government’s proposed 10 minimum National Employment Standards. This means that conditions such as overtime, penalty rates for working weekends and antifamily hours, along with meal breaks and rest breaks, can be traded away for more money. Penalty rates are about family time, not about money. They were never intended to be traded away for dollars. Once again, Family First is standing in the gap for ordinary Australian workers and their families who have lost their voice to the politics of the major parties.
But beside the pressures of time and work, families are facing increasing financial pressures. Things like soaring petrol prices, inflation and interest rates, and rocketing grocery prices are squeezing families and making it very difficult to make ends meet. That is why Family First has been focused on these sorts of issues from day one. Here are just a few of the key policies that Family First has been pursuing to make life easier for ordinary Australians and their families: stopping the banks from charging outrageous bank penalty fees; cutting petrol prices through a national FuelWatch scheme; working towards a cleaner environment by introducing a national recycling scheme that refunds 5c or 10c on drink containers, like in South Australia; tackling the pokies plague by getting pokies out of local pubs and clubs and allowing them only in dedicated gambling venues like race tracks and casinos; addressing the alcohol toll by having information labels on alcohol products and restricting TV advertising; lowering grocery prices by outlawing predatory pricing and strengthening competition laws; and putting downward pressure on interest rates and inflation by cutting petrol tax by 10c a litre.
Family First is constantly calling for action on practical policies that will make a real and meaningful difference in the lives of ordinary Australians and their families. Let me now discuss some of these key policies in more detail. I will start with lower petrol prices. For more than two years Family First has been calling on successive federal governments to cut the petrol tax by 10c a litre. It is crazy to think that the government is happy to rip more than 50c a litre in petrol tax from families while at the same time saying there is nothing it can do about higher petrol prices. Families are being squeezed. Interest rate rises and high petrol prices hit families who can least afford them. And with Easter just around the corner, petrol prices are tipped to climb towards $1.50 a litre. Cutting petrol tax does two things. Firstly, it puts downward pressure on inflation, because higher petrol prices feed through the entire economy and put direct upward pressure on inflation. Secondly, cutting petrol tax helps families to make ends meet. Petrol prices and inflation driven interest rates are two of the biggest impacts on family budgets.
Family First has also been calling on the government for additional powers to be given to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission head, Graeme Samuel, in order to stop once and for all possible petrol price gouging. Family First also wants to save families a massive $300 million a year at the bowser by adopting a national FuelWatch scheme. An Australian Competition and Consumer Commission analysis published in its Petrol prices and Australian consumers report in December last year found that motorists in Western Australia have saved 2c a litre from the Western Australian FuelWatch scheme. Under FuelWatch, petrol retailers have to notify consumers of their pump prices a day in advance and keep prices constant for a 24-hour period. They are also required to publicise the price of petrol on a website and in the media. Any reduction in petrol prices will make it easier for ordinary Australian families struggling to make ends meet.
Family First has also taken on the fight for Australian families with the banks. Family First introduced legislation to the Senate in February to stop outrageous bank penalty fees being charged for things like dishonour fees and ensuring penalty fees are for cost recovery only. It is appalling that banks can charge penalty fees that one study found were up to 16 times the cost of processing dishonoured cheques and 92 times the cost of processing dishonoured direct debit transactions. Banks refund many of these fees when challenged by customers, so they know they are in the wrong. Looking at the clock, I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my speech in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The remainder of the speech read as follows—
Family First’s bank penalty fee bill has incorporated expert advice from the Law Council, Choice and the Consumer Action Law Centre.
The new Rudd Government has a chance to get tough with Australia’s banks by supporting Family First’s proposed laws that would stop banks ripping off ordinary Australians. Family First has called for and gained a Senate inquiry into this legislation.
The Alcohol Toll
Family First has been calling for urgent action to tackle Australia’s $15.3 billion alcohol toll. The alcohol toll is a huge issue that Family First identified over a year ago. As a nation we have tackled our road toll, our drug toll and our tobacco toll with success. Family First believes it is now time to get tough on binge drinking.
The Australian National Council on Drugs report found that one in 10, or more than 30,000, 15 year olds binge drink every week and one in five teenagers, 16 and 17 years old, binge drink every week. And almost half a million children live in a home where one adult binge drinks.
As far back as September last year, after several discussions with both the then Prime Minister Howard and opposition leader Kevin Rudd urging them to take action, Family First took the initiative and introduced legislation into the Senate to tackle the binge drinking culture which is damaging generations of Australians.
Family First’s Alcohol Toll Reduction Bill 2007 would require health information labels on all alcohol products. It would ensure all alcohol advertising is pre-approved by a government body, that television alcohol advertising runs after 9pm and that ads should not link drinking to personal, business, social, sporting, sexual or other success.
Family First’s Alcohol Toll Reduction Bill 2007 has now been referred to a Senate Inquiry, which will for the first time enable ordinary Australians to have their say on the country’s alcohol problem.
In addition to introducing this legislation, Family First was the first party to call for a commitment by the Government in this years budget to an additional $25 million over the next five years on new high impact shock ads similar to the grim reaper ads, to form part of a TV alcohol education campaign to counter binge drinking and help develop a new responsible drinking culture.
At the time of last year’s federal budget, Family First was calling for more money to be spent to tackle the alcohol toll. Family First will continue to tackle the alcohol toll on behalf of ordinary Australians.
Poker Machines
Another huge concern for ordinary Australians is the pokies plague and the enormous damage it causes many Australians.
The statistics on poker machines show the extent of the problem:
Despite both the Prime Minister and the opposition leader’s public statements of concern over the impact of poker machines on families, neither party has taken decisive action.
Without federal intervention policy paralysis at the state level will continue. That’s why Family First introduced the Poker Machine Harm Reduction Tax (Administration) Bill 2008.
Family First is not afraid to tackle the poker machine gaming giants and the gambling addicted state governments who are incapable of weaning themselves off poker machine taxes.
Family First’s bill will introduce a new federal tax on poker machines in pubs and clubs to push pokies out of these community venues and restrict then to casinos and racetracks, which are dedicated gambling venues. The tax will be phased in over a number of years to allow businesses to wean themselves off pokie profits. A trust fund will use the tax revenue to help community and sports groups in this transition.
Family First’s bill has been sent to a Senate Committee for an inquiry. This is a major victory for ordinary Australians who can now comment on these proposed laws and document the impact of poker machine addiction.
Drink Container Recycling Scheme
Last week, Family First tackled a major environmental issue by introducing laws for a national “cash for trash” recycling scheme in response to state governments poor record on recycling. The Drink Container Recycling Bill 2008 is similar to the container deposit scheme operating in South Australia where there is currently a 5c container deposit redeemed when the container is returned for recycling. The South Australian government have just announced that this will increase to a 10c refund.
South Australia is leading the way with container recycling at up to 85 per cent, while the other states are at an appalling recycling rate of 35 per cent. A national container deposit scheme makes sense—it’s a win for the environment and a big win for the community.
It is a win for the environment because we end up with 25 percent less litter on our streets and in our waterways and half a million less tonnes of waste every year as we will see the container recycling rates lifted.
It is also a win for the community with a cleaner looking environment and local community groups and kids can earn some extra cash while keeping Australia beautiful. Last year in South Australia the Scouts earned $7 million from container recycling.
A national container deposit scheme would recycle an extra half a million tonnes of waste every year and save the average family $30 every year on kerbside recycling as well as creating 2,000 new jobs.
Changing Australia’s binge drinking culture to a healthy drinking culture, moving poker machines out of the suburbs and restricting them to casinos and racetracks, introducing a national container deposit scheme to cut down on litter in our parks and waterways and making sure banks cannot charge outrageous bank penalty fees are all examples of how Family First is making it easier for ordinary Australians.
Family First’s practical policies are about changing our political culture to be more in tune with the needs of ordinary Australian families and small businesses, rather than being in tune with the more dominant discussions about the needs of the economy. These are the sorts of policies Family First will continue to pursue in the lead up to the next election.
And this is why there is still a great need for a party called Family First in Australia, to make life easier for ordinary Australians and to give them a strong voice in parliament.
I felt moved to speak in the chamber today about health in general and developments in health in my home state of Tasmania in particular. Health is an important issue for many Tasmanians, and in recent times, with issues such as the election driven takeover of the Mersey hospital by the previous government, as well as the assorted problems with regard to funding, it is more important than ever. Tasmanians have the highest incidence of heart disease and diabetes in Australia, so proper funding of health is a priority.
The health system in Tasmania did struggle for funding under the previous Liberal Howard government for many reasons. The coalition knows full well that the previous government ripped $1 billion out of the public hospital system—$1 billion! But we have Senator Barnett coming in here and attacking us over health—dropping bombs and trying to take the populist line in his home state of Tasmania—when in fact the coalition had 11½ very long years to do something about this and set the long-term agenda for resolving some of the health issues that we are facing in this country. It is quite unbelievable that they come into this chamber and lecture us regularly.
The Rudd Labor government is working towards achieving better outcomes for Australians. We are about stopping the blame game and seeking those long-term solutions that Australian families deserve.
Senator Abetz interjecting—
I can assure the chamber and Senator Abetz that we certainly will not be ripping $1 billion out of the health system. We are taking these problems seriously. In the first three months of the government, the federal health minister has met four times with her state colleagues to negotiate health reform. That is already double the number of times that the previous minister met with state health ministers in a whole year. That is how serious and how determined the Rudd Labor government is about finding long-term solutions.
Only recently the Prime Minister was in Launceston to commit to the $15 million Launceston Integrated Care Centre and to talk to healthcare professionals from the Launceston General Hospital. That is an election promise that we delivered on, just as we intend to deliver on all of our election promises. We do not do ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ promises; we just deliver on what we have promised. A nice change from the previous government, and one I am sure that the Australian public have already noted.
May I remind the chamber that this $15 million commitment was just part of the federal Labor government’s $50 million commitment to the Tasmanian health system. The integrated care centre that the federal government has committed to in Launceston will give the best possible outcomes for local families. It will utilise professionals working together in a team environment, linking hospitals, community health services and doctors. It will provide a range of services to the northern region, including mental health, outpatient chemotherapy, and allied health services such as physiotherapy and podiatry.
While I am on the topic of health funding, may I congratulate the state Labor government for just yesterday announcing a further $6 million in funding for northern Tasmanian health services. As a resident of Launceston, this is certainly pleasing news. I know the Launceston community and northern Tasmanians in general will be very pleased with this outcome. This money will go towards a number of new initiatives, including $2 million to set up a wireless communications platform within the Launceston General Hospital, $3.5 million to meet the current year costs of the natural gas conversion project and $500,000 for the purchase of medical equipment. This equipment includes a new cryostat machine to assist in the diagnosis of samples to detect breast cancer. For regional areas, this includes cardiac monitors for Flinders Island and Cape Barren Island, $8,000 for an ECG machine at Deloraine hospital and $10,000 for a new patient lift at Beaconsfield.
The implementation of a wireless platform in the Launceston General Hospital is a move to be commended. It allows doctors to use their laptops to access information at all points within the hospital with regard to the diagnosis and treatment of patients. This is a fantastic example of how technology can be used to provide better outcomes for patients and should be applauded. The natural gas conversion plan is also a scheme that should be lauded. The new equipment will take over from older appliances that utilise LPG. The natural gas powered cogeneration plant will enable the Launceston General Hospital to generate up to 80 per cent of its own energy needs.
The Labor government has committed to a range of initiatives not just for northern Tasmanians but for all Tasmanians. The GP super clinics that we intend to build in Devonport, Burnie, Bellerive and Sorell are a case in point. Not only that, but the federal Minister for Ageing, the Hon. Justine Elliot, has only just recently announced 62 new aged care places and $2.6 million in capital works on aged-care facilities in Tasmania across both Lyons and Bass—a testament to the representations of the local members of parliament, the Hon. Dick Adams and Jodie Campbell, and the sterling work they have been doing for their electorates. The provision of adequate numbers of aged-care beds is a very important starting point, especially when we consider the increasing proportion of the Tasmanian population that can be considered aged.
Senator Parry interjecting—
Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I remind my Tasmanian colleagues that they had 11½ years and did none of this. The recent ABS statistics regarding population demographics in Australia showed that Tasmania’s elderly population as a proportion of total population is increasing. In early January, the Rudd Labor government, working with the state government, put forward $8 million to deliver an additional 895 elective surgery procedures and to help bring down the elective surgery waiting lists. This was part of a total $150 million that was given to all the states to help over 25,000 patients statewide. Again, Senator Barnett, I ask why the previous government did not take such an obvious step to alleviate pressure on hospital waiting lists.
As part of this commitment the states were given strict reporting requirements to ensure that the money was being effectively used. To take our election health commitments further, we committed $3.5 million for a state-of-the-art PET scanner for the state. This is something that I am extremely proud of, as I and my colleagues lobbied for the PET scanner in Tasmania over a long period of time. My time on the community affairs committee means that I am well aware of the benefits of PET scans, and I am glad that this service will be easily available to my fellow Tasmanians. Having one in Tasmania will cut down on costly visits to Melbourne to have patients’ illnesses diagnosed, and hopefully it will ensure that Tasmanians are not put through unnecessary operating procedures due to lack of diagnostic tools.
I do not usually like singling out any one person, but I must point out the contribution of Dr Robert Ware to the cause of PET in Tasmania. Dr Ware has worked tirelessly towards this end and his efforts deserve to be recognised. In addition to PET, we are extending Medicare eligibility to the MRI scanners at Launceston and the north-west coast. This is another initiative that will allow Tasmanians greater access to diagnostic services—services that can be life saving. And while I have the opportunity, I would also like to congratulate Dr Stephen Ayre for his stewardship of the Launceston General Hospital. Dr Ayre is moving on to new challenges and I wish him well.
To sum up, I think that it is obvious to all of us that the federal Labor government has made a large-scale commitment to the future of the Tasmanian health system. Fifty million dollars worth of investment and state-of-the-art medical services such as PET are all things that the Howard Government failed to provide in its time in office. I call on all of my Tasmanian Senate colleagues to support the federal government’s initiative in providing better outcomes for my home state of Tasmania.
The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended:
Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 July to 31 December 2007—Statements of compliance—
Attorney-General’s portfolio agencies.
Defence.
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 20 June 2001, as amended:
Departmental and agency contracts for 2007—Letter of advice—Veterans’ Affairs portfolio agencies.
The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:
[Legislative instruments are identified by a Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (FRLI) number]
Christmas Island Act—List of applied Western Australian Acts for the period 16 September to 15 March 2007.
Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act—List of applied Western Australian Acts for the period 16 September 2007 to 15 March 2008.
Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Safety Regulations—Airworthiness Directives—Part—
105—
AD/BEECH 33/28—Elevator Control Push Rods [F2008L00744]*.
AD/BEECH 200/28—Forward R.H. Cabin Service Panel Retainer [F2008L00755]*.
AD/BEECH 200/29 Amdt 1—Fuselage Avionics Compartment Floor [F2008L00754]*.
AD/BEECH 200/44 Amdt 1—Rear Fuselage, Stabilisers and Fin Sealing and Draining [F2008L00750]*.
AD/CESSNA 210/7—Elevator Tab Actuator – Modification [F2008L00741]*.
AD/CESSNA 210/25—Main Gear Wheel Assemblies – Modification [F2008L00740]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/7—Right Front Seat Back – Installation of Stop [F2008L00738]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/14—Fin Spar Attachment Bolts – Inspection [F2008L00737]*.
AD/DH 60/8—Streamline Wires [F2008L00735]*.
AD/DH 82/14—Streamline Wires [F2008L00734]*.
AD/ERJ-190/1—Air Data Smart Probes [F2008L00789]*.
AD/ERJ-190/2—Full Authority Digital Engine Control Software [F2008L00788]*.
AD/ERJ-190/3—Flight Guidance Control System [F2008L00790]*.
AD/IAI-W/9 Amdt 3—Horizontal Stabiliser Rear Spar Splice Fitting [F2008L00725]*.
AD/TBM 700/34 Amdt 1—Pilot Seat & Front Passenger Seat [F2008L00718]*.
107—
AD/PARA/12 Amdt 1—Parachutes de France – Emergency Parachutes [F2008L00722]*.
AD/PARA/16 Amdt 2—Techno 240-B Reserve Parachute [F2008L00721]*.
Customs Act—Tariff Concession Orders—
0719750 [F2008L00677]*.
0719767 [F2008L00674]*.
0720053 [F2008L00675]*.
0720068 [F2008L00683]*.
0720095 [F2008L00673]*.
0720374 [F2008L00676]*.
0720913 [F2008L00682]*.
0720931 [F2008L00680]*.
Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act—Explanatory statement and Financial Sector (Collection of Data) (Reporting Standard) Determinations Nos—
49 of 2008—Reporting standard ARS 391.0 Commercial Finance [F2008L00514].
50 of 2008—Reporting standard ARS 392.0 Housing Finance [F2008L00516].
51 of 2008—Reporting standard ARS 393.0 Lease Finance [F2008L00518].
55 of 2008—Reporting standard RRS 320.0 Statement of Financial Position [F2008L00522].
Higher Education Support Act—Funding Agreements under section 30-25, in respect of grant years—
2007, dated—
19 October 2007—The Australian National University.
17 December 2007—
Australian Maritime College.
Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education.
Central Queensland University.
Charles Darwin University.
Curtin University of Technology.
Edith Cowan University.
Griffith University.
James Cook University.
La Trobe University.
Macquarie University.
Murdoch University.
Southern Cross University.
The University of New England.
The University of Queensland.
University of Ballarat.
University of Canberra.
University of Southern Queensland.
2008, dated—
9 November 2007—University of South Australia.
13 November 2007—
Australian Catholic University.
Curtin University of Technology.
Monash University.
The Flinders University of South Australia.
15 November 2007—La Trobe University.
19 November 2007—Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education.
30 November 2007—Queensland University of Technology.
10 December 2007—
Macquarie University.
Southern Cross University.
The University of Notre Dame Australia.
19 December 2007—Edith Cowan University.
29 January 2008—La Trobe University.
2008, 2009 and 2010, dated—
18 October 2007—
Murdoch University.
University of Canberra.
19 October 2007—The Australian National University.
29 October 2007—The University of New South Wales.
31 October 2007—The University of Melbourne.
7 November 2007—
The University of Western Australia.
University of Technology, Sydney.
12 November 2007—Charles Sturt University.
20 November 2007—
University of Wollongong.
Victoria University.
23 November 2007—
The University of Queensland.
University of Western Sydney.
26 November 2007—
Deakin University.
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
Tabor College Adelaide.
University of Newcastle.
30 November 2007—
Christian Heritage College.
Swinburne University of Technology.
Tabor College Victoria.
The University of Adelaide.
University of the Sunshine Coast.
University of Tasmania.
10 December 2007—
Avondale College.
Charles Darwin University.
The University of Sydney.
University of Ballarat.
University of Southern Queensland.
13 December 2007—James Cook University.
14 December 2007—
Griffith University.
University of New England.
19 December 2007—Central Queensland University.
Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation Report 03/08 [12 dispensations].
* Explanatory statement tabled with legislative instrument.
The following government documents were tabled:
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Telstra’s compliance with the price control arrangements—Report for the period 1 January 2006 to 30 June 2007.
Medical Indemnity Act 2002Costs of the Australian Government’s run-off cover scheme for medical indemnity insurers—Report for 2006-07.
Regional Forest Agreements between the Commonwealth of Australia and New South Wales—Reports on implementation—
Eden Region—
2002-03.
2003-04.
North East Region—
2002-03.
2003-04.
Southern Region—
2002-03.
2003-04.
Telecommunications Act 1997Funding of research and consumer representation in relation to telecommunications—Report for 2006-07.
Treaties—List of multilateral treaty actions under negotiation, consideration or review by the Australian Government as at March 2008.