2008-05-14
41
1
2
REPS
0
0
2008-05-14
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers.
SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ONE-OFF PAYMENTS AND OTHER BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2008
2623
Bills
R2978
First Reading
2623
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Macklin.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
2623
2623
09:01:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
0
Ms MACKLIN
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill delivers on the government’s commitment to make bonus payments to carers and seniors in 2008.
Seniors and carers will also be among the beneficiaries of a further measure in this bill, which will introduce a limited non-cancellation period for holders of concession cards, allowing people to keep their cards during short-term absences from Australia.
The government values the role and contribution of carers, who make enormous personal sacrifices through their selflessness and hard work. Our senior Australians, through a lifetime of effort, have laid the foundations of the prosperous nation we all have the privilege of calling home.
The government understands that the rising cost of living is putting many Australians, especially seniors and carers, under increasing financial pressure. The government’s commitment to providing the bonus payments to carers and seniors is a modest measure to relieve some of this financial pressure.
A range of other measures introduced in the government’s first budget are also designed to address these cost-of-living pressures. These include increased financial support, better services and responsible economic management, which is addressing the challenge of rising inflation.
Bonuses for 2008 will be paid before the end of the financial year, and with no need for a claim. As well as being tax free, the bonuses will not count as income for social security, veterans’ entitlements or family assistance purposes.
The first of the 2008 bonus payments provided by this bill is for older Australians. Around 2.7 million older Australians will receive the 2008 bonus payment. A one-off payment of $500 will go to each person of pension age, or veterans’ qualifying age, who is receiving an income support payment on 13 May 2008. The same $500 payment will go to recipients at that date of mature age, partner or widow allowance, or wife or widow B pension.
Older Australians not actually receiving the relevant payment on that date will still get the bonus if they had claimed the payment by that date and later have their payment backdated to cover that date.
Self-funded retirees qualified for seniors concession allowance on 13 May 2008 will also get the 2008 bonus of $500. The bonus will also go to people who are notionally qualified for seniors concession allowance on that date because they had claimed by that date a seniors health card and were later established as eligible for the card on that date.
The second of the 2008 bonus payments is for carers. Carers receiving carer income support on 13 May 2008 in the form of a social security carer payment or carer service pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act will be paid a $1,000 one-off payment. Carers who receive the non-means-tested social security income supplement known as carer allowance in addition to either wife pension or partner service pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act will also be paid a $1,000 one-off payment. Any carer receiving carer allowance will be paid a separate $600 one-off payment for each eligible care receiver. Carers who have claimed the targeted payments on or shortly before 13 May 2008 and are subsequently granted those payments—with effect from 13 May 2008 or earlier—will receive the one-off payments.
Carers who claim carer allowance after 13 May 2008 and whose payment is backdated due to the application of the carer allowance backdating provisions will not be eligible for the bonus payment, even though the backdated period will have included payment for 13 May 2008.
The second major measure the bill introduces is a limited non-cancellation period for social security or veterans’ entitlements concession cards while the cardholder is overseas. This means that cards will generally remain valid for up to 13 weeks, should cardholders leave Australia, which will make things easier both for cardholders and for Centrelink.
The new non-cancellation period will apply to the pensioner concession card, the Commonwealth seniors health card and the health care cards that have previously had no provisions allowing overseas travel.
At present card holders must be in Australia to retain their card, and so if they leave Australia on holiday their card must be cancelled even if they leave for a short period and even if the card has been automatically issued because it is linked to a primary income support payment that is portable during their trip.
While the card is generally not usable overseas, there are distinct benefits in keeping the card valid during short periods of absence. Firstly, people will not have to go to the trouble and delay of reclaiming cards on their return, significantly reducing administrative costs and inefficiencies involved in cancelling and reissuing cards within short time frames.
Secondly, people will have the chance to use their cards right up to the day of leaving Australia and immediately after they return, especially to buy pharmaceuticals they may need.
Thirdly, the risk and confusion of having cancelled cards in circulation, often duplicating cards reissued later, will be considerably reduced.
The new rules, allowing cards to remain valid for up to 13 weeks after the person leaves Australia, subject to any portability restrictions on the primary income support payment to which the card may be linked, will also apply to a card that is issued during the person’s absence because their payment or card claim is determined during the absence.
The new non-cancellation-of-cards rules will apply from 1 July 2008, making a significant improvement in concession card arrangements for all concerned. I commend the bill to the House.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I understand it is the wish of the House to grant leave for the debate to be resumed at a later hour this day. If there is no objection I will allow that course.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—As the relevant shadow minister in this area I must say I have not been informed of that arrangement but I am, nonetheless, very concerned that any benefit accrue to veterans and therefore will agree to it.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop) adjourned.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2008 MEASURES NO. 2) BILL 2008
2625
Bills
R2957
Second Reading
2625
Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Mr Swan:
That this bill be now read a second time.
2625
09:10:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
1
0
Mr DANBY
—As I was saying before I interrupted myself yesterday, I particularly want to focus on schedule 6 of Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008, which amends the Income Tax Assessment Act of 1997 to update the list of deductible gift recipients. There are a number of worthy organisations that the Assistant Treasurer had identified in schedule 6. Schedule 6 allows deductions for gifts to the Council for Jewish Community Security from 10 August 2007. I want to focus on that area in particular, because I have long identified this area as a problem for a minority in Australia, but it is a serious problem.
The Council of Jewish Community Security was established to assist the provision of security and protection for members and institutions of Australia’s 120,000-member Australian Jewish community. Government members—and, I believe, the opposition—have long supported this measure and wished these organisations well, in concert with what we believe to be the way forward in terms of security measures for schools—Labor’s school security program: a policy that we took to the 2007 election. I am very pleased that the Minister for Education, the Deputy Prime Minister, has been so hard to the task with that particular funding proposal.
It began on 10 August 2007 when the then shadow minister for education announced that Labor would provide funding of up to $20 million for special security needs for schools that are assessed to be at risk, whether they are public or private, religious or secular. In January the Deputy Prime Minister, in her capacity as education minister, reaffirmed the government’s commitment to ensuring the safety of these schools. The government has long been aware that Australian Jewish community schools are in a range of at-risk religious, ethnic and secular schools and are forced to maintain often elaborate and very costly security measures above and beyond those of other schools to guarantee the safety of their students. Hitherto these schools have received no Commonwealth funding for these measures. Often these expenses act as a significant drain on the capacity of these schools to devote resources to educational pursuits. Some of the families I introduced the shadow minister for education to last year before the election were large. We went to one school where the two little girls we met both came from families of 14 and 15. The problem of having to pay security costs constitutes an unfair impost, on top of school fees, to pay for security costs per student simply because the students, owing to an accident of birth, are deemed at risk. In my view, and the government’s view, this is grossly unfair.
I want to emphasise that these schools and institutions are not at risk from normal violence and that they are not at risk, as are some schools, from normal vandalism—if we can use the expression ‘normal’. But, as I mentioned on the Sunday program that I participated in some years ago, the schools face a national security risk that is equivalent to the risks faced by some embassies. While the government’s policy of providing direct assistance to these schools is a more holistic approach than the policy of the previous government—and it is one that I have campaigned for for more than a decade—the policy of providing a deduction gift recipient status for the Council of Jewish Community Security is also a step in the right direction. It is a complementary step that the government can and has taken to meet this burden. This should encourage people to lend a helping hand to this worthy activity.
I want to pay tribute in particular to the professional but very dedicated security people who look after all of these institutions. If one went to a synagogue or a Jewish community centre at any time one would see that these people from the community security group provide security and coordination with the various appropriate police forces. I cannot mention them by name, because that might jeopardise their security, but Gavin and the other people who are responsible for this very serious task are owed great credit. Any responsible reasonable measure which helps ensure the wellbeing of schoolkids of any colour or creed is to be commended. This measure makes it easier for members of the Australian Jewish community to donate to causes that aid the provision of safe education and the safe operation of the institutions.
It is a positive development, especially for those who until now have had to dig very deep simply to have their children or their institutions operate in safety and in accordance with their religious beliefs. In the often quoted words of Edmund Burke, ‘All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ With this measure, the men and women of this parliament are showing their commitment to those who ensure that the potential for evil to target minority in this country will not prevail, and ensuring that they can continue to be supported through measures that increase the tax effectiveness of community members supporting such initiatives.
I want to pay tribute in particular to two gentlemen in Melbourne who I am very aware of. For years they have shouldered the task of making sure that these security organisations have enough to protect the various institutions: Mr Roy Tashi and Mr David Smorgon. They, in particular, have led this vital work. I do not normally praise journalists. People know that I have a very sceptical attitude to people like old ‘Scissorhands’ who sits up there in the press gallery, but I do want to identify Mr John Lyons, the former executive producer of the Sunday program and formerly of the Sydney Morning Herald. He decided to take this issue up as a personal investigation and I believe sparked the interest of a large number of my colleagues in the House, both on this side and on the now opposition side, in this issue. That has actually led to this change in legislation.
I am proud to be part of a government that takes a holistic approach to this problem of the security of a minority of Australians—the serious, non-partisan identification by this House of organisations that are a risk to all Australians; the 13 organisations that are so comprehensively looked at by the intelligence committee and then reported back to this parliament and dealt with in a non-partisan way. They are not dealt with by the Attorney-General as a matter of fiat; the whole parliament takes this thing very seriously, together with the security measures for schools and expenditure that the education minister has undertaken. This item in schedule 16 means that people who are Australian citizens can, like all other Australian citizens, attend their institutions and schools with some degree of understanding that their safety will be protected, as with other Australians. I commend this bill and this schedule to the House.
2626
09:17:00
Morrison, Scott, MP
E3L
Cook
LP
0
0
Mr MORRISON
—I also wish to address my remarks on this bill to schedule 6. This amends the list of deductible gift recipients in the tax act to assist listed organisations attract public support for their activities. The inclusion of these new organisations as part of this bill is an initiative of the previous government, and I am pleased to support these measures. I commend all of those organisations listed, and those to whom the matter is extended, for the work they do in our community. More generally, we debate this bill today during National Volunteers Week. The combination of these events presents an important opportunity to reflect on the status of our not-for-profit sector, their contributors and volunteers and the important role they play in our community at a global, national and local level.
Australia is a strong and prosperous country. We have also demonstrated our ability to be a very generous country. In my own electorate of Cook, in Sydney’s Sutherland shire, we have a proud record of volunteering and support for community organisations. My predecessor, the Hon. Bruce Baird, would often quote the statistic that there were more volunteers for the Sydney Olympics from the Sutherland Shire than from any other part of Australia. Our challenge as a nation is to see our generosity rise to a new level. We are living in a post-prosperity world, and this is the result of our success. On this side of politics, economic questions have never been a passing interest. The management of our economy has always been core business for the coalition. Our commitment to economic policy and reform has fuelled the policy visions of generations of Liberals, and the fulfilment of these policies, most significantly by the Howard-Costello government, has played a central role in the prosperity we enjoy today.
A by-product of this success, however, has been that economic prosperity is no longer seen by new generations of Australians as an end in its own right. The question being asked by these new generations is, ‘What is our prosperity for?’ In responding, we must be careful to prevent complacency returning to economic management. Prosperity can never be taken for granted. Our longstanding principles of economic conservatism remain hallmarks of the Liberal approach—not a passing fashion or a politically expedient slogan to wheel out at election times. As Liberals, we believe we should leave what people do with their hard-won prosperity to themselves. After all, it is our opponents who champion the nanny state—as evidenced again last night by their fortnightly payments now for the baby bonus.
But as we see surpluses and individual wealth grow, there is no danger in giving voice to how we can harness this prosperity to work together to create an even better and more generous society. Our opponents believe that such efforts are best directed through the state. The Liberal answer rests in returning the focus of such efforts to our communities. Our communities are the front line in creating a better society, and I believe this is a fundamental Liberal notion. In our post-prosperity age, there is a fresh hunger for real community—not the community of government institutions and bureaucrats, but the community of families and individuals that creates identity and purpose for life. As a society, we have allowed the realm of community to retreat. Our communities have become desensitised and disempowered by our state-centric models. It has got to the point where we barely notice we are even doing it any more.
We have created an expectation for the role of government that exceeds its natural mandate and, too often, its capacity. Just ask anyone who relies on—or even works for—the Department of Community Services in New South Wales and they will tell you so. Our response today is too often, ‘What is the government doing?’ rather than, ‘How as a community can we act to address the crises we face?’ whether it is ageing, respite, youth homelessness, suicide, mental illness or substance abuse, just to name a few. The question for government is: what role can it play to strengthen and support the naturally formed institutions of our communities to enable communities to play a greater role and a more direct role in addressing the challenges we face, in particular the social challenges?
Our role in the Northern Territory intervention is a case in point. Our objective in the Northern Territory intervention, as introduced by the Howard-Costello government, is not to run these communities but to help these communities find their feet again. After decades of socialisation and dependency, the Howard government acted to support these communities by seeking to re-establish a secure environment for families by removing influences, such as pornography, that would undermine their rehabilitation and ensuring that government support was targeted to restoring individual health and wellbeing by tying welfare to food, hygiene and education.
Our objective is to not be there, or at least no more so than in any part of the wider community. That is what closing the gap actually looks like: functional communities. The former approach would leave us in these communities to a disproportionate level forever. This is Liberal community policy in action in the most extreme of conditions. Thankfully, the rest of our communities are not in such a derelict state. However, our community institutions are in need. Our sports clubs, volunteer clubs and charitable organisations, like those that are mentioned in this bill, are all under-resourced and overworked. Surely an objective of government should be to reinforce and support the health of these organisations so as to enable the government sector to retreat from the front-line role of service delivery in more areas, opening up the opportunity for direct community action and involvement by community organisations. We should certainly seek to fund, but why, as under the Labor model, should government seek to control and own?
Community organisations are best run when they are community owned and directed. There is an accountability that exists under this model that governments cannot replicate. Those making the decisions on services are the ones who will more often find themselves in front of someone who is using and relying on those services, whether it is in the direct provision of those services or as part of their local community. By all means provide a national or state-wide context to funding arrangements and ensure appropriate protections for public funds, but do not let centralised bureaucracies use such reasons as an excuse to commandeer. The Labor view, I believe, is to command and control in these areas. I believe the Liberal view is to nurture and support. And I believe that this is the intention of this bill: to encourage community support for community organisations, to address community problems.
However we must go further. As a nation we have demonstrated our generosity, but it must become a more permanent and substantial feature of our society. Such a goal should be an objective of government. We need to develop a serious culture of philanthropy in this country that can build a not-for-profit sector that can provide the institutional depth and capacity necessary to be a more significant partner in dealing with the many challenges our community faces, as well as providing support for those in need, both within Australia and overseas.
The Giving Australia report, funded by the previous government, concluded that ‘a diverse and healthy non-profit sector contributes to a stronger, more prosperous and cohesive civil society’, and I agree. The report notes that there are 700,000 non-profit organisations in Australia, with an estimated total revenue of $33.5 billion back in 2000. Approximately 20,000 organisations have tax-deductible status. In 2004, 13.4 million Australians, or almost 87 per cent of the adult population, gave a total of $5.7 billion. Half of those donations were $100 or less and just over half, 51 per cent, of those donations were one-off. Furthermore, since 1997, personal giving has increased in absolute terms by 88 per cent, or by 58 per cent in real terms after adjusting for inflation.
It is not just in the area of donations that we are increasing; it is also in the area of volunteering itself. ABS statistics show that, in 2006, 5.2 million Australians, or just over a third of our adult population, participated in voluntary work and contributed 713 million hours. This is up from 4.4 million Australians in 2000 and 3.2 million in 1995. The same statistics show that people who are volunteers are more likely to have made a donation than those who are not volunteers—85 per cent compared to 72 per cent. It is also true that these volunteers do more than just give their time, often putting themselves out of pocket for expenses directly incurred in performing their service or in lost wages or earnings. I particularly note the sacrifice made by small business people who are involved in volunteering, who take time away from their businesses and incur a loss of earnings for that reason.
The study attributes a number of key reasons for the growth in volunteerism and the increase in charitable giving: the increasing size of the adult population; sustained economic prosperity, with more people in employment, rising wages—and let us not forget that over the course of the last government there was a 21.5 per cent increase in real wages—rising disposable income and improved business profitability, which are all things that went forward under the previous government; and greater and positive publicity for giving and increased fund-seeking activity by charitable organisations, using more sophisticated methods.
I also note the report says that, while 51 per cent of donations are one-off, non-profit organisations are almost always likely to be sustained by regular and generous giving than by one-off measures, and they acknowledge that taxation measures are a good way to foster planned giving, as is provided for in this bill. It is therefore not surprising that the following measures introduced by the previous government have played an important role in encouraging greater giving by Australians. Those measures included: five-year averaging of donations; deductions for gifts of property over $5,000; deductions for gifts of shares under $5,000; deductions for minor benefit contributions, such as gala dinners; deductions for workplace giving, which has been particularly successful; conservation covenants; capital gains tax for gifts within the cultural gifts program; and the introduction of the prescribed private fund.
A recent study by the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies at the Queensland University of Technology, titled Good times and philanthropy, identified that between 2001 and 2006 more than 450 PPFs had been established by individuals and companies and that since that time estimates point to more than 600 in operation. So these are successful measures that have encouraged the flow of charitable giving in this country. As a nation we have become more generous, but I believe we can do much better. A study recently undertaken by BERL in New Zealand, in March last year, estimated that Australian giving accounted for 0.68 per cent of GDP. This compares to 0.81 per cent of GDP for New Zealand and 1.6 per cent for the United States. So there is a further distance to travel. The QUT study also noted that the total value of donations claimed by individuals as tax deductions in 2005 was $1.7 billion. This accounted for 5.3 per cent of the total value of deductions. This is only slightly higher than the amount claimed for using tax agents in this country.
The study also noted that there were 4.3 million Australians who made charitable gifts and claimed them in their tax returns for 2005. That is the highest level on record. However, this represented an average of just one-third of one per cent of these donors’ assessable taxable income. Across all taxpayers, when this is averaged out, this represents just 0.00032 per cent of the average Australian taxable income. So we can do better and we must do better if we are to ensure that our non-profit organisations who stand in the breach for our communities can continue to perform their valuable service and, even better, expand their operations.
To this end I believe we need a national strategy on philanthropy and volunteering that builds on the success of the Howard government’s policies and leadership in this area and works to deliver better and more inclusive outcomes for our communities. This must include increasing our current level of giving as a target, increasing and recognising volunteer involvement in non-profit organisations in all ways that we can and increasing the institutional strength of our not-for-profit sector. We need more A-list non-profit institutions evident in other Western democracies—these institutions that have depth, capital, experience, properly structured governance, the capacity to step in in so many more conditions in a way that government cannot and the capacity to engage the not-for-profit sector as a key partner in addressing community challenges. We need better institutions that become better partners.
Such a strategy will require us to look at many issues, including additional taxation measures that provide an incentive for planned giving and compensation and/or relief for out-of-pocket expenses for volunteers. Costs and processes associated with background checks are something that Volunteering Australia has highlighted. This is a very necessary step in the process but one we must ensure the not-for-profit sector is resourced to perform. The implications of occupational health and safety requirements also need to be addressed. There is a need to increase awareness of non-profit organisations and their activities, and I must admit this bill does go some way towards advancing that goal. We also need to look at partnership models for accessing public sector support to build institutional capacity, information and data resources to better understand the incidence of and influences upon philanthropic activity, a review of red-tape regulation impacting on the activities of non-profit organisations and improving the transparency in governance arrangements for nonprofits. A national strategy that can advance these causes is one that I believe can lead to greater institutional capacity in the non-profit sector in this country and ensure a greater response by our community to address the challenges we face.
In closing I wish to make particular reference and give recognition to a constituent of mine whose own activities are recognised in this bill—Ian Thorpe and his Fountain for Youth. Ian Thorpe is a proud resident of the shire, in the seat of Cook. Ian is an inspirational Australian whose achievements in the pool provided us all with a sense of what is possible when great talent is combined with great dedication. He has been an outstanding ambassador for Australia, in and out of the pool, most notably in tourism. Both before and while I was managing director of Tourism Australia, Ian was a fantastic ambassador for Australia, particularly in Japan, and always made himself available to advance our national cause wherever he could. He was deeply admired and remains deeply admired by the Japanese people. He is a great asset to Australia in our relations with that country. He has been an outstanding ambassador for Australia and he is now applying those same characteristics to his post-sport life. His foundation focuses on advocacy for the needs of ill children, building alliances with the corporate sector and general community to raise awareness and funds to bring positive changes to the lives of children by improving their health and education. These include, for instance, a literacy empowerment project in remote Indigenous communities east of Katherine in the Northern Territory as well as funding research into Rett syndrome, which is a devastating genetic disorder that is one of the most common causes of severe, progressive intellectual disability and affects one in 10,000 female children. I commend both Ian and his organisation for their work and all those organisations that are included in schedule 6 of this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.
2631
09:34:00
Shorten, Bill, MP
00ATG
Maribyrnong
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services
1
0
Mr SHORTEN
—In rising to support the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008, which improves our nation’s tax and superannuation laws, I would like to concentrate on two of the six amendments—and, if it is not forgoing too much of the convention of this place, I would like to say that I agree with the member for Cook, perhaps not so much with his praise of the departed Howard government but with his thrust about the importance of charity and giving in Australian life.
It is a shameful fact that Australia is in the grip of a serious skills crisis. I believe one of the major policy failings of the previous government was its cavalier attitude towards our future prosperity, as evidenced by its neglect of skills formation in Australia. Our nation has simply not trained enough new or existing workers to keep up with the demands on our economy and our workforce. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, even in the meatworks in your own electorate we have seen the skills shortage hit hard. In times of record prosperity, this is unforgivable.
Unlike the previous government, the Rudd government takes this skills shortage very seriously. We know that investment in skills creation is fundamental to the next wave of economic reform. That is why, earlier this year, the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion introduced the Skills Australia Bill, the first step of many that this government will take as part of a comprehensive approach to secure a prosperous future which maximises workforce participation and productivity. That is why in the budget last night we delivered on our commitment to establish Trade Training Centres in secondary schools to give young people the opportunity to study a trade at school. That program is worth $2½ billion over the next decade. That is why last night the budget delivered our commitment to 450,000 new training places over the next four years. In fact, the budget extended that commitment to $1.9 billion over five years to fund 600,000-plus new training places.
I congratulate the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister for proving to the Australian people that promises made during the election campaign are actually promises kept by the Rudd government’s first budget. Australians know that, for our country to prosper and thrive, we urgently need to develop our whole base of skills training.
I think these tax law amendments are another step down that path. I would like to refer in particular to schedule 5, early completion bonuses for apprentices. This measure ensures that apprentices in areas with skills shortages will not pay tax on early completion bonuses provided by state and territory governments up to $1,000. As of now, these early completion bonuses are treated as taxable income. This measure will change that, and I think this is a great incentive for those young apprentices eager to get out into the workforce and help ease our skills crisis. As this bill outlines, this will apply to the early completion of apprenticeships in specified occupations affected by the skills shortage. At the moment, the great state of Queensland is the only state to have an early completion bonus for apprentices. I hope that perhaps other state and territory governments, with the passage of this bill, will introduce similar bonuses to encourage apprentices.
I would also like to comment specifically about schedule 6, deductible gift recipients. This is a crucial intersection between generous Australia and the non-profit sector. The Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector, Senator Ursula Stephens, has spoken at length on this matter, and I am grateful for her research on the matter. As we have heard previously, there are approximately 700,000 non-profit organisations in Australia. Many of these are small and depend on voluntary commitment. About half of them are incorporated. Perhaps about 35,000 of these organisations employ staff. As the member for Cook correctly stated, 20,000 of these organisations have deductible gift recipient status. In fact, the contribution of the non-profit sector’s total revenue is about $35 billion. Indeed, in the 2005 Giving Australia report it was estimated that the donation of money, goods and services to non-profit organisations by individuals and business was estimated at $11 billion a year. In 2004 Australians gave $7.7 billion. Of this, $5.7 billion was donated by 13.4 million people, or 87 per cent of all adult Australians. Two billion dollars, interestingly, was provided by 10.5 million people through charity gambling. $3.3 billion came from 525,000 businesses, or two in every three Australian businesses. In terms of personal time, 41 per cent of Australians volunteered in the year 2004, providing no less than 836 million hours of their time—an average of 132 hours per year.
Despite all of this good work, it is crucial to strengthen the generosity of Australians and the resources of the not-for-profit sector. Even with the increasing size of our population, for sustained future prosperity and nation-building and to deliver for working families it is necessary to increase the number of non-profit organisations able to seek increased donations. Therefore, I strongly support this measure giving deductible gift recipient status to 13 worthy groups, including groups active in my own portfolio area of disabilities, such as Wheelchairs for Kids. We are aware that this government is strongly committed to supporting people with disabilities, and we know that out there in the community there are thousands and thousands of people working tirelessly to do the same thing. Wheelchairs for Kids looks further afield, to the great unmet need which exists for children with disability right through the developing world. Twelve years ago, a member of the Rotary Club of Scarborough began making wheelchairs for children with disabilities in the Third World. Now 100 volunteers make these wheelchairs, and in enormous numbers—13,000 by the end of 2007. This organisation is funded entirely by donations from the public except for the rental expenses, which are covered by the Western Australian government. I hope that, this initiative having been granted this status, many more donations will flow to the initiative, which brings desperately needed assistance to the marginalised and often neglected children.
I am also happy to note that Playgroup Australia has been listed for deductible gift recipient status. Playgroup Australia—which I have the pleasure of working with in my portfolio—is the national body and leading representative and advocate for playgroups. As a federation of eight state and territory playgroup associations across Australia it collectively represents more than 100,000 families and 135,000 children at approximately 8,000 playgroup sessions every week. The Australian government has funded playgroups since 1975, and the evidence is clear that forums such as playgroups are not only fun but also a valuable investment in a child’s cognitive, physical, social and emotional wellbeing. Community playgroups are initiated and managed by parents or caregivers. Supported playgroups are initiated by a paid coordinator who works with the families to help them develop skills to participate in or run a community playgroup independently over time. Supported playgroups target families from culturally and linguistically diverse groups and backgrounds, Indigenous families, families with mental health and/or disability issues, teenage and young parent families and families who are socially isolated and disadvantaged. I have been working with Playgroup Australia since I was given the privilege of representing people with disabilities by our Prime Minister, and I hope that this listing helps them continue to offer the vital support that they provide to the parents and children who need them so much.
I would also like to comment briefly on the AE2 Commemorative Foundation. It is a fantastic organisation. What this is about is ensuring and dealing with the issue of the fate and the future of the Australian submarine AE2. Talking to the organisation, I found that they are pleased with this status listing for them because it will make the source of funding much more available from individuals and organisations. Many philanthropic organisations have a requirement in their charter about the status of who they donate money to. The AE2 Commemorative Foundation is hoping to raise $2 million plus. In fact, as recently as the Anzac Day period, they were meeting in conferences in Istanbul to talk about the future of the AE2. There have been plenty of grandiose schemes to raise the AE2, but it has been decided to leave the AE2 to lie on the bottom. Instead, the foundation will protect and preserve her and educate people about the AE2.
Having welcomed the listing of these organisations for deductible gift recipient status, I find it extraordinary that to recognise such legitimate efforts on behalf of people we have such a complex process, requiring the amendment of the tax act in the manner in which we are doing it. Perhaps it is time for fundamental reform of charities legislation and for an appropriate piece of legislation which captures the specific work of charities and not-for-profit organisations. I commend the legislation and these organisations—the organisations listed, especially in schedule 6, and the other 20,000 organisations and, indeed, all of the not-for-profit sector. Perhaps they deserve better. Perhaps we need to provide better legislation, better regulation and greater support for the invaluable support that they provide to the Australian community.
2633
09:44:00
Laming, Andrew, MP
E0H
Bowman
LP
0
0
Mr LAMING
—The tax laws amendments were fundamentally crafted and conceived by the previous coalition government, and for those reasons I will be supporting all six schedules. The first three are significant improvements for the business community, and the remaining three are also modifications to the tax laws, which we support.
Of course the key event overnight, the release of the first Rudd government budget, is of great concern to those very businesses that are affected by this legislation, the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. They will be looking at legislation like this to see whether there really is any follow-on at all, any follow-up, any commitment and any heart for small business. For those who read the fine print, there is very, very little in it for the small business community. That is a surprise, because right now of course we are facing the abyss of unemployment, interest rates and inflation.
You only have to go back about 12 months to remember those fateful statements by Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd that the economy was on autopilot, that we were riding on the back of a mineral boom, that it was so easy to run an economy like Australia’s. Of course, now they have realised that it is not. The narrative that we are hearing at the moment about this economy being in diabolical stress and under crisis from the threat of inflation is just a softening up, with the reality being that there will be significant job losses faced in Australia over the next 12 months.
Let’s be honest about working families. There is nothing Robin Hood about losing a job, certainly not if we are talking 65,000 or 130,000 Australians. If you drill it down to a community like Redlands, you are looking at a thousand people who are in work at the moment being out of work by this time next year under this government’s watch. Last night was the first opportunity for a clear articulation of exactly what this government intends to do about it.
We have had a clear opportunity over the last three or four weeks of budget leaks—this new approach with federal budgets where you leak components of it to assess media reaction without actually providing any opportunity for a close, hard look at the detail. So, by the time we got to the budget last night, there was actually nothing left after we took away these authorised leaks.
A new government’s first budget is always that hallmark moment where you say, ‘Where are they heading?’ You take away the spin and you say, ‘What are they actually doing with the money? Is it an anti-inflationary budget? Is it cutting government spending?’ No, far from it. It was a spending budget, raising government spending by around $3 billion. You would not do that if your heart were in fighting inflation. Any of those cuts that were described last night have simply been matched and exceeded by further Labor spending. That is not the way to fight inflation at all.
The second point to look at is: exactly who were the losers? There is almost a sense that if you are not mates with the government then you lost out last night. The carers who dared stand up for their one-off payment still have not got the security of that being an ongoing payment. It is quite easy to say, ‘We are looking at revisiting and revising carer payments,’ but there is nothing to stop you putting it in those forward estimates. But of course it has not been done. It was a begrudging single payment to those that need it most: the carers.
You do not have to look too far to see that the veteran community got almost nothing out of last night, almost as punishment for not queuing up and revering the new Commonwealth government. Seniors have very little to show for it. And what about those genuinely living with disabilities? The Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services, who has just left the chamber, has almost nothing to show for it in the form of improved payments for a group that needs it most.
We appreciate that we have a Prime Minister who takes months and months—even years—to come up with a new idea. Looking at last night’s budget, can I find even a single idea that belongs to Kevin Rudd? I saw plenty of copy from the coalition government. Tax cuts were announced because the government committed to them. But those tax cuts delivered last night, courtesy of the hard work of former Treasurer, Peter Costello, were promised nearly 12 months ago. If the economy has shifted so much, where was the will from this new government to say: ‘If we are serious about fighting inflation we will pay some of those tax cuts into superannuation. We will actually do something genuine with that $30 billion to fight inflation’? But there was no heart, no courage; they were just meeting that obligation, which of course we support, being our own tax cuts.
Let’s go through the rest of the budget. Find for me in that budget one idea that we can sheet home as being Kevin Rudd’s idea. I saw a few Kim Beazley ideas. I saw plenty of coalition copy. But did we have a single idea from this person, our Prime Minister, in the budget last night? I saw a budget of almost nothing. I felt that you could just pop the numbers in and pop the numbers out. It could have been any government in the world releasing a budget in a surplus environment. I would like to see one idea from an individual who has predominantly feasted on the media around a 2020 Summit. He has had 12 months in opposition to get his ideas together, 12 years in opposition as a party to come up with some ideas, and what do we have? We have articulated root and branch tax reform. That was thought bubble No. 521. It got a headline for him. What is he talking about—root and branch tax reform?
We are going to have the future tax system reporting back to the government over the next 18 months to two years. Is this a government with vision? Where are the ideas on tax reform? Where was the tax policy at the last election? We are talking about a vacant approach to policy setting relying on consensus driven summiteering. The state governments will surely follow up with their own summits and will stack those seats at the summits and just listen to the ideas that we may choose to implement. This is a government without any idea at all on tax. To simply say, ‘We are matching what you are doing and we might add a dollar here or there’ is policy vacancy at its worst. We have had six months to deliver a budget that actually set a new direction for Australia. And all we have heard is the Robin Hood, the tough decision of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.
For those 48,000 families involved, my recollection was that the baby bonus was effectively an incentive, not a welfare payment. Aren’t we confusing the two here? It was an incentive that we saw in a falling fertility rate to increase population. And Australia appears to be one of the few countries that can actually report a turnaround and an increase in fertility rates. The baby bonus was part of that suite. It did not act in isolation and I do not say that it had complete causation, but the baby bonus was an important part.
There are a lot of policies here that I think have been built more on ideology than on evidence. You saw the challenges yesterday. Lay down the evidence for your tax policy. Lay down your evidence for the means testing. There simply has been none laid out whatsoever. So that hope that we might be moving away from politics by ideology—the accusation laid upon this government when they took office late last year—is far from being played out, and the suspicion remains distinctly that this was a budget to punish those who had not supported the government.
This is a country obviously awash with money and it takes a certain brand of economic management to do it effectively. I am not saying that the textbooks on economics can tell us exactly how to manage a booming economy with all the threats of inflation. Of course it is a serious problem that requires addressing. But this situation is predominantly being politicised by a government desperate to sheet home any of the bad news to the decisions made years and years ago. I have always challenged that side of the House to say that from today they take responsibility for the outcomes of the Australian economy. They are still yet to do it. Perhaps it is a sign of an immature government, perhaps a sign of a government that simply runs on announcements with very little follow-up and very little detail.
We may talk about some of the groups affected by these tax laws amendments to get a picture of that, be they the apprentices or those running small businesses. They will feel the first pinch that we are already seeing in the southern states of the loss of jobs and the loss of strength in the economy. It will lead directly to the need for increased welfare and to the support required for Work for the Dole, which has also been diluted after last night’s budget.
History will recall the horrible reality that we have a new government with an opportunity to take the tough decisions, but it did not. Let us try to work out in a multiple-choice scenario whether we have (a) a government here prepared to take tough and unpopular decisions that are right for the long term or (b) the announcement effect of constant symbolism and tokenism and fiddling around the edges when in fact they have a wonderful mandate with their own state governments to make significant reform. I am not talking about just wiping away this year’s surplus by transferring it to universities. I would support many of these payments and seeing infrastructure issues being addressed particularly in bottleneck areas of the economy. But last night was an opportunity for the really big decisions that simply never came.
The horrible reality is that Australia is an economy that has weathered some extraordinary external stresses and has an internal stress at the moment and a government that is refusing to take responsibility for it. It is refusing to take responsibility on petrol prices. How many times do we have to hear about FuelWatch and the cop on the beat as we watch the fuel prices rise? Of course I do not hold the government responsible for crude oil prices and global fuel prices, but I hold them responsible for promising ordinary Australians that they would do something about it. If they know they have no control over it, why do they engage in that vacuous promise-making about making it easier for working families when the only formula they have is putting them out of work? How is that the Robin Hood philosophy in the end? When the three key markers of government success—inflation, unemployment and interest rates—are judged two years from now, you want to be very certain, members on the other side of this chamber, that you are in front on the ledger on at least two of those three markers. Right now two of them are slipping and, with the greatest respect, you appear to have no control over them whatsoever.
I do not like to make the analogy of a little bloke sitting in the cockpit of the 747 whose feet cannot touch the ground and with a sea of dials in front of him. The plane is on cruise control at the moment but there is that sense that the government do not know what touching any of those buttons or knobs will do and they are just hoping that the plane is going to stay level. There is that fearful moment when you think with your first budget that you have to touch a control and work out what happens and you realise that running an economy is far more difficult than you ever realised from the opposition benches.
Right down in Redlands where the tax laws amendments will be biting home, there will be a sense of sadness that investing in our schools has gone, that community water grants have effectively gone, that some of the really important programs that were delivering infrastructure where it is most needed have gone. The criticism already from my area is that in that wonderful opportunity to have an inspiring budget it really was visionless. Work for the Dole has been semidismantled. There is almost a sense that the government is doing as much as they can without getting any opprobrium from what is at the moment predominantly a fawning and sycophantic media, that it is effectively a case of: go ahead, do whatever you want while it is washing over us at the moment. You have free rein so, for something different, why not try something visionary and long term. You have got effectively no scrutiny at the moment. It is nothing less than fawning media approbation.
So why don’t you go right ahead and try something truly daring like making a long-term decision rather than just talking about these nebulous funds that are going to be delivering all the key infrastructure in the future. What have we got for the next 12 months? You have got a chance right now to plan for tomorrow. We have got feasibility and planning in the tens of millions. You had six months and every possible group to report back to you—and we have talked about the advisory groups and committees—but it almost seems that it has come to nothing. You had months to pull this together and years in opposition to pull together those in think tanks that were going to give you direction. But I truly have the sense of a Prime Minister devoid of any ideas whatsoever. It all sounds great on Sunrise, but is there one thing in that budget that could truly be laid on the table and you could say, ‘This is Kevin Rudd’s plan for the future’? There is more a sense of: how do I distribute the surplus without making things any worse for me than they are already?
The objective of cooling the economy obviously requires an anti-inflationary approach. But of all the reforms we have read about, you are taking with one hand and giving with the other. If you are going to introduce a ready-to-drink tax, if you are going to have excise tax for trucks and remove that support for those who are actually moving food around this country, and if you are going to introduce a luxury car tax, of course you will be pushing up prices. Some of the internal analysis shows that it could increase CPI by between 0.3 and 0.4 per cent. So why are you engaging in taxation measures that are making things more expensive in the phase where you are actually trying not to do that at all?
We can already see some of this Labor labour ideology coming through, attacking those who take responsibility for their own health insurance. Make no mistake here, people of all income levels pay for private health insurance for their own reasons. The great success of the coalition government was that they managed this blend of private and state funded service provision in health, education and child care. By moving the Medicare surcharge levy to $150,000, it is effectively saying, ‘We are a government that does not want to pay the 30 per cent rebate anymore but we lack the courage to remove it. We are a government that want to reward those who do not plan for their own health in the future and support the private health system and we are not going to support those who choose to take the burden off the public hospital system.’ I know that that is deeply ingrained Labor ideology that you have never managed to have the courage to articulate, but after writing a letter of comfort to the industry, you will simply achieve it by stealth.
What we really wanted in this budget was fiscal restraint—but you increased government spending. We wanted national saving—but all we heard about were nebulous funds. We wanted infrastructure bottlenecks addressed—but there was not that long-term commitment to anything except feasibility and planning. Most importantly of all, I think ordinary Australians, everyday Australians, wanted increased participation in the workforce. It is a simple request, that we get more Australians involved and engaged and fewer of them relying on state funded welfare. Well, we—the bad news is—are heading in exactly the reverse direction.
The symbolism we have seen trotted out over the apology for Indigenous affairs and the weak-hearted support for the intervention was horribly revealed last night when we saw a tiny mention—just three or four lines—for Indigenous Australia. Those commitments last night, for between $50 million and $60 million per year for the next four years, were chickenfeed. I can respect that there is still a review going on of the intervention and I can understand that those findings are yet to come back. But let’s be honest about the intervention. It is the first step in 35 years to set out positive social norms and reinforce them through a carrot-and-stick approach, and it would not have been that hard over the last six months to have had some supporting legislation encouraging states to join the intervention and to be putting the support where it is most required. We are not talking about building more schools or more homes. What we are talking about is stopping child abuse. That was the essence of the intervention, but there was no mention of that last night. I challenge the minister to explain whether she truly cares about the intervention or whether this is something that gets rolled out because it was an election commitment you had to make so that you got into government, and warmth in the embrace of this intervention is completely lacking.
This intervention will roll out over 12 months. It will be reviewed. Those who have had their health checks will get their follow-up. But the intervention was so much more than that. The intervention was reordering community social norms so that families could come together and say: ‘We regard attending school as something important. Looking after your home through tenancy agreements is something that should be supported. Having your kids checked out at a health centre is something that should be common, ordinary practice. Possession of pornographic DVDs in communities where there is one television on the verandah and the whole community gathers around is probably not going to be a good thing where child abuse is reported as endemic.’ That is just common sense for you and me in a community where we long ago understood ratings and classifications, but in Indigenous communities things work differently. So the intervention said, ‘For the moment, let’s have no pornographic DVDs, let’s not broadcast R18+ pornography into Indigenous communities and give them a chance to regather, reorder the positive social norms and have a hope that, for those who do not agree with those norms, their income could well be managed because, for the first time ever, there has been a tiny bit of a stick together with the carrot.’ But there is nothing coming from that side of the House; there is just a watch and wait. And that signal does percolate down to those working on the ground, to the public health officials and bureaucrats, that this is what we call a soft-pedalling government on the Indigenous intervention. The classic example was not only the legislation to which I just referred but your decision to extend CDEP, unreformed, for another 12 months. Here was the one opportunity to turn sit-down money into genuine work, and it was lost through the simple signal of extending CDEP for 12 months.
To conclude my remarks on this legislation, the businesses that will be affected by it will be seriously thinking in the next six months about whether they can employ more people. Unemployment has increased from 4.0 per cent earlier this year to 4.2 per cent. Much of that I put down to the collapse in small business confidence that occurred over the Christmas holidays. It is no coincidence that there was a change of government, but now we have unemployment at 4.2 per cent and rising and a government that is just starting to make those first little noises about: ‘We will have loss of jobs but a whole lot more if we don’t control inflation.’ Well, of course we have to control inflation, but there is no excuse for you on the other side of the chamber to be turning working families into non-working families. There is no excuse for cutting back hours for the very aspirational Australians who over the last 10 years have benefited from a strong economy. You have a responsibility here to look after those who need it most, and part of that is a job. As my colleague the member for O’Connor on this side of the chamber has so frequently said, it is one thing to rob from the rich and give to the poor, but you do not want to start paying the poor in unemployment benefits. Is that your plan? Because business will be left with that simple reality, that with an unfriendly government and with no chance to raise productivity and workforce participation, there may be no other future for Australian business. (Time expired)
2639
10:04:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—Listening to the previous speech I was reminded of the time some years ago when an American missionary who did charity work came to my home town of Ipswich and I took her to watch an AFL game. The Brisbane Lions were playing St Kilda. As she watched the game she could not quite understand what was going on. At the end of the match we went down on the field, as you do, and ‘Aka’ was doing his handstands. It was a great time—the Brisbane Lions had won, we all sang their song and it was terrific. As we were going away she said to me, ‘Wasn’t that a great soccer match!’ I said to her, ‘Well, you know, it really isn’t soccer, it’s AFL.’ And as I was listening to the previous speaker, the member for Bowman, I was wondering whether he had actually been there last night when the Treasurer gave his speech. So I am going to go home and scan the ABC footage to see whether he was there, because I do not think he understood anything of what was said last night. I am not sure whether the Liberal Party has a national secretariat, as we on this side of the House do, but I was wondering whether his speech was faxed over to him this morning and so he said: ‘Right, I’m going to make this speech that is completely irrelevant to the bill that is before the House; I’m just going to wing it’—and that is what he has done. My background is as a litigation lawyer, and if I had got up and made a speech like that in these circumstances a judge would have told me, ‘Mr Neumann, you’d better get back on track.’ That was an extraordinary speech by the previous speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am actually going to address the bill before the House. It may be shocking, it may surprise those opposite, but I am actually going to address the bill, which is all about good government.
I speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. This bill covers a broad range of areas by schedule, and I want to address four in particular that show that this government is pro business, pro market and pro working families. The extension of the late payment offset, which will allow employers to use a late contribution to offset part of their superannuation guarantee charge liability, is the first point. The second point is the provisions to ensure the market value substitution rule does not apply where a capital gains tax event C2 occurs in relation to a widely held company or a unit in a widely held unit trust. The third point is exempting the first $1,000 of an early completion bonus paid to an apprentice from income tax and the fourth point is the amendments to the uniform capital allowance and capital gains tax provisions in circumstances where amounts are misappropriated by an employee or agent. The previous speaker, I note, did not address any of those topics.
Firstly I want to speak about the extension of the late payment offset to allow an employer to use a late contribution to offset part of the superannuation guarantee charge liability. This bill is an important part of the Rudd government’s plan to reduce the burden on small business. As someone who worked for 21 years in small business, I am pleased to support it. It will allow fairer treatment to employers who make contributions after the due date. It amends the previous act to further extend the period within which an employer can make the required superannuation guarantee contribution after the formal due date and still be eligible to use the superannuation guarantee late payment offset.
The current act prescribes a minimum level of superannuation support that all employers are required to pay for eligible employees into a complying superannuation fund. Otherwise the employer will incur liability to pay the superannuation guarantee charge. The purpose of this bill is to remove the anomaly in the system which imposes harsh penalties on well-meaning employers who pay their superannuation contributions late. The bill extends the late payment offset for employers and ensures that late contributions are still counted towards the required superannuation guarantee payments of an employee. The implication is that employers will no longer be required to pay the same amount twice. It reduces the burden financially as well as in a regulatory way. Currently, if employers fail to make the required contribution within 28 days of the due date, they must make the payments through the superannuation guarantee charge and make them payable to the Australian Taxation Office. Many employers I have spoken to do not understand this and, unfortunately, make the payments to the employees’ superannuation fund. Under the pre-existing legislation that payment is not taken into account and they are forced to pay twice thus increasing their financial burden.
The law currently says that from 1 January 2006 an employer who makes a late payment within one month after the due date can use that late payment to offset their superannuation guarantee charge for the quarter—the payment is quarterly. However, if they make it after that one month, they are unable to use the offset under the current law, so it is an impost upon them and a burden. It is a double payment rule, effectively, for those who unintentionally miss their quarterly superannuation payments. The truth is that those who deliberately avoid making contributions to their employees’ superannuation are not likely to be caught by that because they simply will not do it, and the Australian Taxation Office must adopt a very strenuous and tough approach in that regard.
In opposition we called upon the former coalition government to fix this harsh treatment of employers. However, it was not corrected in 11½ years. It is disappointing that Labor’s calls for this fell on deaf ears, although, in fairness, it must be said that the former government were proposing to do it before the lapse of the last parliament. It is a constant complaint from employers and it is good that the current Rudd Labor government has listened to employers as part of its consultation with all segments of the community. In line with our commitment to reducing red tape for small business, we are taking this early action to show employers that we are fair dinkum about listening to their concerns and complaints. Our priority is to help small business because small business is the engine driving economic productivity and growth in this country. Profitable businesses mean high wages, highly skilled employees and helps working families in our community.
Currently there is a disproportionate penalty imposed on employers who pay that late superannuation contribution, and we want to change it. This initiative will be welcomed in my community of Blair, which takes in all the Lockyer Valley, part of the old Boonah shire and two-thirds of the city of Ipswich. There are many business people who work hard in my community. They have profitable businesses making contributions not just in terms of the work they do on a daily basis but also in terms of their community’s life as well. I am pleased with the philanthropic type provisions that we see in this current legislation as well. This legislation will end, once and for all, the possibility that employers find themselves with additional costs. As someone who was running a business and who built it up from scratch, I know that you need all the help you can get. This will be helpful to those who are struggling. There are significant incentives—and they will remain—to ensure employers make their contributions for their employees. Penalties and interest can be imposed by the Australian Taxation Office on employers for late payments—and so they should. I believe this bill is part of the Rudd Labor government’s pro-market, pro-business and pro-working families agenda.
The second area also helps those who received no capital gain but in fact are stuck in circumstances where they end up having to pay capital gains tax on unrealised gains. This bill will ensure that the market value substitution rule does not apply when a capital gains tax event C2 occurs in relation to companies and unit trusts. The bill amends the tax laws to ensure that the market value substitution rule does not apply where a capital gains tax event C2 occurs. Taxpayers will now be treated fairly; they will only be taxed with capital gains tax on the amounts they actually receive in their pockets.
The former coalition government received serious representations from shareholders in companies, particularly shareholders in listed companies, who were adversely affected by the operation of the market value substitution rule. But that fell on deaf ears as well. Eventually, they wanted to change it right before the election, and parliament lapsed. Often, shares are cancelled at a price set in advance and there is an upward movement in the share price by the time the cancellation actually occurs. In these cases shareholders are unfairly subject to capital gains tax on unrealised gains. I am pleased for the provision of equity that this change will take place.
This rule was originally designed to prevent people from manipulating capital proceeds arising from a capital gains tax event which occurred when they were not dealing at arms length. But it has resulted in an injustice to shareholders. The existing tax law means that people pay tax on capital gains when they should not. We should reduce the burden on working families in this community. I am pleased to support this. It is good for my community and the hardworking businesses in my area. This turning off of the market value substitution rule is a good thing in terms of justice, equity and fairness to business.
The third issue was really a Queensland issue. Like on a lot of things, we are ahead of the pack in Queensland. This third thing is exempting from income tax the first $1,000 of early completion bonuses paid to apprentices. This schedule amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 so that the first $1,000 of an early completion bonus paid to an apprentice by a state or territory government will not be subject to income tax. Queensland is ahead of the pack on this. This will put more money in the pockets of apprentices. Generally speaking, the apprentices in my constituency are not well paid. They have made personal sacrifices to complete their education and training. We need to encourage them to complete their apprenticeships.
Putting more money back into the pockets of low-paid apprentices to meet their daily needs by reducing their income tax is the fair thing to do. It is good policy in terms of encouraging people to undertake their apprenticeships more quickly. It is good for apprentices and it is good for business. We cannot have apprentices dropping out of courses. We need a well-trained and highly paid workforce. Productive employees cause by their efforts productive businesses. We need to do everything we can to reward hard work and effort. Completion bonuses are a way to do it and tax relief concerning early completion bonuses will help.
Currently, only Queensland pays a bonus to apprentices who have completed their training contract in an identified skills shortage occupation. If they are full-time apprentices, they must complete their apprenticeship at least six months early; however, if they are a part-time apprentice they need to complete it at least 12 months early. I hope the other states and territories will follow Queensland in this regard. I hope that this will encourage apprentices to quickly complete their training. It is good policy.
The final issue that I want to talk about is amounts misappropriated by employees or agents. The changes here will overcome a technical problem in the tax laws which prevents amounts misappropriated by employees or agents not being deductible and taken into consideration for capital gains tax purposes. As an employer, I have been in circumstances where an employee has misappropriated money from me, so I am pleased to be able to talk about this. It is a difficult area to cope with. There is a sense of betrayal, and then you find that, even though the money is not available to you, you have to pay tax on it.
Capital gains tax from asset sales are taxable for other CGT purposes or under the uniform capital allowance provisions. The uniform capital allowance provisions apply to business operations and allow ongoing deductions for capital expenditure. However, the CGT often only applies in the circumstances of the disposal of assets. The current tax laws do not acknowledge that amounts misappropriated by employees and agents following an assets sale should be taken into consideration. It is right that these misappropriated amounts reduce the termination value of an asset, the disposal of which is assessed under CGT provisions. Under the uniform capital allowance provisions, the amount of income misappropriated is included in working out the tax consequences. It is appropriate that the amount misappropriated is also recognised as loss when the malfeasance occurs.
These tax law amendments by schedule are about helping business. They are about helping shareholders. They are about cutting red tape. They are about fairness and equity. I am pleased that they follow on the Treasurer’s speech last night. If the member for Bowman needs a copy of it, I am happy to provide one for him. If he wishes to come to my electorate office in the Brassall shopping centre, I would be happy to sit down, have a cup of coffee with him and explain it to him. We build on a Labor budget. Unfortunately, the born-to-rule mentality of the previous speaker must go. From time to time we win elections, and from time to time we deliver Labor budgets. I am pleased that the Treasurer has delivered for my electorate. I look forward to the Building Australia Fund financing critical infrastructure in my area, I look forward to the Health and Hospital Fund helping Ipswich General Hospital and other places, and I look forward to the Education Investment Fund helping the universities in my area. I look forward to having the cup of coffee with the member for Bowman at Michel’s Patisserie at Brassall shopping centre, Hunter Street, Ipswich if he wishes to come and have a chat with me.
2643
10:21:00
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
HWG
Isaacs
ALP
1
0
Mr DREYFUS
—I rise to support the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. Like the member for Blair I feel bound to comment on the extraordinary contribution made by the member for Bowman, the previous speaker from the opposition, to this debate. The member for Bowman managed to say nothing about the bill before the House and spent his time railing against imagined faults in the budget announced last night. By contrast, the member for Blair has addressed the bill and I propose to do the same thing.
This is a bill which will amend Australian tax laws to fairly recognise the loss a taxpayer receives as a result of having an amount misappropriated from them. Secondly, it is a bill which will improve Australian superannuation laws by ensuring that employers are not harshly penalised for failing to pay their superannuation contributions on time. Thirdly, the bill will ensure that taxpayers are treated fairly by only paying their capital gains tax on the amount they actually receive from a transaction. The bill will also ensure consistency in taxation treatment of Endeavour Awards, a merit based scholarship program administered by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
I want to deal first with schedule 2 of the bill because that amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to further extend the period within which an employer can make the required superannuation guarantee contributions after the formal due date and still be eligible to use the superannuation guarantee late payment offset. Effectively, this means that employers who make a very late superannuation guarantee payment will not be required to pay twice the required amount. At present, an employer who fails to make the required superannuation guarantee payment after the due date is potentially liable to pay the required superannuation guarantee contributions twice. This occurs where the employer makes a late payment into their employees’ superannuation fund after the end of the second 28-day period and is then liable to pay the ATO the relevant superannuation guarantee charge.
The amendment contained in the bill has as its aim the removal of an anomaly in the superannuation guarantee system that imposes harsh penalties on employers who pay their superannuation contributions late. This was a very common complaint from employers to Labor’s superannuation spokesman when we were in opposition. Labor pushed the then coalition government for the changes that are contained in this bill in relation to superannuation guarantee contributions. As with so much else, the coalition promised to act on the matters that employers and industry were calling for but had not done so at the time that the last election was called. The measure in relation to superannuation guarantee contributions, which forms part of this bill, is part of Labor’s agenda of supporting small business. It removes an anomaly that many employers had been concerned about. Labor is listening to small business and the concerns of employers.
This bill also seeks to exempt income tax from the first $1,000 of early completion bonuses received by apprentices from state governments. As the member for Blair has already pointed out, this is a Queensland initiative, which I acknowledge. It is a good initiative and it is something that I hope will be extended by other state governments for the early completion of apprenticeships. The tax measure now being introduced will assist other state governments to introduce the scheme introduced in Queensland. The amendment ensures that apprentices will not have to pay tax on the bonus they receive for completing their apprenticeships early.
The amendment is needed because income tax law would otherwise treat remuneration for services, which is what this is, as part of ordinary income. That would mean that payments that are very much one-off and in the nature of a bonus, like this early completion bonus, would be taxable as ordinary income. And of course what that means is that some of the incentive that is sought to be provided by schemes of this nature for early completion will be removed. This amendment ensures that the full amount of the bonus remains in the hands of the apprentice who is keen enough to finish her or his apprenticeship early.
In a time such as now of skills shortages in critical areas it is essential that we provide as many incentives as possible for workers to receive training and to speedily complete their training. We face a shortage of more than 200,000 skilled workers in Australia over the next five years. The Rudd Labor government is committed to closing the skills gap by expanding places in a more responsive vocational education and training system. As announced in the budget last night, the government will provide $1.9 billion over five years to deliver up to 630,000 new training places and that includes of course 85,000 apprenticeship places.
We are also committed to ensuring that not only programs like that but also associated legislation such as this bill are put in place to ensure that training to help ease the skills shortage is delivered in a way that ensures that those who are training are not worse off. As the Treasurer has stated on numerous occasions, we face significant inflationary pressures and that has driven up the prices of petrol, housing and groceries. The government understands how this affects working families. We realise that every single dollar counts and amendments like this, which seek to tax-exempt the bonus for early completion of an apprenticeship, will ensure that there is more money back in the pockets of workers and working families, including apprentices.
The other part of this bill that I wanted to address is some, but not all, of the deductible gift recipients who are now to be added to schedule 30 of the legislation. I will take some time to discuss how all of these recipients are very deserving organisations for deductible gift recipient status, but I want to deal with some in particular.
The first is the Amy Gillett Foundation. It is a fact that the manner in which cyclists and motorists share the roads is the subject of negative media stories more often than one would wish to see. I am convinced that the majority of motorists do show cyclists the due respect that they deserve. But unfortunately, as we have seen from a spate of recent stories from Sydney, there are always individuals who disappoint. Road rage incidents surrounding cyclists are entirely unacceptable and there does need to be an active education and awareness campaign for the public. I am very glad therefore to see that the Amy Gillett Foundation is one of the deductible gift recipients that has been added to the tax legislation by this bill.
The Amy Gillett Foundation was inspired by the life of Amy Gillett, who was tragically killed while training in Germany in July 2005. She was an Olympic rower who moved to cycling, and her life was ended at the tragically young age of 29. The terrible accident in which she was killed severely injured and jeopardised the careers of Katie Brown, Lorian Graham, Kate Nichols, Alexis Rhodes and Louise Yaxley—all then members of the Australian Institute of Sport’s elite cycling squad. The Amy Gillett Foundation seeks to reduce the incidence of injury and death caused by interaction between cyclists and motorists. It does that by raising awareness, educating cyclists, conducting research, fundraising and influencing public policy. It also conducts an annual ride called Amy’s Ride, which is a fundraising ride held in Victoria on the Bellarine Peninsula around Geelong. It is also designed to promote key messages of safe and responsible road use.
As a keen amateur cyclist myself, I am well aware that these messages and their education campaigns save lives. They ensure that motorists and cyclists are constantly aware that they should be accommodating of each other on busy roads. For that reason, the Amy Gillett Foundation is a very worthy recipient of deductible gift recipient status.
There are some other organisations that have been added to the list that invoke the commemorations that we have just had in the last few weeks both of Anzac Day and, in the last couple of days, in this House, of the Battles of Fire Support Bases Coral and Balmoral. About three weeks ago, the whole country celebrated the spirit of the Anzacs at dawn services and marches across Australia, taking time to reflect on how, on 25 April 1915, young soldiers landed in Anzac Cove in Gallipoli. On that day, we remembered the 1.5 million Australians who have served their country proudly. The deductible gift recipient status has been conferred on the AE2 Commemorative Foundation because it is appropriate to recognise some of the lesser-known stories of Gallipoli, sometimes referred to as the ‘silent Anzacs’.
The HMAS AE2 was the first allied submarine to successfully dive and evade the heavily mined areas off the Gallipoli Peninsula. As the Anzacs prepared to storm the beaches, it was her mission to create a diversion, to draw fire away from the soldiers and to ‘run amok in the shallows’. The AE2 was then ordered to enter the inland Sea of Marmara and cut off supply lines to the Ottoman Empire. Other allied submarines had tried and failed, yet a characteristically Australian approach allowed the crew to evade capture for five days. They supported their Army brothers until finally succumbing to Turkish fire. Her 32 crew were taken prisoner of war and the AE2 lay on the seabed, unfound until 1992. The AE2 Commemorative Foundation’s objective is to protect and preserve the AE2 and to tell the uniquely Australian story of her brave crew as part of the great Anzac tradition, to remind Australians that for every well-known story you hear about the Anzacs there are many others you have not heard, which should not be forgotten.
Over 100,000 Australian servicemen and servicewomen died in the horrors of the two world wars. The Memorials Development Committee, which is also to be given deductible gift recipient status, seeks to ensure that their deaths are not forgotten and that the sacrifices they made on the battlefield are remembered in our nation’s capital on its most spectacular avenues. The Memorials Development Committee seeks to place two separate but complementary national memorials on Anzac Parade, leading up to the Australian National War Memorial, to commemorate the sacrifices that these service men and women made to their country. These memorials will honour the men and women who gave up so much so that we can continue to live in this great country of ours.
The night before last, I stood in the Great Hall of Parliament House to commemorate the Battles of Fire Support Bases Coral and Balmoral, Australia’s largest and most protracted engagement of the Vietnam War campaign. It was a humbling experience to stand alongside the veterans and their families. Yesterday, they attended a ceremony at the Australian Vietnam Forces National Memorial on Anzac Parade. I look forward to attending a ceremony on Anzac Parade to commemorate those who have fallen in both world wars, when the Memorials Development Committee project is complete in 2010. The Memorials Development Committee is another worthy recipient of deductible gift recipient status.
The member for Melbourne Ports has spoken in detail about the Council for Jewish Community Security, which is also a worthy recipient of the deductible gift recipient status. The measure is an adjunct to the $20 million school security plan for all schools that was announced by Kevin Rudd during the election campaign last year and confirmed in January of this year by the Deputy Prime Minister. As the member for Melbourne Ports explained, the Council for Jewish Community Security does wonderful work. It relies on a large number of volunteers from the community who provide protection for community institutions. It is a matter of regret that in our country there should be a need for a community security organisation at all for any community. But since there is, regrettably, then deductible gift recipient status is an appropriate governmental response.
Finally, I will briefly comment on the deductible gift recipient system. It is my hope that the review of the tax system, which has been announced by the government and which is to take place later this year, will look closely at the somewhat cumbersome system of using legislative identification of particular organisations—which is what we see here in this bill—where there is added, to an already long list of organisations which receive deductible gift recipient status, some further organisations. Using this system potentially causes a long delay between the establishment of a charitable organisation and confirming the tax deductible status of gifts that are made to that organisation. A system which identifies eligible classes and enables quick administrative approval of deductible status would be desirable.
2646
10:38:00
D’Ath, Yvette, MP
HVN
Petrie
ALP
1
0
Mrs D’ATH
—I rise today to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. My comments in support of this bill today go specifically to schedule 5 and, in a small way, to schedule 6 of the proposed bill. As people in my electorate of Petrie are well aware, I am strongly committed to the area of education and training, and to seeing improvements in these areas in the future. That is why it is my pleasure to be speaking about this amendment. The schedule 5 amendment is just another step towards addressing the skills shortage in this country. The people in my electorate and my communities want a federal government that will invest in education and in training—a federal government that has a long-term strategy for addressing the skills crisis and productivity levels in this country.
The Howard government failed my electorate and the Australian people in this task. The member for Bowman today spoke about the government taking responsibility for their actions, yet we are still to see the opposition taking responsibility for their lack of investment in education, training, health, infrastructure and the environment and for the effect that the Work Choices laws had on working families. Last night the Rudd Labor government and the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, announced a budget that commits to the financial investment necessary to deal with the skills crisis.
For too long education and training has been ignored. Investment in education has fallen behind and training has been undervalued. Over the past decade the Howard government failed not only the resource sector but many small and medium businesses across my electorate and across the country by failing to invest in apprenticeships. We became a nation obsessed with university qualifications to the detriment of trade qualifications. We, as a community and as a society, must regain the pride that we held in tradespeople. We must recognise that a trade qualification is just as valuable as a university degree and that a trade is a career path that provides many opportunities. The people that I talk to in my electorate want investment in education. They want investment in training. Adults and students alike want the opportunity to enrol in apprenticeships.
The state governments, with Queensland playing a significant leading role, had been tackling the skills shortage problem for the past few years. The problem is that they had no support from the federal government. They had a federal government that failed to lead the agenda. That is why Labor’s education revolution is essential to this nation and to my community. By reinvesting in our children’s future, by opening up new opportunities to gain skills, we are laying the foundation for a highly skilled workforce. Our aim is to encourage businesses once again to see the important role they play in Australia in establishing and maintaining a skilled workforce. That is why it is the federal government’s responsibility. It is a responsibility that this government, the Labor government, has acknowledged and embraced. Labor’s commitment to establishing trade training centres in all 2,650 secondary schools across the country is a groundbreaking initiative that I strongly support, as do the schools, parents and students throughout my electorate.
The work that schools across my electorate are already undertaking is inspiring, and discussions are occurring throughout the schools about the needs of our local community and our local businesses to determine what the focus of their trade training centres should be. Many older Australians in my electorate understand the importance of trade qualifications. They know the value that the community placed in such skills. They know that people were proud to be tradespeople. We need to restore this pride, this value.
Schedule 5 is another step towards achieving this aim—to encourage our current and future workforce to enter into apprenticeships. Schedule 5 does this by exempting from income tax the first $1,000 of early completion bonuses paid to apprentices by state or territory governments, where certain conditions are met. This exemption plays an important role in addressing the skills shortage in this country, and the measures being taken by the federal government and the Queensland government do address this shortage.
The Queensland government has committed $7.2 million over four years for the new $1,000 bonus scheme for apprentices completing their training early. The early completion bonus is an initiative of the Department of Education, Training and the Arts in Queensland. The bonus became available from 1 January 2007 to apprentices, in apprenticeships from selected skill shortage industry sectors, who complete their apprenticeships early. To be eligible apprentices must complete their apprenticeship at least six months early, in the case of full-time apprenticeships, or 12 months in the case of part-time apprenticeships. The selected skills shortage industry sectors of automotive, construction—including general, civil and off-site—engineering, hospitality and electro technology are the targets of this initiative and under each of those categories there is quite a long list of certificate III trade qualifications that are available and considered to be skill shortage industry occupations that would be entitled to this $1,000 bonus. The bonus arises from a number of actions identified by the Queensland skills plan, which was launched by the Queensland government on 8 March 2006. These actions include dealing with the demand for skilled tradespeople, attracting more people into apprenticeships and making apprenticeships work better for apprentices and employers. The bonus addresses these actions by applying only to identified apprenticeships where there are skills shortages, acting as an incentive to attract more people into apprenticeships and encouraging early completion, and making apprenticeships work better for both apprentices and employers, through an increased awareness and implementation of competency based training.
Since the introduction of the program, 2,871 apprentices have received a payment of $1,000 each for early completion. Four hundred and thirty-three of these apprentices—approximately 15 per cent—were employed in the Brisbane north region. The fact that in the past 12 months 433 additional trade qualified workers have been able to enter the workforce earlier than otherwise may have occurred is exciting news for north Brisbane and my electorate of Petrie. Of course, as this initiative is only 12 months old, it is expected that these numbers will continue to grow over the coming years. According to ABS 2006 census data, in the electorate of Petrie, males between the ages of 15 and 19 years have a 12.2 per cent unemployment rate. For ages 20 to 24 years, there is a seven per cent unemployment rate. For females in the electorate between the ages of 15 and 19 years there is a 9.6 per cent unemployment rate; and between the ages of 20 and 24 years there is a 6.3 per cent unemployment rate. In total, for ages 15 to 19 years there is a 10.9 per cent unemployment rate, and between the ages of 20 and 24 years there is a 6.6 per cent unemployment rate. In addition, areas such as the Redcliffe Peninsula have a median weekly household income of $774 compared to the Brisbane region’s $1,157. Initiatives to encourage individuals into apprenticeships and the early completion of apprenticeships are vital for our youth and low-income workers in the community. The benefits of obtaining a skill in a skill shortage occupation increase the likelihood of full-time employment and higher earnings. That is why I support this bill and will continue to promote the benefits of a trade qualification.
Having been a member of the Training and Employment Recognition Council for many years, I am aware of the need to address the skills shortage in this country and that new initiatives need to be implemented to assist in achieving this aim. The Queensland government are moving forward in their efforts to address the skills shortage through the release of the Queensland skills plan. The federal government now has the opportunity to build on that initiative through its education revolution and the new directions for vocational education and training.
As recently as last Friday, I had the opportunity to visit Craigslea State High School in my electorate. I was there to witness the school being awarded accreditation with the Council of International Schools. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Craigslea State High School on this significant achievement. I know that the school has worked extremely hard over the past two years to achieve this recognition. In addition, while at the school, I had the opportunity to inspect the school’s new commercial kitchen. The school strives for excellence, and that is clearly evident in the efforts it has gone to in establishing a fully functioning commercial kitchen that reflects, and in many cases is superior to, a normal workplace environment in the hospitality sector.
The school is currently delivering certificates I, II and III qualifications in hospitality. It is exciting to see a school delivering Certificate III in Hospitality Operations as this course contains units from food and beverage and also commercial cookery. The certificate III also counts as eight credits towards the student’s Queensland secondary education. The benefit of the school based apprenticeship and traineeship system is that it ensures that students leave school with multiple pathways to pursue a career. Upon completing their secondary schooling, students who have completed the Certificate III in Hospitality Operations with Craigslea State High School will be able to, if they desire, enrol in the Certificate III in Hospitality (Commercial Cookery) and have units of competency recognised as prior learning. This is important in addressing the skills shortage in Queensland as the Certificate III in Hospitality (Commercial Cookery) is a recognised skill shortage occupation and forms one of the apprenticeships that the early completion bonus applies to.
To show the holistic approach to further education, students who are enrolled in a school based apprenticeship and who then enter into a full-time or part-time apprenticeship in a skill shortage occupation after their schooling is complete would be able to access the early completion bonus if they finish within the eligible period. This is just another incentive to get trade qualified workers into the workforce sooner. These facts emphasise the need for the amendment before this House. To tax this bonus is to take away the primary purpose of the bonus: to act as an incentive to apprentices to complete their qualification early. This amendment is needed because currently this bonus is characterised as income. This proposed amendment will directly benefit many in Queensland who are currently undertaking, and who will undertake in the future, apprenticeships in skill shortage occupations. It is for these reasons that I support the amendments as prescribed in schedule 5 of this bill.
In relation to schedule 6, I am pleased to support an amendment to the tax laws that will give recognition as deductible gift recipients to a number of organisations that fulfil important roles in our community. This not only will allow for tax deductions for donors who currently give to these organisations but hopefully will encourage new donors and larger donations in the future. The following organisations appear in schedule 6 of the amendment bill: World Youth Day 2008 Trust, the Council of Jewish Community Security, Wheelchairs for Kids Inc., Memorials Development Committee Ltd, AE2 Commemorative Foundation Ltd, Ian Thorpe’s Fountain for Youth Ltd, Amy Gillett Foundation, the Spirit of Australia Foundation and Playgroup Australia Inc. Each of these organisations plays an important role, the significance of which has been covered by some of the other speakers to this bill including the member for Melbourne Ports, the member for Maribyrnong and the member for Isaacs. It is appropriate for this government to provide what assistance it can to these organisations through this amendment, to encourage and support donations to these organisations.
I would like to give a special mention to Playgroup Australia, who recently celebrated National Playgroup Week and World’s Biggest Playgroup Day 2008. Bill Shorten and I joined the Chermside West playgroup for their morning playgroup session recently. I also had the opportunity to attend the World’s Biggest Playgroup Day ‘Pollies at Play’ held at the Speaker’s Green at Queensland Parliament House. Of course, many events were held all around Queensland and Australia during National Playgroup Week, and I take this opportunity to congratulate Playgroup Australia for their fantastic efforts in organising those events. I am sure many parents and children alike enjoyed the day and appreciate the work of Playgroup in providing a social and safe environment for both parents and children. This bill will benefit many in the electorate of Petrie and I am pleased to commend it to the House.
2650
10:52:00
Thomson, Craig, MP
HVZ
Dobell
ALP
1
0
Mr CRAIG THOMSON
—I rise today to lend my support to the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. In starting, I have to make some comments in relation to the contribution—if we can call it that—from the member for Bowman. I think it is quite extraordinary that, in relation to his contribution, we had a 20-minute rant which at no time at all addressed the bill that is before the House today. Consistent with the contributions made from this side of the House, I will be addressing the bill and indicating the areas where I support this important legislation.
Tax policy is an area that always can be improved. There is no doubt in my mind that our current taxation arrangements are creaking with age. We need a good, hard look at our system before it becomes a significant hindrance to our economic growth. I look forward to a comprehensive tax review during this 42nd Parliament. I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments following the very successful 2020 Summit that the time has come for a root and branch review of taxation and, further, the Treasurer’s announcement last night in the budget for the most comprehensive review of taxation since World War II. The bill that is before the parliament today does not regard the root and branch review, but there are positive aspects nonetheless. Though I see the need for a root and branch approach to tax reform, it does not hurt us at this stage to do some pruning. We are a government that gets on with the job and that is why this legislation is here before the parliament before we do the root and branch analysis of the taxation system.
In particular I wish to support schedules 4, 5 and 6 of this bill. Schedule 4 exempts the Endeavour executive awards and the Endeavour research fellowships from income tax for all recipients in respect of the amounts received on or after 1 July 2007. These research fellowships allow our best and brightest to study here and abroad. The length of a scholarship ranges from four months to three years, depending on the particular award. They are worth between a minimum of $25,000 for a short-term scholarship to a maximum of $160,000 for a long-term scholarship, depending on the specific award. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations administers the program and it is funded by the Commonwealth government. While some Endeavour award programs are exempt from tax because their recipients are studying full time, others are not fully tax exempt because the recipients are classed as only studying part time. We seek to change this in this bill. To me, this is an important small step in combating the brain drain at the high end of business, industry, education and government.
I also seek to make some comment in relation to the early completion bonuses for apprentices. This is a commitment from this government to make sure that those who complete their apprenticeship early, those who are helping to resolve the skills shortage that this government has inherited from those opposite, effectively get the full value of that particular bonus. It is important that we saw last night a further 85,000 apprenticeships announced in the budget—an indication of the commitment from this side of the House to address the skills shortage that so threatens to constrain our economy. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and his government are committed to the education revolution. This amendment in the bill is a small step in the right direction.
Schedule 6 updates the list of deductible gift recipients. Among the list of organisations added to the list by this schedule are the World Youth Day 2008 Trust, the Council for Jewish Community Security, the Memorials Development Committee, the AE2 Commemorative Foundation, Ian Thorpe’s Foundation for Youth, the Amy Gillett Foundation and Wheelchairs for Kids Inc. I want to talk in a little bit more detail about one of those organisations: Wheelchairs For Kids. Wheelchairs for Kids Inc. is one that will benefit from being included in the deductible gift recipients list. This organisation has a wonderful story to tell. They build wheelchairs and send them overseas to countries not as lucky as our own.
As of this month, Wheelchairs for Kids Inc. have built 14,149 wheelchairs and shipped them overseas. Their organisation’s website tells a very interesting story. The Rotary Club of Surfers Sunrise had the idea of helping disabled kids in distressing circumstances by providing wheelchairs made partly of components retrieved from salvaged bicycles. After a lucky break with television fundraising, they asked other Rotary Clubs to join and the project grew. Through a family connection, the Rotary Club of Scarborough in Western Australia took it a stage further and involved prison inmates from two prisons and three schools in the task of making the chairs. The Rotary Club had been assisted by Christian Brothers, sponsoring Olly’s Workshop, a fully trained facility for troubled youth. The obvious synergy saw that the workshops became the nucleus of the operations of Wheelchairs for Kids. In the interests of quality and efficiency, production in the schools and prison workshops has discontinued now that the workshop has been set up properly.
Recognising that demand was virtually limitless and that more funds could be raised, further expansion was planned. At the same time it was realised that better wheelchairs could be economically produced from new materials. Wheelchairs for Kids soon moved into larger dedicated premises, financed by the Scarborough Rotary Club and Christian Brothers. The modern manufacturing workshop in the light industry area of Wangara in Western Australia is well equipped with power tools and all equipment needed for manufacturing, mostly donated by tool manufacturers and suppliers. All work is voluntary; no wages or salaries are paid, with Rotary and Christian Brothers providing the administration. The labour to turn the tubing and dozens of other components into shippable chairs comes from more than 100 retired volunteers. They work mornings on a self-imposed roster as a very effective and good humoured team, drilling, bending, assembling, checking out and, finally, packing. Today’s versions reflect feedback from the field—rough paths, lack of maintenance facilities and exposure to harsh weather all need to be accommodated. The wheelchairs have aluminium square-section tube frames, powder-coated steel axles and wheels with soft but puncture-proof tyres. A photo of this model—a strong, non-folding, three-wheeled chair that will negotiate a rough surface—can be seen on the organisation’s website. I recommend that colleagues have a look at the type of work that they are doing.
Wheelchairs for Kids are fortunate that the large cartons used for shipping the wheelchairs and their transport to the airport or to container packing centres on the east coast are donated. The overseas transport is provided by various aid agencies, who help with foreign import problems and distribution in remote locations. In 2007 almost $500,000 was donated, the suppliers were generous and 3,500 wheelchairs were made. The increase in cash received allowed Wheelchairs for Kids to purchase components in larger quantities and set up 2008 for significant growth at a constrained cost. The demand is for thousands, and the team has the capacity to easily double or triple output. All that is needed is money to buy the components and materials that must be bought.
Every $100 raised provides a child with a wheelchair. The organisation can do this because all of their manufacturing and administration labour is voluntary; administration is provided free by the Rotary Clubs, with the workshop manager, Brother Olly Pickett, provided by the Christian Brothers; suppliers provide materials at discounted prices and, in some cases, free, and transport is usually donated; rent for the now three workshop units is paid for by the government of Western Australia, and that needs to be acknowledged in this place today; and overhead costs are met by the Rotary Club of Scarborough. Every cent donated goes towards making and delivering a wheelchair to one of these seriously disabled children. No donated money is spent in any other way. This is an organisation worthy of support in our tax system. I commend the work that Wheelchairs for Kids are doing to make the lives of disabled children around the world that little bit easier. I also commend this bill to the House for the tax break that it provides in schedule 6 for organisations such as Wheelchairs for Kids.
2652
11:02:00
Bradbury, David, MP
HVW
Lindsay
ALP
1
0
Mr BRADBURY
—I rise in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. In particular, I wish to comment on two of the schedules, principally schedule 1 and schedule 6, under which various organisations have been identified for listing as deductible gift recipients. Before I turn to those schedules, I would like to respond to some of the comments of the member for Bowman, who, as the member for Dobell rightly pointed out, engaged in very little discussion of the matters currently before the House in this bill and went off on a rant about more general matters which I think we could describe as a response to the government’s budget.
In the member for Bowman’s comments, we see further contradictions emerging from within the opposition ranks when it comes to inflation—compared to our government’s determination to take the challenge of inflation head on. The member for Bowman referred to inflation, I think, as the abyss of inflation. There is an increase in the hyperbole coming into the rhetoric from those on the other side; really, the rhetoric has gone from nought to 100 in 10 seconds. If you go back and look at some of the comments that have been made previously by the members opposite, there has been a real degree of complacency when it comes to the issue of inflation.
We do not have to go back all that far, just into recent history, to see when the member for Higgins proclaimed, ‘There’s no life left in the inflation dragon.’ We see here today, in the member for Bowman, someone strapping on the armour again, coming out to go a second round with the inflation dragon, someone on the other side who has now come to an appreciation and understanding that we are facing a considerable inflation challenge. It is an inflation challenge that is the legacy of the former government. The highest inflation level in 16 years is stripping away the value of the wages of working people in this country. That is why it is one of the No. 1 priorities of this government. No doubt there will be more opportunities to address this in the course of debate about the appropriation bills. But I will just make the very simple point that the shadow Treasurer had previously denied the existence of this problem. That is on record, and he has done it on many occasions. I quote from the
Asked if inflation was out of the target band, Mr Turnbull said ... it was not.
He had previously said that it was a fairytale; it was a myth that the Treasurer was trying to create. I saw some of the shadow Treasurer’s comments last night in response to the budget. There was an alerted sense of concern about inflation, and the shadow Treasurer was indicating that the government perhaps should have gone further and made further cuts. From someone who was denying the problem of inflation just a short time ago, he has become someone who is now challenging the government, suggesting that the government has not gone far enough in inflicting those cuts that are necessary to slow overall demand. But, when asked to identify where he might have gone further, we had silence from the shadow Treasurer—a further indication of the opposition’s failure to come to a unified position on how to tackle the challenge of inflation.
In fact, yesterday I noted the comments by the opposition leader, who had previously said that the inflation crisis is a complete charade. For those of us who have been studying the comments of the Reserve Bank, there are not a lot of hand movements and gesticulations required in order to see the less than subtle messages coming from the bank—that is, that inflation is a genuine challenge that needs to be confronted. That is why I am very proud that the budget that was handed down last night by the Treasurer is one of the key armaments in this government’s fight against inflation, and that is something we will have more to say about in the future.
I would like to turn my attention to the provisions of the bill, in particular schedule 1. I note that the measure outlined in schedule 1 of the bill really does bring into effect a common-sense outcome that had previously not been achieved under the tax laws. I think that there is a comment in the explanatory memorandum that goes to the very heart of the issue that is being addressed by this particular measure. I will read from point 1.5 of the EM:
There is currently no provision in the tax law that recognises the reality that the taxpayer did not receive the economic benefit from the disposal as a result of the misappropriation.
This goes to the issue of the disposal of a depreciating asset in circumstances where, by virtue of the balancing adjustment event, there may in some cases be a tax liability arising—in particular, in cases where an employee or an agent may have been involved in carrying out the disposal and, in the course of doing so, may have misappropriated the proceeds. Therefore, you have a situation where, under the tax law as it currently exists—which this amendment seeks to change—in those circumstances the holder of the depreciating asset will end up paying an amount, or have an amount included in their assessable income, by virtue of the balancing adjustment event, which will be an amount that they are required to pay notwithstanding the fact that they may not have actually received any of those proceeds as a result of the misappropriation that had occurred by the actions of their employee or agent. It is a mischief that this amendment will correct.
The other element of it is in respect of the disposal of those depreciating assets that may have been held for a partly or wholly non-taxable purpose. The relevant CGT provisions would otherwise give rise to a potential tax liability being imposed upon the holder and disposer of that depreciating asset. The amendment seeks to ensure that the economic realities of what the holder of the depreciating asset faces are actually reflected in terms of what requirements for tax to be paid are actually brought to account by the tax legislation. So it is a very sensible amendment. It is one that, I think, would not be in dispute or contest, either in this place or for the common man on the street. There is no reason why tax should otherwise be payable.
I would like to now turn my attention to schedule 6 and the various provisions that are outlined there, particularly in relation to one of the organisations that have been identified and will become deductible gift recipients as a result of this amendment: the Finding Sydney Foundation. I wish to make a few comments in relation to the good work that the Finding Sydney Foundation have been involved with. We are all very much aware of the success that they have recently had in locating the Sydney, having located the Kormoran. This is a matter that has really been brought to completion, and there is no doubt that it has been greeted with mixed emotions by most Australians and, in particular, those who have been in some way personally affected by the going down of the Sydney. This provision allows for that particular foundation—which has done much good work, building on the back of a grant that had previously been made by the former government—to raise the funds necessary in order to achieve what has been achieved. I think most people would agree that it is sensible that this matter be resolved in this way and that deductible gift recipient status be awarded to this particular foundation.
I want to offer a couple of personal reflections on the impact of the work that the Finding Sydney Foundation have been able to achieve. There were two individuals who went down on the Sydney who lived within the area that is now my electorate. In particular, I wish to acknowledge Cook Merton James Morphett and Stoker Robert Stevenson. These gentlemen went down with the Sydney. I have not been able to locate Mr Stevenson’s family, but I have had some discussions with Mr Morphett’s family. I should also acknowledge that the Morphett family is one of the finest families in the district in the Penrith area. They are one of the pioneering families of the district. They were a very large family. One of the significant points that I wish to note is that, in fact, they had five sons who served this nation in its armed forces. I think that is a significant contribution that should be acknowledged, and I wish to have that acknowledged in the parliament today.
I will briefly quote from an article in one of my local papers, the Penrith City Star, where Mr Warren Morphett, the brother of Merton Morphett, reflects upon the impact of losing his brother with the going down of the Sydney and also on what the finding of the Sydney has meant for him and his family. He said:
“I’m pretty sad about the whole thing … It shattered the family.”
The article goes on:
Mr Morphett’s father was the first in the family to find out that the Sydney had sunk when he received a telegram on November 28.
Mr Morphett told me that the most significant thing about finding the Sydney was that it really has brought some closure to this chapter of his family’s history. It is a significant chapter in our nation’s history. I want to acknowledge the Morphett family and the suffering that they have felt as a result of the contribution that their five sons have made to this country and, in particular, the fact that now there is some closure. I wish to add my voice in support of the work of the Finding Sydney Foundation because, without their involvement, this closure could never have been achieved. I know that Mr Morphett and his family are also very grateful. I also acknowledge that one of my staff members’ great-grandfather, Mr Percy Willis, was also one of those Australians who went down on the Sydney. So this is a matter that I have taken a particular interest in, and I am very pleased to see that we are, by virtue of this amendment, proposing to give deductible gift recipient status to the Finding Sydney Foundation.
I wish to offer a couple of general observations on the operation of the deductible gift recipient status provisions that are outlined within division 30 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. I will add to and amplify some of the comments that have been made previously in this debate by the member for Maribyrnong and the member for Isaacs in relation to the somewhat unwieldy nature of this particular division, which has grown in size considerably and in my experience and in my view has made the job for many non-profit organisations in this country very difficult when it comes to trying to assess whether or not they are eligible for the tax concessions that are associated with deductible gift recipient status. I think it is particularly relevant to make this point in Volunteer Week.
By way of illustration I wish to point out that the particular provisions that affect the endorsement or otherwise the listing of deductible gift recipients now account for approximately 90 pages in the tax legislation. So there are 90 pages to wade through for a not-for-profit organisation wishing to determine whether or not they are entitled to endorsement or have other avenues of redress in terms of seeking listing as a deductible gift recipient status. In my experience it is becoming increasingly the case that for a non-profit organisation to obtain the benefit of endorsement they need the assistance of a lawyer. In my previous profession, in a pro bono capacity, I often provided that assistance. But the pro bono resources available in this area are quite limited, and that means a range of organisations simply do not have access to the knowledge, the expertise and the know-how to frame an application that meets the requirements for endorsement under the act.
The other point I wish to make is that the act clearly allows for two alternative paths, the first being endorsement by the commissioner, and that involves characterising your organisation or demonstrating that your organisation fits within one of the established categories in division 30. The other avenue is by way of what we are now doing: specifically identifying those organisations within the tax legislation as organisations that are deductible gift recipients.
I wish to note a trend in recent years. We now have some 226 groups that are specifically identified in the tax legislation. In this particular bill, we are now discussing inserting another 13 groups. I wish to make it abundantly clear that I am not in any way opposing the entitlement, the eligibility or the appropriateness of these particular organisations being identified as being worthy of deductible gift recipient status. What I am suggesting is that, as we have now reached a situation where some 226 individual groups have had to go through a process that has resulted in amendments to the law so that the name of their organisation fits within the tax legislation, it is no wonder that this particular division has now reached 90 pages.
In addition to that, the other alternative is to demonstrate that your organisation fits within one of the categories. There are somewhere in the vicinity of 22 categories available under which you can make an application for endorsement. Within those 22 categories there are further subcategories. On my count there are at least 40 subcategories. So the legislation sets out 20-odd categories and 40-odd subcategories and those categories are the categories under which application can be made for endorsement by the Commissioner of Taxation. I note that, in statistics released by the Commissioner of Taxation, at the end of November 2007 there were somewhere in the vicinity of 24,000 active deductible gift recipients. So clearly the categories are dealing with a large number of those applications; notwithstanding that, there has still been a considerable need to go through the process of specific listing. That process involves the Assistant Treasurer issuing a press release at the time that a decision has been taken by the government and the government subsequently bringing legislation before this House. It is a very unwieldy process, particularly when there are administrative arrangements in place that can be undertaken as an alternative.
It would be my suggestion that, if we now have in excess of 200 groups that have to be specifically identified, there is in fact a case for reviewing the categories themselves. We have not found over the last few years just one or two organisations that do not fit neatly within the 20-odd categories and 40-odd subcategories; we now have over 200. I very much would like to see this whole issue of the not-for-profit sector and the way in which they are treated—not just for income tax exemption purposes, which is a separate issue, but for deductible gift recipient status considerations—dealt with as part of our broader consideration of simplifying the tax system. Frankly, in my experience, there are many organisations—manned, staffed by volunteers—that in the end walk away with their hands in the air and say, ‘This is just too complex, too difficult; we are not going to go through the process.’ Alternatively they put an application in, not understanding the process, and they end up having it rejected because they are not aware of what the requirements are or they are not capable of drafting that application in a way that reflects the true realities of what they are doing.
Notwithstanding that and those comments, I think it is a matter for future reform. I would very much like to see it on the government’s agenda as part of the broader approach to tax reform. But I certainly endorse the objectives and the hard work and the contributions of all of those volunteers associated with the organisations that are now being listed as part of this amendment. I support the amendment and in particular add my voice in support of schedules 1 and 6.
2656
11:21:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer
1
0
Mr BOWEN
—I thank all honourable members who have made a contribution to this debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. I particularly thank the honourable member for Lindsay, who always makes a very well-considered contribution to tax law amendment bills based on his considerable experience in this area. He has correctly identified many of the issues that go to the complexity of getting status under the tax act for charities and benevolent institutions in this country whether it be deductible gift recipient status or PBI status or the other capacities to be recognised under the tax act. He has correctly identified the difficulties in operating under the Statute of Elizabeth, which has been in operation some 400 years, and charities have changed just a little in those 400 years. It is something that is exercising the mind of the government and something the government will be turning its mind to in a more detailed way during this term.
I thank all honourable members including those opposite—the shadow minister, the member for Stirling, for his contribution; the member for Cook for his contribution in relation to philanthropy, which nobody could disagree with; and the member for Bowman, who I am not sure actually did make a contribution in relation to the bill in any meaningful way but certainly made a long speech. I thank the member for Melbourne Ports, the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services, the member for Blair, the member for Isaacs, the member for Petrie and of course the member for Lindsay and the member for Dobell.
I am glad that the measures in this bill are seen as relatively uncontroversial. It is appropriate that it be so. They are sensible measures which, as some members pointed out, have been introduced by both sides of the House. They do deal with technical inconsistencies in relation to the amount misappropriated by an employee or agent after they dispose of an asset on behalf of a taxpayer. Schedule 2 removes an anomaly in the superannuation guarantee system by extending the superannuation guarantee late offset payment. Schedule 3 amends the tax law to ensure that the market value substitution rule does not apply to certain CGT events, and schedule 4 provides an income tax exemption for the Endeavour executive award and for all research fellowships under this award.
Schedule 5, as several honourable members have pointed out, exempts from income tax the first $1,000 of eligible early completion bonuses paid by state or territory governments. At the moment this only applies to Queensland but of course it will apply to any state or territory which chooses to implement such a bonus.
Schedule 6 adds a number of organisations to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 in relation to deductible gift recipient status. I particularly take the opportunity of thanking the member for Melbourne Ports not only for his contribution in this debate but for his ongoing contribution in relation to the status of the Council for Jewish Community Security. He has played an integral role in getting that particular committee recognised in terms of the tax act. We remember of course that the previous government announced this particular recognition on the same day that the then Labor opposition announced a funding package for security in Jewish schools. As the then Leader of the Opposition and the then shadow minister were in the car on their way to make that announcement the previous government was informed that that was the case and they rushed out this announcement in order to counteract the announcement that the Labor opposition was at that point making. It was an announcement that was being made with the member for Melbourne Ports who had been lobbying members of the shadow ministry to have the particular security needs of some schools recognised, whether they were Jewish or of other religious minorities, because these were real issues that many of those schools are facing.
I also briefly take the opportunity of recognising the contribution of the former member for Cowan, whom many of us deeply miss in this House. He lobbied strongly for DGR status for Wheelchairs for Kids. In fact he took the opportunity in his valedictory address to this House to make that case. So although he has departed from this House, he deserves a large degree of the credit for the implementation of Wheelchairs for Kids in relation to the deductible gift recipient status. I recognise his contribution and I am sure that all honourable members join me in wishing him all the best in his retirement. I commend the bill to the House. I will be moving amendments in the consideration in detail stage, which the shadow minister, I understand, has been informed of by my office as a matter of course.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Consideration in Detail
2658
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
2658
11:27:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer
1
0
Mr BOWEN
—by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1) to (6):
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item, substitute:
4. Schedules 6 and 7
The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.
5. Schedule 8, Part 1
The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.
6. Schedule 8, Part 2
1 July 2012.
1 July 2012
7.
Schedules 9 to 11
The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.
(2) Page 20 (after line 12), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 7—Superannuation lump sum paid to a member having a terminal medical condition
Part 1—Amendments
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
1 Section 11‑55 (table item headed “superannuation”)
After:
roll‑over superannuation benefits
...........................
306‑5
insert:
superannuation lump sum for recipient having terminal medical condition
303‑10
2 At the end of Division 303
Add:
303‑10 Superannuation lump sum member benefit paid to member having a terminal medical condition
(1) This section applies to a *superannuation member benefit that:
(a) is a *superannuation lump sum; and
(b) is:
(i) paid from a *complying superannuation plan; or
(ii) a *superannuation guarantee payment, a *small superannuation account payment, an *unclaimed money payment, a *superannuation co‑contribution benefit payment or a *superannuation annuity payment.
(2) The lump sum is not assessable income and is not *exempt income if a *terminal medical condition exists in relation to you when you receive the lump sum or within 90 days after you receive it.
Note: For a lump sum you receive in the 2007‑08 financial year, the period of 90 days may be extended until 30 June 2008: see section 303‑10 of the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997.
3 Subsection 995‑1(1)
Insert:
terminal medical condition has the meaning given by the regulations.
Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997
4 After Division 302
Insert:
Division 303—Superannuation benefits paid in special circumstances
Table of sections
303‑10 Superannuation lump sum paid to member having a terminal medical condition
303‑10 Superannuation lump sum member benefit paid to member having a terminal medical condition
(1) This section applies to a superannuation member benefit that you receive during the 2007‑08 financial year and that:
(a) is a superannuation lump sum; and
(b) is:
(i) paid from a complying superannuation plan; or
(ii) a superannuation guarantee payment, a small superannuation account payment, an unclaimed money payment, a superannuation co‑contribution benefit payment or a superannuation annuity payment.
(2) The lump sum is not assessable income and is not exempt income if a terminal medical condition exists in relation to you at a time in the period:
(a) starting when you receive the lump sum; and
(b) ending at the later of:
(i) 90 days after you receive it; and
(ii) 30 June 2008.
Part 2—Application
5 Application
The amendments made by this Schedule apply to payments made on or after 1 July 2007.
(3) Page 20, at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 7), add:
Schedule 8—Capital expenditure for the establishment of trees in carbon sink forests
Part 1—Income years 2007‑08 to 2011‑12
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
1 Section 12‑5 (table item headed “capital allowances”)
After:
telecommunications site access rights
Subdivision 40‑B
insert:
trees in carbon sink forests
Subdivision 40‑J
2 Section 12‑5 (after table item headed “travel expenses”)
Insert:
trees in carbon sink forests
see capital allowances
3 Section 40‑10 (at the end of the table)
Add:
2.4
Capital expenditure for establishing trees in carbon sink forests
You can deduct amounts for capital expenditure for the establishment of trees in carbon sink forests.
Subdivision 40‑J
4 Subsection 40‑50(1)
Omit “or 40‑G (about capital expenditure of primary producers and other landholders)”, substitute “, 40‑G (about capital expenditure of primary producers and other landholders) or 40‑J (about capital expenditure for the establishment of trees in carbon sink forests)”.
5 After subsection 40‑630(2B)
Insert:
Exception: deduction available under Subdivision 40‑J
(2C) You cannot deduct an amount under this Subdivision for capital expenditure if any entity can deduct an amount for that expenditure for any income year under Subdivision 40‑J.
6 At the end of Division 40
Add:
Subdivision 40‑J—Capital expenditure for the establishment of trees in carbon sink forests
Guide to Subdivision 40‑J
You can deduct amounts for capital expenditure incurred for establishing trees that meet the requirements for constituting a carbon sink forest.
40‑1000 What this Subdivision is about
Table of sections
Operative provisions
40‑1005 Deduction for expenditure for establishing trees in carbon sink forests
40‑1010 Expenditure for establishing trees in carbon sink forests
40‑1015 Carbon sequestration by trees
40‑1020 Certain expenditure disregarded
40‑1025 Non‑arm’s length transactions
Operative provisions
40‑1005 Deduction for expenditure for establishing trees in carbon sink forests
(1) You can deduct an amount for an income year if:
(a) you incur capital expenditure that is covered under section 40‑1010 in relation to particular trees established in the income year; and
(b) you satisfy a condition in subsection (5) for the trees when they are established.
(2) The amount of the deduction is the amount of the expenditure.
(3) You can deduct an amount for an income year if:
(a) you incur capital expenditure in the income year or an earlier income year for establishing particular trees; and
(b) that expenditure is not covered under section 40‑1010 in relation to the trees, because some or all of the trees are established after the end of the income year; and
(c) the trees established after the end of the income year are established within 4 months after the end of the income year; and
(d) you could deduct the amount for the income year under subsection (1) in respect of the expenditure, assuming that, for the purposes of paragraphs 40‑1010(1)(a) and (2)(a), the income year ended 4 months after it actually ended.
(4) If:
(a) you can deduct an amount for an income year under subsection (3) in relation to particular trees; and
(b) you incur capital expenditure in the next income year for establishing other trees;
in determining whether you can deduct an amount under subsection (1) for the next income year in respect of the other trees, for the purposes of paragraph 40‑1010(2)(a), disregard the trees mentioned in paragraph (a).
(5) The conditions are as follows:
Conditions for deduction for establishing trees in carbon sink forest
Item
Condition
1
You own the trees and any holder of a lease, lesser interest or licence relating to the land occupied by the trees does not use the land for the primary and principal purpose of *carbon sequestration by the trees.
2
The trees occupy land you hold under a lease, or a *quasi‑ownership right granted by an *exempt Australian government agency or an *exempt foreign government agency, and:
(a) the lease or quasi‑ownership right enables you to use the land for the primary and principal purpose of *carbon sequestration by the trees; and
(b) any holder of a lesser interest or licence relating to the land does not use the land for the primary and principal purpose of carbon sequestration by the trees.
You:
(a) hold a licence relating to the land occupied by the trees; and
(b) use the land for the primary and principal purpose of *carbon sequestration by the trees, as a result of holding the licence.
40‑1010 Expenditure for establishing trees in carbon sink forests
(1) Expenditure is covered under this section in relation to particular trees if:
(a) the trees are established in an income year; and
(b) you incur the expenditure in the income year or an earlier income year for establishing the trees; and
(c) you are carrying on a *business in the income year; and
(d) your primary and principal purpose for establishing the trees is *carbon sequestration by the trees (see section 40‑1015); and
(e) your purposes for establishing the trees do not include any of the following:
(i) felling the trees;
(ii) using the trees for *commercial horticulture; and
(f) you do not incur the expenditure under:
(i) a *managed investment scheme; or
(ii) a *forestry managed investment scheme; and
(g) all of the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied for the trees; and
(h) you give the Commissioner, in accordance with subsection (4), a statement that:
(i) sets out all information necessary to determine whether all of the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied for the trees; and
(ii) is in the *approved form.
(2) The conditions are as follows:
(a) at the end of the income year, the trees occupy a continuous land area in Australia of 0.2 hectares or more;
(b) at the time the trees are established, it is more likely than not that they will:
(i) attain a crown cover of 20% or more; and
(ii) reach a height of at least 2 metres;
(c) on 1 January 1990, the area occupied by the trees was clear of other trees that:
(i) attained, or were more likely than not to attain, a crown cover of 20% or more; and
(ii) reached, or were more likely than not to reach, a height of at least 2 metres;
(d) the establishment of the trees meets the requirements of the guidelines mentioned in subsection (3).
(3) The *Climate Change Minister must, by legislative instrument, make guidelines about environmental and natural resource management in relation to the establishment of trees for the purposes of *carbon sequestration.
(4) The statement mentioned in paragraph (1)(h) is to be given to the Commissioner no later than:
(a) if you lodge your *income tax return for the income year within 5 months after the end of the income year—the day you lodge that income tax return; or
(b) otherwise—5 months after the end of the income year.
(5) However, expenditure is not covered under this section if the *Climate Change Secretary gives the Commissioner a notice under subsection (6) in relation to the trees.
(6) The *Climate Change Secretary must give the Commissioner a notice in writing under this subsection if the Climate Change Secretary is satisfied that one or more of the conditions in subsection (2) have not been satisfied for the trees.
(7) A person may apply to the *AAT for review of a decision (as defined in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975) of the *Climate Change Secretary to give a notice under subsection (6).
(8) The Commissioner may give the *Climate Change Secretary a copy of the statement mentioned in paragraph (1)(h), for the purposes of subsections (5), (6) and (7).
40‑1015 Carbon sequestration by trees
Carbon sequestration by trees means the process by which trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
40‑1020 Certain expenditure disregarded
In working out a deduction under this Subdivision in relation to the establishment of trees, disregard expenditure incurred:
(a) in draining swamp or low‑lying land; or
(b) in clearing land.
40‑1025 Non‑arm’s length transactions
If an entity incurred capital expenditure under an *arrangement and:
(a) there is at least one other party to the arrangement with whom the entity did not deal at *arm’s length; and
(b) apart from this section, the amount of the expenditure would be more than the *market value of what it was for;
the amount of expenditure taken into account under this Subdivision is that market value.
7 After subsection 70‑120(5)
Insert:
No deduction for carbon sink forests
(5A) You cannot deduct under this section so much of an amount you paid or incurred as is attributable to the establishment of trees for which any entity has deducted, or can deduct, an amount for any income year under Subdivision 40‑J.
8 Subsection 995‑1(1)
Insert:
carbon sequestration has the meaning given by section 40‑1015.
9 Subsection 995‑1(1)
Insert:
Climate Change Minister means the Minister administering the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.
10 Subsection 995‑1(1)
Insert:
Climate Change Secretary means the Secretary of the Department that administers the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.
11 Application
The amendments made by this Part of this Schedule apply to the 2007‑08 income year and later income years.
Part 2—Income year 2012‑13 and later income years
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
12 Subsections 40‑1005(1), (2), (3) and (4)
Repeal the subsections, substitute:
(1) You can deduct an amount for an income year if:
(a) you or another entity incurred capital expenditure that is covered under section 40‑1010 in relation to particular trees; and
(b) you satisfy a condition in subsection (5) for the trees for at least part of the income year; and
(c) you are carrying on a *business in the income year; and
(d) you use the land occupied by the trees for the primary and principal purpose of *carbon sequestration by the trees (see section 40‑1015); and
(e) your purposes in using the land occupied by the trees do not include any of the following:
(i) felling the trees;
(ii) using the trees for *commercial horticulture; and
(f) you do not use the land in connection with:
(i) a *managed investment scheme; or
(ii) a *forestry managed investment scheme.
(2) The amount of the deduction is worked out under this formula:
where:
establishment expenditure is the amount of expenditure mentioned in subsection (1).
write‑off days in income year is the number of days in the income year:
(a) that occur within the period:
(i) starting on the first day of the income year in which the trees are established; and
(ii) ending 14 years and 105 days after that day; and
(b) on which you use the land occupied by the trees for the primary and principal purpose of *carbon sequestration by the trees; and
(c) on which you satisfy a condition in subsection (5) for the trees.
write‑off rate is 7%.
(3) You cannot deduct more in total than the amount of capital expenditure incurred for establishing the trees up to the time at which they are established.
13 Paragraph 40‑1010(1)(b)
After “you incur”, insert “or another entity incurs”.
14 Paragraph 40‑1010(1)(c)
Omit “you are”, substitute “the entity incurring the expenditure (the establishing entity) is”.
15 Paragraph 40‑1010(1)(d)
Omit “your”, substitute “the establishing entity’s”.
16 Paragraph 40‑1010(1)(e)
Omit “your”, substitute “the establishing entity’s”.
17 Paragraph 40‑1010(1)(f)
Omit “you do”, substitute “the establishing entity does”.
18 Paragraph 40‑1010(1)(h)
Omit “you give”, substitute “the establishing entity gives”.
19 Paragraph 40‑1010(4)(a)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(a) if the establishing entity lodges its *income tax return for the income year within 5 months after the end of the income year—the day the establishing entity lodges that income tax return; or
20 At the end of Subdivision 40‑J
Add:
40‑1030 Extra deduction for destruction of trees in carbon sink forest
(1) You can deduct the amount worked out under subsection (2) for an income year if:
(a) you or another entity incurred capital expenditure that is covered under section 40‑1010 in relation to particular trees; and
(b) you use the land occupied by the trees for the primary and principal purpose of *carbon sequestration by the trees; and
(c) the trees are destroyed during the income year; and
(d) you satisfy a condition in subsection 40‑1005(5) for the trees just before they are destroyed.
(2) Work out the amount of the deduction as follows:
Method statement
Step 1. Work out the total of the amounts you could have deducted under this Subdivision in relation to the trees for the period:
(a) starting on the first day of the income year in which the trees are established; and
(b) ending when the trees were destroyed;
assuming that, during that period, you satisfied a condition in the table in subsection 40‑1005(5).
Step 2. Subtract from the expenditure that is covered under section 40‑1010 in relation to the trees:
(a) the result from step 1; and
(b) any amount you received (under an insurance policy or otherwise) for the destruction.
The remaining amount (if positive) is your deduction under subsection (1).
(3) This deduction is in addition to any deduction for the income year under section 40‑1005.
40‑1035 Getting information if you acquire a carbon sink forest
(1) This section applies if:
(a) you or another entity incurred capital expenditure; and
(b) the expenditure is covered under section 40‑1010 in relation to particular trees; and
(c) you begin to satisfy a condition in the table in subsection 40‑1005(5) for the trees.
(2) You may give the last entity (if any) that satisfied a condition mentioned in subsection 40‑1005(5) for the trees a written notice requiring the entity to give you any or all of the following information:
(a) the amount of the expenditure covered under section 40‑1010 in relation to the trees;
(b) the income year in which the trees were established.
(3) The notice must:
(a) be given within 60 days of your beginning to satisfy the condition mentioned in paragraph (1)(c); and
(b) specify a period of at least 60 days within which the information must be given; and
(c) set out the effect of subsection (4).
Note: Subsections (5), (6) and (7) explain how this subsection operates if the entity to which the notice is to be given is a partnership.
Requirement to comply with notice
(4) The entity to whom the notice is given must not intentionally refuse or fail to comply with the notice.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
Giving the notice to a partnership
(5) If the entity to whom the notice is given is a partnership:
(a) you may give it to the partnership by giving it to any of the partners (this does not limit how else you can give it); and
(b) the obligation to comply with the notice is imposed on each of the partners (not on the partnership), but may be discharged by any of them.
(6) A partner must not intentionally refuse or fail to comply with that obligation.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(7) Subsection (6) does not apply if another partner has already complied with that obligation.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (7), see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.
Limits on giving a notice
(8) Only one notice can be given in relation to the same trees.
21 Application
The amendments made by this Part of this Schedule apply to the 2012‑13 income year and later income years.
(4) Page 20, at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 8), add:
Schedule 9—Tax offset for Equine Workers Hardship Wage Supplement Payments
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
1 Subsection 160AAA(1) (at the end of the definition of rebatable benefit)
Add:
; or (g) known as the Equine Workers Hardship Wage Supplement Payment.
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
2 Section 13‑1 (after table item headed “entrepreneurs’ tax offset”)
Insert:
Equine Workers Hardship Wage Supplement Payment
see
social security and other benefit payments
3 Section 13‑1 (table item headed “social security and other benefit payments”)
After:
Cyclone Larry or Cyclone Monica income support payment
160AAA(3)
insert:
Equine Workers Hardship Wage Supplement Payment
160AAA(3)
4 Application
The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to Equine Workers Hardship Wage Supplement Payments received in the 2007‑08 income year and later income years.
(5) Page 20, at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 9), add:
Schedule 10—Tobacco industry exit grants
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
1 Section 11‑10 (table item headed “sugar industry exit grants”)
Repeal the item.
2 Section 11‑15 (before table item headed “copyright collecting societies”)
Insert:
agricultural industry exit grants
sugar industry exit grants.........
53‑10
tobacco industry exit grants.........
.......................
53‑10
3 Section 53‑10 (after table item 4B)
Insert:
4C
Tobacco industry exit grant
The program known as the Tobacco Growers Adjustment Assistance Programme 2006
As a condition of receiving the grant, you entered into an undertaking not to become the owner or operator of any agricultural
*
enterprise within 5 years after receiving the grant
4 At the end of subsection 118‑37(1)
Add:
; (g) a tobacco industry exit grant that you receive under the program known as the Tobacco Growers Adjustment Assistance Programme 2006 if, as a condition of receiving the grant, you entered into an undertaking not to become the owner or operator of any agricultural *enterprise within 5 years after receiving the grant.
5 Application of amendments
The amendments made by this Schedule apply to tobacco industry exit grants received in the 2006‑07 income year and later income years.
(6) Page 20, at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 10), add:
Schedule 11—Farm management deposits
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
1 Paragraphs 393‑37(3)(b) and (c) in Schedule 2G
Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:
(b) at the time of the withdrawal, that owner is eligible for the issue of an exceptional circumstances certificate (within the meaning of subsection 8A(2) of the Farm Household Support Act 1992) that relates to a primary production business of that owner;
(c) by the end of 3 months after the end of the year of income in which the withdrawal is made, such an exceptional circumstances certificate is issued in respect of that owner;
(d) a declaration of exceptional circumstances (as referred to in paragraph 8(c) of the Rural Adjustment Act 1992) was not in force in relation to that primary production business when the deposit was made.
2 Application
The amendment made by this Schedule applies to assessments for the 2002‑03 year of income and later years of income.
These amendments, in effect, reflect schedules 2 to 6 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008. These amendments are necessary to ensure that certain measures of benefit to taxpayers in tax laws amendment bill No. 1 are passed before the end of the income year. Schedule 7 makes tax-free superannuation lump sum payments to persons with terminal medical conditions. This is an important change which assists in relieving the financial stress which terminally ill persons and their families may be suffering due to their situation. The amendments have the effect for payments made on or after 1 July 2007. This has been commented on widely by me, by the shadow minister and by the former minister in the debate on tax laws amendment bill No. 1.
Schedule 8, which like schedules 10 and 11 was introduced by the former government in Tax Laws Amendment Bill (2007 Measures No. 6) Bill 2007, provides a concession for the cost of establishing a carbon sink forest. This measure will encourage the establishment of carbon sink forests and, in turn, make a contribution to carbon sequestration and deliver natural resource management benefits. Schedule 9 extends the beneficiary tax offset to the equine workers hardship wage supplement payment. This payment is made fortnightly to individuals who can demonstrate the loss of their primary source of income, which is earned in the commercial horse racing industry, as a direct result of the equine influenza outbreak and its associated quarantine and movement restrictions. This schedule will ensure that no tax is payable on the payment if the only income received by the recipient is the payment.
Schedule 10 provides tax-free status to grants under the Tobacco Growers Adjustment Assistance Program 2006 to tobacco growers who undertake to exit all agricultural enterprises for at least five years. The grants are being paid following the loss of a market in Australia for domestically grown tobacco. Schedule 11 makes minor technical amendments to the early withdrawal provisions to the Farm Management Deposits scheme. This amendment will improve the Farm Management Deposits scheme by ensuring that all primary producers who are eligible for early withdrawal due to exceptional circumstances will retain the tax benefits. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the supplementary explanatory memorandum.
These amendments are necessary because the opposition are attempting to obstruct the passage of tax laws amendment bill No. 1 and to delay its implementation due to their objection to the removal of tax deductibility for political donations. This is a great shame, considering that the Labor Party campaigned on this and has a mandate for this very sensible and important reform. I make it clear that the government will be taking all necessary steps to ensure that the tax deductibility is removed from 1 July, as indicated in our election campaign and as legislated. But, to remove any risk to these other very sensible and important measures—which I note do have the support of the opposition—being implemented on 1 July, we are moving them all to tax laws amendment bill No. 2 so that they can pass this House today and pass the other place in good time and be implemented. We will continue to debate with the opposition about the other schedule which remains in tax laws amendment bill No. 1, which is the abolition of deductibility for political donations. This is very important to the government’s agenda. It is very important for increased transparency and it is a very important savings measure that the government is determined to introduce.
The opposition are delaying and obfuscating on this bill in a most disappointing fashion. However, we will not allow their delays and obstructions to affect the other matters, particularly the tax-free payment of superannuation benefits to people with terminal illnesses. There should be no doubt as to when these measures will pass the parliament and when they will be implemented, so we are taking this sensible step. The opposition complained quite cynically that these measures were put together in the same bill, despite the fact that it is normal practice for various tax measures to be placed in omnibus bills. That was the previous government’s practice and it is this government’s practice. It is not something I ever complained about when I was shadow minister. If the opposition wants to have a debate about tax deductibility of political donations we will have that debate on that bill, with that being the only measure. It is a debate we will welcome and prosecute with vigour.
2667
11:32:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
0
0
Mr KEENAN
—The opposition have no objection to these amendments. There is good reason why we need to pass these measures quickly. I do note that all of the measures are coalition policy, either introduced or announced by the previous coalition government, with the exception of the tax deductibility for political donations. I just might say on that matter that the opposition are very, very happy to have a debate about the funding of political parties in Australia. I think it is a very important debate. What we do object to is this cynical exercise of including within a tax bill a measure that should appropriately be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, where these matters are traditionally debated at the conclusion of any election in Australia. I think it is a good indication of the cynicism of this new government that they would include a measure like this within a tax bill with these much needed measures. As I have said, we are very happy to have a conversation about the funding of political parties in Australia. It is a terribly important discussion, but it is not one that we should have in relation to a tax laws amendment bill. I support what the government is doing in bringing these measures forward. This has the support of the opposition.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
2668
Mr BOWEN
(Prospect
—Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer)
11:34:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT AMENDMENT (REMOVAL OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION WORKPLACE RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS AND NATIONAL GOVERNANCE PROTOCOLS REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2008
2668
Bills
R2919
Second Reading
2668
Debate resumed from 13 February, on motion by Ms Gillard:
That this bill be now read a second time.
2668
11:35:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
0
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—The government’s Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008 proposes a number of changes in the operation of the parent act, the Higher Education Support Act. They include allowing a higher education provider to list a body as a quality auditing body, allowing for requirements to be set out on the conduct of audits and providing authority to the minister to revoke a higher education provider’s approval if they cease operation as a business and for other reasons. The bill also contains a principal major amendment, which is the removal of conditionality for increased funding of universities and higher education providers that they meet the requirements of the national governance protocols and the higher education workplace relations requirements. The opposition have said publicly and to the government that we have significant concerns about this particular amendment with respect to the removal of funding conditionality contained within the government’s bill, wholly and only with respect to the operation of the national governance protocols. Both the protocols and the HEWRRs, as they were known, were incorporated into the Higher Education Support Act in 2003, for operation in 2004 and 2005 respectively, following the increased investment made into higher education in the Our Universities: Backing Australia’s Future package that saw funding to the sector rise to levels of more than $8 billion.
It is the case that the workplace relations requirements and the protocols were introduced to assist universities to become competitive, both internationally and domestically, and to offer career opportunities and managerial integrity to staff of universities and universities themselves. Both the HEWRRS and the national governance protocols were a condition of universities and higher education providers receiving increased levels of funding of 2.5 per cent in 2005, five per cent in 2006 and 7.5 per cent in 2007. The higher education workplace relations requirements provided for a wider degree of choice in agreement making and covered direct relationships with employers as well as flexibility and a focus on workplace productivity. Of course, under the government’s new workplace relations system that the opposition has not opposed, the previous government’s measures under the HEWRRS will become inconsistent with the wider workplace relations law and therefore will become obsolete. For this reason the opposition is not seeking to stand in the way of the removal of conditionality of funding as it relates to the meeting of the HEWRRS contained within the bill.
We note that in her second reading speech the minister did not address the issue of assisting universities in overcoming the immense difficulty in attracting the best and brightest minds to teach and work in our universities. Maybe she is not aware of the problem. Nowhere is it more evident than in our universities that, in order to attract and keep the best staff, staff need to be rewarded in accordance with their skills. The problem of how to attract and retain world-class staff will remain an unanswered question on the part of the government. However, as I have indicated, the opposition’s concern is with the heart of this bill, which removes conditionality of funding for universities and higher education providers to meet the national governance protocols. In doing so it removes the accountability the minister currently has in place to ensure best practice. The protocols are working today as a mechanism to promote accountability and integrity in the process of university governance. In fact, as representatives from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations were able to confirm to senators in estimates committees earlier this year, the guidelines had been met by every university and higher education provider in the previous year—meaning every higher education provider is compliant.
In opposition, the Labor Party never felt the need to support the implementation of the protocols to cover all our Commonwealth funded universities. Now the minister seems to be saying that she accepts the protocols but intends to have a non-legislative focus on university governance arrangements, as she referred to in her second reading speech. To move away from legislative guidelines and requirements is in our view a recipe for failure in the future. The reason for Australia-wide compliance last year is that the protocols on good governance mechanisms are intended to work within the discipline of legislative conditionality. The removal of the requirement of meeting the national governance protocols as a condition of increased funding will, in our view, mean a slow return to the sort of issues that were troubling universities with respect to governance in the past prior to the introduction of those protocols.
Under the government’s amendment, if there were an issue in the future with a university not meeting best practice then it appears the government could do little or nothing. That is the simple fact of the government’s amendment. I would not like to see, in a worst-case scenario, the minister having to come back into this House and move amendments to her own amendments so that she could tackle a governance problem that had arisen at a higher education provider or university. The Commonwealth will, of course, provide significant fund-ing to higher education over the next four years. With this allocated money, it is expected that universities’ governing bodies will provide the necessary oversight to ensure that it is being spent properly. Australians expect and deserve to know that universities have the best governance that they possibly can.
The history behind establishing consistent, well-defined and responsible national protocols for good governance is relatively recent. The national governance protocols, as included in chapter 7 of the Commonwealth grants scheme guidelines No. 1, go back to 2002 when emerging concerns were raised through the Higher education at the crossroads review conducted by the then education minister and now Leader of the Opposition. However, reviews conducted into university governance, such as the Hoare review in 1995 and the Victorian government’s review of 2002, also raised similar sorts of issues—which, apparently, the minister is at best unaware of or trying to deny the existence of.
Twelve years ago the Hoare report identified a number of problems associated with the performance of governing bodies. It argued that they lacked focus on strategic issues, that members of governing bodies had inadequately articulated roles and responsibilities, and that there was a lack of commitment and interest shown by some members. What is clear from the reviews of the past is that changing the face of university governance required an end to the old detached, amateurish, academic leadership models and required an end to reliance on politically-selected lay boards for university governance.
The Victorian Review of university governance noted the need to strengthen not only the process but also the perception of university governance in the wider community. For example, the review found that because of the increasing responsibilities of and demands placed on university councils:
The review believes that university councils’ discharge of these increased responsibilities should be transparent and open to public scrutiny as well as being accountable to the Minister.
Not surprisingly, the review proposed:
... a system of corporate governance and accountability to Government that sheets home responsibility to universities to advance their public purposes, with transparent governance of and effective accountability for all their activities, including their commercial ventures. The intent of the recommended changes is to enhance public confidence that effective decisions are being made by those who are charged with responsibility for advancing the universities’ public purposes.
That is exactly the intent of the national governance protocols that the government here intends to remove funding conditionality on. The current chair of the Future Fund, and then Commonwealth Bank Chief Executive Officer, David Murray, recognised this in 2002 when he urged state and federal ministers—and, I might point out to the government, they represented both political parties—to get behind the national governance protocols. He said:
If the taxpayers’ funds are coming from the federal government, then the federal government is the one that has to answer for the outcome of the funding.
He went on to add that the business community would be willing to invest more in our universities if they could be assured of the outcomes. It would be interesting if the minister could comment on exactly what has changed in the need to support university councils in aiming for the highest standards in governance. Indeed, in the issues paper Meeting the challenges: the governance and management of universities commissioned by the department, it was found—and the Labor Party are not yet able to accept this point:
Like other major institutions in our society, we must demand new levels of accountability of the university for the integrity of its financial operations, the quality of its services, and the stewardship of its resources.
The opposition is of the firm view that the national governance protocols, as derived from chapter 7 of the Commonwealth Grants Scheme Guidelines No. 1, are essential to the continued good governance of universities. Without these protocols anchored on continued funding conditionality, university governance standards would in our view slip over time. It would be a return to the past. It might not happen overnight, but it would happen over time.
It is the opposition that continues to support the protocols for good governance. The protocols specifically deal with internationally recognised best practice methods. For example, protocol 5 deals with the size of the membership of governing bodies. There are some horror stories from the past of dysfunctional and inefficient university councils with too many members, all representing competing sectional interests. It is interesting to note that the average size of university councils in 1990 was 27 members. In one university some years ago, the council size was said to be as high as 35. Successive reviews have argued for governing bodies of between 10 and 15 members. The protocols make provision for no more than 22. As to the intent of the protocols, what happened to the membership of university councils after 2002? Their average size dropped to around 21 members.
The third protocol, for example, demands that members be required to be trustees of the institution and act solely in the interests of the university, rather than as a delegate or representative of a particular constituency. It states that ‘all members of the governing body must be responsible and accountable to the governing body’ and that a member ‘must always act in the best interests of the higher education provider as a whole, with this obligation to be observed in priority to any duty a member may owe to those electing or appointing him or her’.
These protocols also deal with perfectly reasonable tenets of corporate governance that encourage universities to endorse best practice in their governing bodies. These include requirements for an induction process for new council members and ongoing professional development, as well as for transparent nomination procedures for new members going on to council who are not subject to an election. They also require that there is proper experience and diversity on boards. Removing the funding condition of having these protocols would remove the incentive for universities to strive for and excel in best practice—not for all universities, of course, but it would provide the opportunity for some to slip back to the very problems that the protocols were introduced to try and overcome.
Moving to a non-legislative focus will not ensure continued high standards in university governance. It is a way backwards. Like the recommendations from the reviews of the past pointed out, so many difficulties needed leadership to overcome, leadership provided by both state and territory government ministers and the council. The minister needs to demonstrate some leadership in taking up the challenge of ensuring that best practice is maintained into the future in all of our universities and higher education providers.
I have outlined to the House why the government should accept—and I say this respectfully—that it has got it wrong with respect to its treatment of the governance protocols. We understand that the minister in the first week of parliament was keen to make her point on workplace relations, but the government’s bill here fails to realise that the governance protocols are necessary policy when you are talking about the huge amounts of investment governments, students and the community place in our universities. In the interests of the convenience of the House today, I will not be seeking for the opposition to oppose the second reading. However, I give notice that I will move an amendment on behalf of the opposition in the consideration in detail stage of the debate.
The amendment that will be circulated will have the effect of continuing to require universities and higher education providers to meet the national governance protocols as a condition of increased funding. It will put back what we think should not have been taken away. The amendment will require universities and higher education providers to keep meeting the governance protocols as a condition of the funding. It will retain the provision that the minister must be satisfied that the provider meets the protocols. In the event that the minister is not satisfied, it will provide the minister with the same penalty mechanism that existed previously.
Importantly—as I outlined at the start and a number of times since—the coalition’s amendment in no way affects the government’s aim of removing the higher education workplace relations requirements from force should it be accepted. Our amendment does not provide for conditions of funding with respect to the HEWRRs; it only provides for funding conditionality with respect to the governance protocols. That is our aim. That is our objective. That is what we are seeking to achieve.
If the coalition’s amendment is successful, it will ensure that those protocols are substituted back into the bill. If the amendments are not successful, we intend to oppose the government’s bill currently under debate in the House because we will not support legislation that removes that funding conditionality with respect to governance protocols. In that event, we would oppose the third reading of the bill and vote against the passage of the bill in the final vote. Of course, in the Senate, a similar amendment will be moved. We hope that the minister is prepared to consider this issue. Our concern is just the issue of the national governance protocols. It is up to the government to indicate their intentions towards our amendments, which we have provided to them.
The minister has also changed regulations with respect to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme guidelines. These had the effect of removing chapter 7 from the guidelines and replacing it with the term ‘Not used’, therefore removing altogether from the guidelines both the HEWRRs conditions and the protocol conditions for governance. The minister tabled these changes to the guidelines in the House and in the Senate on 11 March. They are currently on the Senate disallowable instruments list as they are disallowable instruments under the act.
Whilst chapter 7 of the guidelines ceased to exist on 28 February, the day after they were registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments, our amendment to the government bill will refer to guidelines as they were on 27 February, when they were in force.
My colleague Senator Brett Mason, the shadow parliamentary secretary for education, apprenticeships and training, has given notice in the Senate that he will move today that the guidelines be disallowed. The opposition has moved to disallow this instrument so as to maintain those national governance protocols that work in conjunction with the current legislation. We are aware the chapter also contains conditions with respect to the HEWRRs, although, as members would be aware, it is simply not possible to selectively disallow part of a chapter that deals with the governance protocols without also disallowing everything else within the guidelines. I reiterate that, if the government accepts our amendment, the legislative framework for the operation of the HEWRRs, as prescribed in the guidelines, will be removed. In any event, the act will refer only to the national governance protocols.
In any event the important point is that the workplace relations laws have changed since the last election—so the substance of the law has changed—rendering obsolete a lot of the HEWRRs guidelines, particularly relating to AWAs. If the minister’s wish was to introduce a new instrument—a new set of guidelines that dealt with just the HEWRRs—I say here and now that the opposition would not seek to disallow that if it is a housekeeping measure to just clean up the guidelines. As I have said, our amendment specifically ensures that it relates only to the national governance protocols.
2673
11:55:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement
1
0
Mr COMBET
—I wish to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008. The bill will remove the Howard government’s extreme workplace relations agenda from our universities. It will provide the universities with greater flexibility in their governance by removing unnecessary government interference in their management.
Today I will go into some detail about the system that this bill seeks to abolish, because it is very important that we understand exactly what the previous government was doing and offer some reflections on why the Howard government introduced this system. Having listened to the member for Casey it is interesting that the previous support by members of the former Howard government for the higher education workplace relations requirements appears to have collapsed.
On Friday, 29 April 2005, the then Howard government announced a set of higher education workplace relations requirements for Australian higher education institutions. They are referred to as the HEWRRs. In short, the HEWRRs were strict workplace relations criteria that universities had to comply with in order to be eligible for $280 million of assistance funding under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme.
The first and key element of the HEWRRs was the criterion that universities were required to offer Australian workplace agreements. As is now notorious, Australian workplace agreements, or AWAs, are individual employment contracts that were able to undercut important protections and safety net conditions contained in the awards and collective agreements that operated within the higher education system, in this instance, but of course they operated throughout the economy and all other industries.
The HEWRRs within this sector required universities to offer AWAs to all new staff employed after 29 April 2005 and to all existing staff by 31 August 2006. The HEWRRs also required universities to include a clause in collective agreements that expressly allowed AWAs to operate to the exclusion of any collective agreement. It is important to consider exactly what was being asked here by the former government. What we now know about AWAs from official data—data that the Howard government was not keen to see become public—is that 89 per cent of the AWAs, in quite broad surveys, removed at least one protected award condition. In fact 52 per cent excluded more than six protected award conditions. Employment was casualised under many AWAs and, as we have also heard from the Deputy Prime Minister on occasion in this House, the AWAs in effect were used to significantly reduce people’s take-home pay, often by very considerable amounts.
We know that the way in which that was commonly achieved was through the removal of award conditions such as shiftwork penalties, annual leave loading and other forms of penalty rates such as overtime pay. This was the regime, and it was the intent of the Howard government to force it upon the higher education sector by making funding conditional upon the offering of AWAs.
Another key element of the HEWRRs was the removal of restrictions on fixed term and casual employment. The HEWRRs stipulated that university agreements, policies and practices must not place limitations on the forms and mix of employment arrangements. In practice this had two consequences. Firstly, existing agreement restrictions on the use of fixed term and casual employment had to be removed. The effect was, unsurprisingly, a marked increase in fixed term employment in universities and a continuation of quite a rapid increase in casual employment across the higher education sector. In summary, employment security was undermined to a significant degree by the HEWRRs through this measure alone.
One individual example of the effect of these provisions involved a woman named Rosalie Bunn, who held a long-term casual teaching position in the Open Foundation and Newstep program at the University of Newcastle in the region that I now represent. She has now been a casual for more than 10 years, during which time she has had no access to sick leave, annual leave, long service leave or any other kind of leave, no job security and no incremental advancement. There was an effort at the time, several years ago, to limit casual employment at Newcastle in the light of experiences such as Rosalie Bunn’s. But these efforts to improve the employment security of someone such as Rosalie Bunn—effectively a casual for 10 years in what was a permanent position—and afford her community accepted standards such as annual leave were made completely illegal, unlawful and impossible by the imposition of the HEWRRs. As a result, Rosalie and people like her are still casuals—and it is not 10 years; it is now well beyond 10 years that she has been in that position.
The second consequence arising from this specific change was that job security and the management of change provisions in many agreements were weakened. That was an intentional element of the HEWRRs. Previous commitments in collective agreements—for example, to maintaining particular staffing levels or to providing job security through no compulsory redundancies—had to be removed because of the HEWRRs. Another element of HEWRRs was the removal of detail from agreements. Under the rubric of requiring collective agreements to be simple, flexible and principle based, avoiding excessive detail and prescription, as was required, some conditions which were previously included in agreements had to be removed. These included things such as position classification standards, award provisions relating to casual employment and aspects of leave, management of change and unsatisfactory performance, and misconduct procedures and processes. In the wake of the removal of detail such as that, it became harder for employees under the agreements to access things such as dispute-settling procedures to protect their rights, oftentimes in circumstances where unfairness may have been exacted upon them. It was also much more difficult to access union representation in those circumstances.
Another element of the HEWRRs required universities to implement performance management systems to reward high-performing staff and efficiently manage poor-performing staff. As a principle that is not controversial; however, in the circumstances of the HEWRRs the outcome was a push on the part of some of the management in the higher education sector to implement performance pay systems which were disruptive to the cohesiveness of staff and which encouraged an overconcentration on short-term results.
Finally, the HEWRRs required that university agreements, policies and practices must be consistent with the freedom of association principles contained in the Workplace Relations Act. This in practice meant that agreements had to be stripped of provisions which the Howard government interpreted as encouraging union membership. In essence it meant that there was no leave to attend things such as workplace meetings or to invite a union representative to come into the workplace to represent you in an industrial situation. The HEWRRs system gave the ministers for education under the former government unprecedented power, in fact, to involve themselves in the management of workplace relations in the sector. All decisions on the HEWRRs were made directly by the minister and there was no scope for review or repeal of those decisions. Furthermore, the minister was able to unilaterally change the requirements at any time. If you are to consider this, this is an extraordinary level of ministerial or government interference in staff management, as it would be in any sector but particularly in higher education.
At the time of the original legislation establishing the HEWRRs, there was understandably widespread criticism of the system, criticism that was completely ignored by the government. At the Senate hearing into the legislation establishing the HEWRRs, there was fierce opposition. Some of the criticisms raised at those hearings, particularly by the National Tertiary Education Union, were that the HEWRRs failed to address the real workplace issues being faced within the universities, that the HEWRRs lacked appropriate accountability and parliamentary scrutiny, that they created uncertainty and confusion and provoked industrial disharmony within the universities, that they gave the federal government unprecedented and unwarranted capacity to interfere in the operation of the higher education institutions, and that they did not assist Australia’s higher education institutions with respect to the quality of learning, research or outcomes for employees. They were specifically focused industrial relations initiatives designed on the basis of conditionality to the access of funding to allow the government to force on the sector its industrial relations agenda, which I think is now widely held throughout the community to have been one of extreme unfairness, lacking justification.
The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, now known as Universities Australia, essentially representing the management and administrators of the universities, also opposed the introduction of the HEWRRs. In their submission to the Senate committee, they said that the HEWRRs would be:
… very intrusive in terms of universities’ capacity to manage their internal affairs. The HEWRRs proposal constitutes a ‘one size fits all’ approach, whereas the AVCC takes the view that the focus should be on desired outcomes, rather than specific industrial processes and particular industrial instruments.
That was an extremely important criticism made by the vice-chancellors charged with the responsibility of the management, administration and governance of Australia’s universities. They did not want the HEWRRs imposed—and for good reason.
It is important to note for the record that the Howard government completely ignored all of the well-founded criticism of the system that it proposed to introduce, instead preferring to implement its ideological industrial relations agenda. To understand that agenda is to understand the wider intention of its form of industrial relations, embodied in the Work Choices legislation. That was what the HEWRRs were really all about: to impose the Work Choices type of philosophy on the university system. It was never about improving the higher education system. It was never about promoting flexibility, innovation or skills development within universities and it certainly did nothing to relieve the burden on university staff or students.
The HEWRRs system was about the fulfilment of the government’s ideological obsessions in industrial relations. It was a plan conceived at least substantially by the then Minister for Education, Science and Training—now, of course, the Leader of the Opposition—and several of his colleagues. It should give cause to consider exactly where the opposition may be going in relation to industrial relations. I note from the member for Casey’s contribution that, if the amendment that is proposed to be moved is defeated, the opposition intend to vote against this bill, which means that they will be voting in this circumstance to continue the imposition of HEWRRs within the higher education system, in effect.
The fact is that, when Dr Nelson was in charge of the nation’s higher education system, instead of concentrating on how he could improve the services of the universities or how we could make an investment for the future, there was a preoccupation with the imposition of this workplace relations agenda. Education is vital to the ability of individuals to fulfil their potential and to maximising the productive capacity of the country. Over the last 150 years the measure of a nation’s economic development was the number of tonnes of iron and steel it produced. In this century it will be the number of graduates that a nation produces, especially in science and engineering, that will be important.
Investment in education is the linchpin of our future economic potential and yet the last government failed in this area, particularly in tertiary education—the level of education that the Commonwealth has the most responsibility for. Australia ranks a mediocre 15th out of 28 OECD nations in terms of total spending on education as a percentage of GDP. In the decade since 1995, Australia was the only OECD country to cut public investment in tertiary education, by an amount of seven per cent. In dire contrast, the average increase in public investment by other OECD countries was 48 per cent. We are entirely against the trend of all other OECD countries, instead concentrating on imposing things like HEWRRs and completely losing focus on the importance of investment in quality tertiary education.
An important aspect of this is our failure to train engineers, and this is especially crucial in the defence industry, which is a portfolio area for which I now have some responsibility. Australia ranks 20th out of the 21 OECD nations surveyed in terms of the share of engineering graduates to total graduates. Only 10 per cent of Australian graduates are engineers, compared to an OECD average of 14 per cent. Imagine the impact on productivity in the country and the relief on inflationary pressure if we were able to improve that outcome. I am not just speaking as an engineer. I think it is actually critical to the future economic prosperity of the country that we improve the numbers of graduates coming out of engineering and science disciplines.
Coupled with the Howard government’s obsession with AWAs was a deep-seated and divisive attitude to those who work in higher education. I think this partly informed the former government’s approach to the imposition of the HEWRRs. Universities, under the previous government, were not necessarily seen as institutions that promoted creativity and built the productive capacity of our society. They were in part a battle ground to play out what has been described as some of the ‘culture wars’. In a well-publicised recent speech to an American conservative group, the former Prime Minister, John Howard, had the following to say:
Those who hold to conservative values continue to face a major ideological battle. The left liberal grip on educational institutions and large, though not all, sections of the media remains intense.
That is something of an insight into some of the previous government’s motives. It was this view of universities as bastions of supposed Left liberalism that made the Howard government, at least in part, eager to impose these kinds of constraints and conditionality on the availability of funding. If that were not bad enough, what better way to further punish the supposed Left liberals than by pushing universities to implement some of these changes? That is what the laws were about.
The substance of the bill is also concerned with what are called ‘the national governance protocols’ that the member for Casey referred to. These required or imposed, again on the basis of conditionality of access to funding, what could be described as a standardised governance approach to the management and administration of the universities. Under the current system, Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding was also contingent on adherence to these national governance protocols. The practical result of this has been an increase—in the Rudd government’s belief—in red tape and bureaucracy for universities as part of ongoing compliance checks. These checks are conducted despite the fact that all universities have already taken the necessary steps to implement these protocols—an important point in considering the changes contained in this bill. The Rudd government, in contrast, believes in greater flexibility and the encouragement of good governance practices within universities—we believe in encouraging that—and does not feel the need to impose standardised and excessive red tape and bureaucracy on the leaders and administrators of the universities. That is why the bill proposes to remove the conditionality related to the national governance protocols.
The bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the parent act, by repealing section 33-17. This section of that act currently requires that the HEWRRs and the national governance protocols are adhered to as a condition of Commonwealth Grant Scheme student places. The removal of this section will help remove the burdens, in the government’s belief, on our higher education sector while also granting them greater financial certainty.
I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill, given that I campaigned against the HEWRRs consistently in my former role as the leader of the ACTU. I am very proud to be able to support these changes. I campaigned strongly with the National Tertiary Education Union and other higher education unions in recent years before coming to this place, and I would like to congratulate them for the way in which they conducted what I think was a sensible campaign against completely unreasonable requirements imposed by the previous, Howard government. I am optimistic that the Rudd Labor government will be able to rebuild the relationship between the government and the universities that was disturbed by this unnecessary interference imposed on the universities by the former Howard government. I would simply like to conclude by saying that in today’s world, given the economic challenges this country confronts, the value of higher education cannot be understated. This bill seeks to help that sector of education by allowing for greater flexibility in their workplace relations and in their governance arrangements. I commend the bill to the House.
2678
12:16:00
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
0
0
Mr LINDSAY
—I know one or two things about these issues that we are debating in the parliament this afternoon, and I do hope that there are a number of fair-minded people who will listen to this debate and make a decision on the basis of what is put to the parliament. I do believe that those fair-minded listeners and viewers this afternoon will come down on the side of not supporting the Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008. What is wrong with allowing choice to any Australian in the decisions that they make in their lives? What is wrong with that? The Labor Party seems to believe that everyday Australians should not be allowed a choice. We have choice when we go shopping and we have choice when we go looking for a partner. Why should we not have choice when it comes to how we work? Any fair-minded person would say, ‘That seems a reasonable position.’
The former government found that universities were not allowing their workforce to have choice and that precluded their employees from making a better arrangement with their employer. I want to tell the parliament this afternoon about Norm Canton. Norm works for Buildings and Grounds at James Cook University—the premier university in the tropics in the world. James Cook University is in Townsville, the area that I represent in the Australian parliament, and I am very proud of James Cook University. But James Cook University had a closed mind in relation to how it would employ Norm Canton. Norm wanted to make an Australian workplace agreement with the university authorities because he thought that he could find a better way of working for the university and that he could earn more money because the arrangement that he would make would suit both him and the university. That seems like a fairly common-sense thing to do, doesn’t it? But the university would not allow that.
Fortunately, the Howard government put in place the higher education workplace relations requirements. All that those requirements said was that universities should offer Australian workplace agreements. Staff were not required to take them up—they were not even required to ask for them—but if they did want to consider an AWA then the university had to make that available. Norm Canton went to the authorities at James Cook University and said, ‘I’d like to negotiate an AWA for myself’—a single employee workplace agreement. Norm did, thanks to the Howard government. Do you know what happened? He got higher pay, he got better working conditions, the university had a better arrangement for when Norm worked and everybody was happy.
And now the Labor Party wants to take it all away. The Labor Party that claims to represent the workers of this country does not want the workers to have choice. That is a disgraceful position. But more than that—this was revealed by the budget last night, and it undermines what this particular bill is about—the Labor government’s backward-looking approach to workplace flexibility, meaning choice, has already cast a shadow over the Australian economy. This was revealed in the budget last night. Unemployment is predicted to rise to 4.75 per cent. We heard the absolutely incredible statement that Labor’s budget in the coming year will put 134,000 everyday Australians out of a job—and this is the party of the worker. How could that be? Under the former government, unemployment went to record lows. Now that the Labor Party is in, it is making conscious decisions to drive up unemployment. Gosh! When is the Australian public going to wake up? How can my Labor colleagues on the other side of the chamber support a budget that puts 134,000 everyday Australians out of work at a time when they are facing increased grocery prices, increased petrol prices and are wondering if they can own their own home anymore and how they are going to pay for their insurance? It is extraordinary.
In the history of Australia, last night’s budget was the highest-spending, highest-taxing budget that we have ever seen. And then to add, ‘And by the way we are going to put 134,000 people out of work as well,’ is extraordinary. When you link that in to what this particular bill is about you see the connection. This is the Labor Party, for ideological reasons, taking choice away from the Australian worker. I certainly feel very disheartened about that.
The other main part of the bill in relation to the national governance protocols requires that, as the Australian government provides virtually all of the money to run our universities, universities should conduct themselves properly in a governance sense. The Labor Party seems to think we should not have any control over a fundamental issue like that. I think the Australian people will understand that they need to think about this.
Back to my university, James Cook—and this, again, is where governance issues come in. Currently Central Queensland University, based in Rockhampton, is having significant financial problems. It may well be that it is having significant governance problems. I have certainly suggested that James Cook should be allowed by the Queensland government to take over CQU’s patch in Mackay. There is a synergy which happens with JCU Townsville and JCU Cairns—and it should be with JCU Mackay. Because of the difficulties CQU has got itself into, it may well have to be taken over by one of the universities in Brisbane.
I urge the Queensland government, in looking at these governance issues related to higher education, to look at the opportunity now presented for James Cook University to move its courses and its support to Mackay, a very significant city in North Queensland. I want the parliament to know in no uncertain terms—from me and from Norm Canton in Townsville—that the availability of AWAs in higher education has done a power of good and that we are disappointed that the current government wants to take away that power of good.
2679
12:24:00
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
HWG
Isaacs
ALP
1
0
Mr DREYFUS
—I rise today to support the Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008. This bill is an important step in overturning the regressive and mean-spirited agenda of the previous government. The introduction of the higher education workplace relations requirements and the national governance protocols themselves represented very directly one of the worst elements of the former government’s policies. They represented the ideological commitment to what was, in reality, an unfair workplace relations system. They represented unwarranted interference in the running of important national institutions and they represented very directly the willingness of the former government to use every Commonwealth power to further the government’s ideological attacks on perceived or imagined opponents, which, in this case, were universities and trade unions.
Work Choices was part of a broader attack by the former government on the rights of workers. The higher education workplace relations requirements were a harsh, related measure, which this government is bringing to an end. Regardless of how the opposition is going to vote on this bill, there should be no mistaking the fact that the Liberal Party remains committed to undermining the rights of employees in the workplace. We have heard echoes of this just now from the member for Herbert, who spoke of choice but really demonstrated that the Liberal Party remains committed to the illusion of choice, which—Australian workers learned in no uncertain terms under the Work Choices legislation—is no choice at all.
In government, the Liberal Party used every mechanism at its disposal to further its extreme industrial relations agenda. The government used legislation which directly undermined workers’ rights. It used Commonwealth funding to undermine workers’ rights and used government procurement and purchasing policies to undermine workers’ rights. The casualties of these mechanisms and devices were ordinary working Australians and their families, who had to bear the brunt of this Liberal Party agenda through the loss of collective bargaining, diminished working conditions and the reduction—not the expansion—of choice within the workplace.
The new system which Labor is introducing restores balance in the workplace, including within higher education institutions—which is what the present bill is concerned with. The Rudd government does not believe that employees in the higher education system should be treated differently from employees in other sectors of the economy.
Australia has had 100 years of a largely fair and balanced industrial relations system. By the early 1990s, it needed reform to keep pace with the changing nature of what is an increasingly globalised economy. Those changes were made by the Keating government in introducing enterprise bargaining and moving away from previous centralisation, providing a basis for linking wage increases with productivity improvements. This bill and the Forward with Fairness plan that the government has committed to will build on the progress made with the industrial relations system by the Keating government in a way which is fair to workers and promotes economic growth. As promised at the last election, Labor has abolished Australian workplace agreements. We know that, even after the introduction of the previous government’s so-called fairness test, employment conditions continued to be removed from employees. These were the primary tools used to shift the balance of power in the workplace dramatically away from employees.
Australian workers were told that AWAs would not affect the conditions under which they worked, that they would be better off under Australian workplace agreements, but the evidence was to the contrary. Eighty-nine per cent of AWAs cut at least one protected award condition, 83 per cent of AWAs removed two protected award conditions and 52 per cent of AWAs removed more than half of the protected award conditions. There was a reason that so many Australians opposed the former government’s workplace agenda. It was because they understood that, when you shift the balance of power in the workplace, conditions will be cut, rights will be removed and choice will be diminished and not enhanced.
Through the introduction of individual transitional employment agreements, we have provided transitional arrangements for employees on AWAs. Importantly, the Forward with Fairness plan allows for the creation of new modern awards to ensure a minimum safety net for all employees, which of course comprises the 10 National Employment Standards covering maximum weekly hours of work, requests by parents for flexible working arrangements, annual leave, personal and carers leave and compassionate leave, community service leave, long service leave, public holidays, parental leave and other entitlements, notice of termination and redundancy, and fair work information statements. Enterprise bargaining will remain the central foundation of Australia’s modern workplace relations system. This provides for collective bargaining with the greatest possible flexibility.
Work Choices was perhaps the best example of how out of touch with the Australian people the Liberal Party had become—or perhaps I should say ‘has’ become. We had a spectacular demonstration of this with the comments made by the member for North Sydney on the Four Corners program back in March. He said:
Quite frankly, when I took over the job—
he meant as Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—
I don’t think many ministers in cabinet were aware that you could be worse off under Work Choices and that you could actually have certain conditions taken away without compensation …
Once I started to raise those issues with colleagues and they became more informed of the impact of Work Choices, we introduced the fairness test.
That is an extraordinary statement for the member for North Sydney to have made. It is an admission that the former government introduced legislation, as we know, almost without consultation and, as we definitely know, without proper debate. And it would appear that it was introduced without even a proper understanding of what the implications of the legislation were.
The people of my electorate of Isaacs were in no doubt, unlike the member for North Sydney, that you could be worse off under Work Choices. People in Carrum Downs, Dandenong South, Springvale, Keysborough, Chelsea, Carrum and right throughout my electorate made it clear to me as I campaigned through last year that they understood that the Howard government’s Work Choices laws had made them or were going to make them worse off. These were people who I met in my electorate at thousands of doors of thousands of homes, outside shopping centres, at community events and at train stations. People told me over and over again how directly and clearly they understood that the Howard government’s Work Choices had made them worse off. What I heard from people all through last year was that they did not want the kind of workplace that the Howard government’s laws were creating. They did not want the kind of society that the Howard government’s laws were creating.
Many people told me they had been directly affected by the Work Choices legislation. These included older people trying to re-enter the workforce, 16- and 17-year-old kids trying to negotiate their first employment agreements with large corporations and mothers in part-time work trying to earn an additional income for their families. Apart from all those people who were directly affected, many people told me of others—their children, grandchildren, friends and associates—who had been directly affected even when they themselves had not been.
The people of my electorate understood very well that these so-called industrial relations reforms were not designed as genuine economic reforms. They were not designed to improve government purchasing outcomes and, in the case of the matters which this bill is intending to deal with, they certainly were not designed to improve our higher education system. People in my electorate and indeed across Australia knew that the Work Choices laws, including within them these devices designed to further the objectives of the Work Choices laws in the higher education system, were the outcome of an ideological fixation of the Liberal Party on changing the balance of power in the Australian workplace. It was a shameful act of the previous government to use the Higher Education Support Act to impose their industrial relations agenda on higher education institutions. Choice and diversity were not expanded in universities; they were in fact diminished by this device.
Australian universities understood this very well and I note that the peak body, Universities Australia, has welcomed and supported the removal of the higher education workplace relations requirements as a legislative condition for funding universities. Indeed the predecessor organisation of Universities Australia, the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, made it very clear in 2005 that they were directly opposed to the imposition of these higher education workplace requirements. I note that the member for Charlton has already read this quote in his speech to the House, but it is worth repeating. The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee back in 2005 said that the introduction of these requirements was:
… very intrusive in terms of universities’ capacity to manage their internal affairs. The HEWRRs proposal constitutes a ‘one size fits all’ approach, whereas the AVCC takes the view that the focus should be on desired outcomes, rather than specific industrial processes and particular industrial instruments.
The Howard government, of course, was not listening to what the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee had to say any more than the Howard government was listening to anything that the trade union movement had to say or indeed what anyone else had to say in opposition to the Work Choices legislation. They ploughed on. They continued not to listen.
It is a cruel irony that, having presided over a massive decline in public investment in tertiary education, the Howard government sought to impose its harsh industrial relations agenda on our universities. As we have just heard from the member for Charlton, other OECD countries in the 10 years from 1995 increased public investment in tertiary education by an average of 48 per cent. The Howard government in the same period cut public investment by seven per cent. Australia was the only OECD country to cut public investment in tertiary education in that period. We aim to reverse that situation.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—That does not include HECS!
HWG
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
Mr DREYFUS
—I am talking about public tertiary education funding.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
10000
Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr KJ Thomson)—Order! The member for Sturt will cease interjecting.
HWG
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
Mr DREYFUS
—We are going to increase public investment in tertiary education. We are going to stop ordering universities around. We are going to welcome diversity in our higher education institutions. We aim to build a collaborative relationship with universities. This bill is a very good step in that direction. I commend the bill to the House.
2682
12:39:00
Marino, Nola, MP
HWP
Forrest
LP
0
0
Ms MARINO
—I wish to participate in the debate on the bill before the House, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008. This bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 by repealing section 33-17. The main purpose of this bill is to remove the requirement of universities and other higher education providers to offer Australian workplace agreements to employees as a condition of additional funding provided through the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. It will also remove the requirement that universities and higher education providers meet the national governance protocols as a condition of additional funding provided through the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. The national governance protocols have ensured that universities and higher education providers’ governing bodies are effectively overseeing the operations of management and include specific provisions relating to the size, structure, membership and experience of university boards and governing bodies.
Under the prior act, the Higher Education Support Act 2003, universities were required to comply with higher education workplace relations requirements and national governance protocols in order to receive additional increased assistance funding of five per cent in 2006 and 7.5 per cent in 2007 under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. These requirements were introduced into the Higher Education Support Act 2003 through the higher education legislation amendment act 2005. Higher education workplace relations requirements required that an employee of a university or higher education provider should be free to choose collectively negotiated salary and conditions or to negotiate a common-law contract or an Australian workplace agreement. The requirements encouraged more direct relationships with employees, greater workplace productivity and rewards for higher performers by requiring universities to provide employees with genuine choice and flexibility in agreement making. The national governance protocols required that universities and other higher education providers meet best practice in governance by ensuring that university councils were formed by a diverse range of councillors with appropriate commercial and business expertise and that professional development be provided.
The amendments are being introduced despite the fact that a report is due in the coming months on the review of the protocols by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs and is yet to be handed down. Labor did not announce these amendments as a part of their 2007 election policies, instead announcing their intention to legislate the changes through a speech delivered by the minister to Innovative Research Universities Australia on 5 February 2008.
Consultation with several vice-chancellors, some of whom represent the peak university bodies, has taken place recently. I am informed that most vice-chancellors support the government’s amendments on both removing the conditionality clause of higher education workplace relations requirements and national governance protocols, stating that they were an administrative burden. However, the removal of national governance protocols requirements as a condition of higher education sector funding is a purely ideological amendment.
The coalition believes that removing these legislative conditions with a view to encouraging universities to pursue good governance with a ‘non-legislative’ focus is a backward step in best practice. The protocols include specific provisions to ensure that university boards represent and meet the expectations of the university and wider community. They stipulate methods to achieve best practice in university governance. The coalition believes that removing these conditions from the legislation acts as a disincentive for universities to pursue good governance techniques and allows for a return to governing boards being filled with narrow interest groups.
The protocols also draw on evidence to achieve best practice through those protocols. For example, the Business, Industry and Higher Education Collaboration Council considered that nine to 11 members would be appropriate for higher education governing councils. The existing protocols provide for a maximum size of a governing body to be 22 members, with best practice evidence in mind. The protocols also cap a maximum term of appointment for board members at 12 years to ensure that these bodies reflect the changing constituency of university communities. A non-legislative focus to governance protocols would remove the responsibility of universities to meet community expectations of the administration of universities and would deny the taxpayer the right to expect proper and accountable governance for Commonwealth support to be provided to universities.
In line with the coalition’s approach to wider workplace legislation, we do not oppose the retraction of higher education workplace relations requirements. The repealing of these requirements will allow universities to be subject to the same workplace relations laws as all other employers. Nevertheless, it was implemented in the best interests of the universities and higher education providers to provide them with assistance and recognise the difficulties they faced in attracting and retaining the best quality staff. The staff retention and attraction problem that was being addressed will now only continue to worsen for the higher education sector when this legislation passes this parliament.
I do, however, oppose the provisions of the bill relating to the removal of conditionality with respect to the national governance protocols. I fully support the efforts of the coalition in opposition to seek to amend the bill to remove the section allowing the minister to reduce a higher education provider’s basic grant amount if the national governance protocols are not met.
We have had a review as well, and the minister should include Labor’s plans to abolish the domestic full-fee-paying places as part of the review and then seriously consider the impact it will have on the funding stream of higher education sectors. I remind the government that it was only after the coalition government paid off Labor’s $96 billion of government debt that it was able to make important investments in the higher education sector. This included the groundbreaking $6 billion for the Higher Education Endowment Fund and increases in funding, including $1.7 billion in last year’s budget alone.
I note with interest that Universities Australia was very quick to respond to the minister’s announcement of a review into higher education. It stated that it welcomed the review and that the examination of funding arrangements must look at both private and public contributions and their balance compared to other OECD countries. It was also interesting to read Universities Australia’s recommendations to the review in terms of social inclusion measures and improving student equity and access. It recommended a staged reduction in the age of independence for youth allowance from the current 25 years to 18, so that university students are not assessed on the basis of their parents’ income and assets, and the removal of the assessable income component for all scholarships and bursaries regardless of their funding source.
I support this latter recommendation as it does indeed seem to be an impediment for some potential students to re-enter higher education. As an example, one of my constituents, Mrs Margaret Kous from Collie in my Forrest electorate, was awarded her diploma of education from Edith Cowan University in 2000. Mrs Kous is also in receipt of a widow’s allowance from Centrelink. Mrs Kous has been offered a $20,000 scholarship to enable her to continue her studies at Edith Cowan University with the aim of re-entering the workforce. However, the scholarship moneys are a component of assessable income and are counted as such by Centrelink. If this scholarship was a gift or untied to the assessable income component, Mrs Kous’s pension payments would not be affected.
Mrs Kous initially thought she might take $10,000 of the scholarship money as a lump sum to assist her with petrol and car expenses, as she would need to travel from Collie to Bunbury and back several times each week, a distance of 120 kilometres return. But doing this would reduce her current Centrelink payment from $329 per fortnight to just $63 per fortnight. Mrs Kous is now thinking twice about accepting the scholarship because, with the resultant reduction in her Centrelink allowance of $266 per fortnight, it would not leave her with enough funds to meet normal living expenses, plus travel to university. It does seem strange logic to treat this scholarship as ‘income’, thereby denying Mrs Kous the opportunity to become financially independent in the foreseeable future and, as such, no longer a cost to the public purse.
I welcome the input of Universities Australia to this further review. I sincerely hope the government responds to all recommendations submitted so that practical recommendations such as the ones I have previously mentioned are implemented by government, not just those of an ideological nature.
2685
12:50:00
Kerr, Duncan, MP
RH4
Denison
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs
1
0
Mr KERR
—It is a great privilege to be able to speak on the day following the budget announcements of last night on a subject that was recognised as being of national importance. University sectors have been the subject of an ideological and quite malicious attack, albeit characterised by the former government as designed to increase access to tertiary education. The effect has been to require more and more Australians who wish to undertake tertiary studies to pay quite outrageous fees and to bind the universities into the ideological obsession of the former government with its industrial relations policy prescriptions which were so resoundingly rejected at the last election. Might I commence my remarks by springboarding off the budget last night, simply to acknowledge that one of the measures will directly benefit the University of Tasmania.
While other members might not see that as the acme of the budget, in my mind a most important and significant element of the budget is a special one-off funding measure of $11.5 million as part of a nationwide total of $500 million from the Rudd government for priority areas in information and communications technology, laboratories, libraries, student study spaces, teaching spaces and student amenities. To have the opportunity to be able to speak on a bill to which this matter is directly, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008, relevant and to be able to express my happiness at this funding initiative directed specifically at the University of Tasmania gives me real pleasure, as I am a graduate of that university and a member of the parliament who has always taken a very direct interest in the wellbeing of that tertiary institution.
I come to the measures which are addressed most specifically in this legislation, and address what I think was a very wrong direction—that was to tie universities’ hands to the Work Choices agenda that the former government pressed, to its own destruction, over the last three years. What the former government did, through measures introduced by the now Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, was to require universities, as a condition of receipt of substantial levels of government funding, to offer all staff AWAs and to operate in what was called a ‘direct relationship with employees’ to preclude union involvement. This, of course, is a misuse of the power of the state to intervene in the managerial and operational conduct of the tertiary sector and not only undermined what had been a pretty effective and healthy relationship between universities and staff over a long period of time but guaranteed that those institutions had no choice but to accept an agenda that they were reluctant to adopt.
In our own parliamentary environment we learnt, at a very early stage of parliament’s development, to avoid those kinds of measures. In fact, one of the key standing orders in our parliament is to make certain that bills that appropriate money contain no other measures. The reason for that was the practice of early governments, in monarchical times, to tack measures to appropriation bills so that if those measure were passed they would necessarily bring with them other more unpopular measures that would not otherwise command the assent of the parliament. So, in the development of our parliamentary democracy, it was decided very early on—as a rejection of that tying of the hands, in a sense, of the parliament—that a spending bill could not have tacked onto it other kinds of measures. So you could not put forward a bill that would say, ‘The only way this particular spending measure can be approved is if it incorporates some other quite draconian measure that could not otherwise be introduced and gain the support of the parliament.’ That, of course, had been the way previously that governments had got away with very unpopular measures that would not have passed the parliament.
But it was seen fit by the former minister for education, in the time he occupied that portfolio—he now occupies the position of Leader of the Opposition—in a sense to tack measures that the universities would have rejected onto funding allocations so that the only choice they had was either to accept a level of poverty in terms of the courses and arrangements they could offer or to accept the ideological agenda of the government of the time. The universities have suffered under those arrangements for a considerable time, and some reflection of their present view can be had from the statement issued by Universities Australia last night. That media statement says:
Universities Australia supports the Government’s action in this session of Parliament to remove the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs) as a legislated condition of funding for universities.
“Universities Australia would welcome the removal of the HEWRRs as an indication from the Government that it is happy to loosen existing prescriptive requirements and allow universities to pursue their missions as self governing bodies”, Universities Australia Chair, Professor Richard Larkins said.
The release continues:
Universities Australia looks forward to other restrictions being eased or removed across a range of Commonwealth funding and regulatory activity. Universities have been their most dynamic in areas least directed by government ...
The universities plainly are delighted that this measure that is presently under discussion in the House seems set to pass this House with a convincing majority. Whilst it is the case that the opposition still has the capacity to be malign, and to exercise such limited authority as it still persists in holding until the new senators come into office, I look forward to a clear indication from those opposite that they will not stand in the way of removing restrictions in university funding that have hitherto tied those universities to AWAs. I suppose it would be hard to expect otherwise, given the opposition’s complete acceptance of the abolition of AWAs in recent times and a belated recognition that they took industrial relations too far—that their views had been seen as unfair, had been characterised by the community as unfair and had played a very significant part in the defeat that they suffered.
Another measure that this addresses is the cost of degrees. The Higher Education Support Act 2003, which was the product of the now Leader of the Opposition, created a greater number of user-pays students through the FEE-HELP and OS-HELP schemes. I remember very clearly the contemptuous dismissal of the idea that university fees would reach $100,000, but sadly, in the course of the last three years, over 100 such degrees nationwide came into operation at Australian tertiary institutions despite the 1999 pledge to the contrary. So we now have a situation where we are starting to move towards the abolition of fee-paying arrangements for tertiary study for Australian students to make certain that access is on the basis of merit and not on the basis of who can afford to pay their way into tertiary institutions against the opportunities that would be open to students of greater capacity but lesser means. We are getting rid of a situation where over 100 degrees nationwide are now offered at a price of over $100,000. I have no doubt that that will be very welcome to those who look forward to entry into the tertiary education sector.
This debate is one of the oddest because it is characterised by many people who benefited from the openness of the university sector at a time when the Labor government under Gough Whitlam first reformed the education sector. It made it possible for people of limited means to enter the university sector, removed fees, saw the growth of the tertiary sector as something that was essential for Australia’s long-term prosperity and recommitted Australia, in a way that had not been done hitherto, to an expanded university sector where those who had come from backgrounds of limited means could enter. Those same people, having benefited from that period of innovation and openness in education, came forward and committed themselves to slamming the door shut and offering degrees that were open only to those who were wealthy or who had scores which were sufficiently high to get them into the limited number of places that were open access.
Universities responded, of course, to this new educational economy. They had to in order to support and fund themselves. Increasingly, fee-paying places became more important in overall university economies, and the distortion of the education sector began and continued apace. That distortion was also continued through the determination to link universities to an ideological agenda so that staff working in those universities would have to be employed on arrangements that were consistent with the views of the government of the day—that is, individual contracts—taking away the opportunity of representation through staff associations and unions and deliberately pursuing an agenda which was forced on the universities by reason of the funding clout that the Commonwealth had as their principal funding source. Labor, by contrast, has a commitment to supporting higher education which means making universities accessible to a new generation of Australians by phasing out full-fee degrees. This commitment builds upon federal Labor’s election commitments to provide incentives for young Australians to study and teach maths or science at university, to double the number of undergraduate scholarships, to double the number of postgraduate PhD and masters-by-research scholarships and to create 1,000 mid-career fellowships for Australian researchers. It sits within the government’s broad policy of introducing a compact model of university funding consistent with ALP policy dating back to the 2006 white paper produced by Jenny Macklin whilst in opposition.
These are healthy changes for the university sector. Most importantly, they are healthy changes for our community because they mean we go back to a merit based system of selection for entry rather than the capacity to pay. They mean that universities can offer and operate employment to staff by arrangements that are negotiated effectively with their faculty, and they remove the obligation that was imposed by the previous government of running internal management issues in industrial relations that were ideologically driven in an area where this government had the capacity. We have seen that the Work Choices legislation, whilst removed, still casts a real shadow over those that were forced into circumstances of employment where they had limited choice. There is a transitional process that will phase those things out. AWAs will no longer be offered, but this is a slow transition. We are making it plain that we have no desire to confront employers or employees with arrangements that need to dislocate settled employment contracts that have been entered into, but on the other hand we must make sure that we move forward with fairness.
This legislation complements earlier legislation introduced into this parliament and passed by both the House and the Senate to get rid of the Work Choices legislation. I imagine the spectre that this will be somehow resisted when it reaches the Senate might be merely that—a spectre of a ghost long departed but with little prospect of coming to reality—although there may be some on the other side who still wish to retain fees of above $100,000. I am not certain whether the letting go of the Work Choices demon has exorcised with it the $100,000-degree golem that sat with it. We will discover whether that is so when the matters hit the Senate.
I am very pleased to have been able to come forward in this parliament, in one of the first speeches after the budget, to recognise this important change and also to conclude, as I began, with the recognition that the work is only beginning and that there is a far greater financial contribution foreshadowed in the budget, in a $10 billion education fund, together with a very specific set of commitments, some of which have been earmarked for the tertiary institution where I studied and where I was formerly the President of the Tasmania University Union. I am certain that all those who are staff and students at the University of Tasmania will be very pleased to acknowledge the receipt of that additional $11.5 billion that was earmarked as part of the nationwide fund—$500 million for those priority areas that were identified.
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Bevis, and commend this reform legislation to the House. I look forward to discovering whether or not the opposition still wishes to bat on with any resistance to a direction which the community so comprehensively endorsed at the last election.
2688
13:08:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
0
0
Mr SLIPPER
—At the outset I would like to congratulate the minister at the table, the Hon. Duncan Kerr, who in my view ought to have been given a much higher position than that of parliamentary secretary in this government. Having said that, I agree with some of what he said. I must say, though, that I disagree with much of what he said in relation to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008. This bill is really just a piece of Labor ideology. I suppose we are going to see more of this sort of legislation introduced as we proceed into the term of this government.
Some of the changes proposed in the bill may, as a consequence of its enactment, remove the safeguards that promote accountability, business efficiencies and staff flexibility. These include requirements that tertiary institutions comply with certain workplace relations requirements and also that specific governance protocols be adhered to so as to ensure these institutions are eligible for additional government funding. This is underpinned by the theory that the allocation of these funds is accompanied by a requirement to use the funds wisely and responsibly. The removal of these governance protocols in particular also could have the potential to open the door to a reduction in the transparency of the operations of universities, which are largely taxpayer funded, and counteracts what is a natural expectation that the use of government or taxpayer funds by universities ought to be scrutinised very closely.
The higher education workplace relations requirements included that staff were able to be offered the choice for their work to be managed through an Australian workplace agreement alongside other available choices of a collective agreement or a common-law contract. Mr Deputy Speaker Bevis, you would be aware that an Australian workplace agreement gave a staff member who is highly qualified and a respected academic or operational employee the opportunity to negotiate a salary and conditions in line with what the staff member believes that he or she is worth. He or she would be able to negotiate on his or her own terms and utilise his or her own skills rather than be subject to a collective agreement or other contractual arrangement that the staff member feels may not be in the best interests of the staff member or may not best meet the wishes of the staff member.
The opportunity to choose an Australian workplace agreement as an alternative to others was one of the very sensible inclusions enshrined in the Higher Education Support Act 2003. This was an option that may not have been offered if not for the legislation but it was an option that gave the employee greater flexibility in the workplace. It also gave the employee the opportunity to make arrangements mutually satisfactory and assisted to encourage openness and freedom of choice for employees when it came to these particular matters. Australian workplace agreements also had the benefit of encouraging and fostering better and more direct relationships between employer and employee, encouraging the comfort of staff by delivering to them more flexibility and personal control over their respective work conditions—greater flexibility in workers being able to negotiate conditions to their liking—and the ability to reward outstanding employees. The need to reward outstanding employees is a very important principle because, unless employees are able to be appropriately remunerated and rewarded for levels of competence, capacity and diligence, it could well be that tertiary institutions will not be able to attract the quality of staff member or employee that the institutions need to be able to compete as first-class tertiary institutions in the world tertiary education marketplace. With this requirement being removed—that is, the ability to negotiate—a concern may arise that some valued employees will not be satisfied with their work conditions and may feel that those conditions are not on a par with what they would like, and we could see a situation where those people are lost to the tertiary sector.
The bill also affects governance issues. It does make sense to set requirements for these institutions to ensure that they promote best governance practices. Amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 in 2005 included requirements such as ensuring university councils included membership with a wide range of expertise and considerable commercial and business experience. It is important that people who are administering educational institutions do have business and commercial experience, because, let’s face it, one of the reasons that higher education institutions such as universities exist is to turn people out who are suitably qualified to play their role in the commercial marketplace and the commercial workplace in Australia. If you have suitably qualified people, then that gives our nation the skills it needs to compete around the world. It also gives the people who graduate successfully the capacity to have a long and successful work life.
The requirement to include on university councils people with a wide range of experience, including commercial and business experience, was not a requirement that aimed to control or limit the governing body of an institution. Rather, it was designed to open up the collective mind of the institution to ensure that it did not become bogged down in specific or narrow viewpoints or bogged down in a specific way of doing things. It follows a theory that variety in membership works to encourage a wide range and number of views and to promote wider discussion to enable institutions to have the very best chance of success.
Other governance protocols included suggestions as to the number of people on the council of an institution and a limit for those on councils to a period of 12 years, which helped to foster a regular sense of renewal and turnover, keeping the council fresh and maintaining a direction in line with the requirements of our changing communities and society.
Some of the changes included in this bill are ideologically based—such as the removal of an employee’s choice to be employed under an Australian workplace agreement—while others will remove safeguards to the efficient and open operation of these facilities and institutions.
The opposition is not opposing amendments relating to workplace relations changes, consistent with the position taken by the opposition on other workplace legislation introduced into the parliament and subsequently carried. We are also not opposing amendments that do not relate to the national governance protocols. The legislation also covers a range of subsidiary matters, which is occurring increasingly in this parliament.
I am pleased to participate in this debate and I would sincerely ask the government to take on board the opposition’s concerns with respect to improving this legislation before the chamber.
2690
13:17:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—I rise to speak in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008. This bill removes section 33-17 from the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The section required higher education providers to meet higher education workplace relations requirements and national governance protocols imposed by the previous government under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. If they did not, those providers had imposed on them a reduction in scheme funding for Commonwealth supported places. Under section 33-17, a provider would have its funding reduced by 7.5 per cent if the minister could not be satisfied the provider had complied with both the requirements and the protocols as of 31 August each year.
The previous, coalition government’s requirements consisted of five elements in this section: a requirement to offer Australian workplace agreements to all employees of providers of higher education; the prohibition of automatic third-party representatives; alleged workplace flexibility; productivity and performance; and freedom of association. The requirements formed part of the Howard government’s now discredited Work Choices scheme. Work Choices stripped away hard-won terms and conditions of employment, affecting families and individuals, including my constituency in Blair. Undoubtedly, it was the most important vote-changing issue in my electorate in the 2007 federal election.
How did Work Choices come upon us? It came upon us in this way: no mandate was sought in 2004; no public consultation ever took place before it was imposed upon us; no consensus in the community was formed before Work Choices was thrust upon us; and no amount of taxpayer funded advertising could convince the Australian public that Work Choices was a good thing.
The Rudd Labor government supports a fair, simple and flexible industrial relations system. We believe that the telephone book known as Work Choices should be replaced and we should have National Employment Standards—and I am pleased that they were released in the form of an exposure draft on 14 February which is open to submissions. We believe in award modernisation. Modernisation of awards is important to providing a fair and relevant safety net, and it is a key objective of Forward with Fairness. It is important that people understand that we in the Rudd Labor government are not against flexible work arrangements. The protocols of the previous government talked about the size and composition of governing bodies of providers and the duties of governing body members. The Rudd Labor government will continue to ask providers to provide good governance. The Rudd government wants universities to be efficient administrators and effective educators of our people. The Rudd government does not want employers and employees and universities generally to be uncertain about funding and workplace agreements.
The removal of that conditions of funding under section 33-17 means that universities will not be coerced into offering AWAs to employees. I really wonder: if the Howard government was so convinced of the worth and desirability of AWAs, why did it make offering them a financially coercive measure and why was it necessary to promote AWAs in this way to the higher education sector? Surely AWAs would have stood on their own merits, and people would have flocked to them, signing up to them everywhere! During my election campaign, I found no-one who welcomed this sort of conditional funding and this big-fisted type of intervention in the higher education sector. I really do wonder: if AWAs were so attractive, so beneficial, so advantageous, why the coercion? Why the big-stick approach? Why the bullying? We know what the higher education sector believed about it all. The Vice-Chancellors Committee and its successor, Universities Australia, opposed this aspect of the draconian Work Choices legislation.
The removal of that requirement as a condition of funding means that the higher education sector need no longer offer mandatory statutory contracts to its employees. The higher education sector will now come under the Rudd government’s transitional industrial relations arrangements. Unlike the previous, coalition government, we do not distrust the higher education sector. The Rudd government’s new workplace relations scheme offers employers and employees flexibility to negotiate in the workplace. The Rudd government will streamline the awards and bring in new, simple national standards, which will be fully operational by 1 January 2010. In the interim a genuine, not a fake, no disadvantage test will be there—not a dodgy one like the one the previous, coalition government put in.
We will ensure that employees in my constituency of Blair will not be worse off. We will not sacrifice employees’ terms and conditions on the altar of ideological zealotry. We heard a lot about ideology from those opposite. I have listened intently to the speeches of those opposite. They talk about ideology but fail to recognise the ideology in the Work Choices legislation. The Rudd Labor government has consulted with businesses, unions and community groups to ensure that there is balance in the industrial relations system. Contrast that with 2004 and the Work Choices experience under the Howard government. In opposition, we told the Australian people our policies, unlike Mr Howard in 2004.
The high priests of Work Choices opposite should be ashamed of themselves. They should tell the higher education sector and the Australian public, once and for all, just where they stand on Work Choices. As its architects, they should say what a future coalition government would do in relation to individual statutory agreements. They warn of woe, and we have heard speeches which say that the whole country is going to rack and ruin. They also said that when we released our Forward with Fairness industrial relations policies in 2007. If they had the courage of their convictions, they would stand up for AWAs and Work Choices. They would not have sat there, and we would not have seen the spectacle we saw earlier this year in this parliament.
What are their policies now? I have listened to the speeches, and I just cannot work out where they stand. What will it be at the next election? These are all questions which have been left unanswered by the Liberal Party. They are all over the place on Work Choices. One minute they are devoted to it; the next minute they are denying it. Then they are denigrating it; then they are dealing with it; then they are dodging it. We are never quite sure where the Liberals stand. And yet not a sign of contrition have we seen from those opposite. They could have done it all in March 2008; they could have done a mea culpa and said, ‘We got it wrong.’ But we have not seen that. They had their chance for redemption, forgiveness and a new start, and they have blown it. They have refused to support the government’s motion to rule out individual statutory contracts once and for all.
The apostles of Work Choices are all publicly agnostics now. We really do not know what they believe, and I do not know that they believe themselves. They have secretly never renounced their faith in Work Choices. They are the true believers—the true believers in Work Choices. They campaigned for Work Choices, they are committed to Work Choices and they are converted to it. But they dare not speak its name. You do not hear it mentioned in speeches in this House. It reminds me of Harry Potter and JK Rowling. Remember Lord Voldemort? Lord Voldemort was talked about by everyone. Harry was the only person who was able to say his name. Everyone talked about ‘the Prince of Darkness’ and ‘He Who Must Not Be Named’. Work Choices is the Lord Voldemort of Australian politics now.
I have two university campuses in my electorate of Blair: one in Ipswich—the University of Queensland Ipswich Campus; and one in Gatton—the University of Queensland Gatton Campus. I have met with the higher education sector, and I have talked to the employees, the unions and the vice-chancellor. I have sat down and talked to them about this issue. I did that before the election, and I have done it since. During the campaign and in my discussions, not one of the staff said to me, ‘You know, we need to cut funding to the higher education sector and we need AWAs to meet the challenges of the higher education sector.’ No-one said that to me. But we know the higher education sector knew the wrath of the coalition, and they have felt it.
I will tell you where the people in my electorate stand. I campaigned from Kalbar to Karalee, from Ropeley to Ripley and from Booval to Boonah, and no-one said that they absolutely had to have Work Choices in the higher education sector. It never happened. On the contrary, I had conservative voters come up to me everywhere telling me they were going to vote Labor, sometimes for the first time. I remember meeting one woman, who was in her 60s, at the markets at Boonah. She came up to me and said, ‘Shayne, I do not know why Mr Howard has done this to me.’ I asked her what it was, and she could not quite get the terminology straight, but it seemed that she was put on an AWA and she lost her terms and conditions which she had taken for granted. She told me she had been a coalition voter all her life and never voted anything other than coalition. I met a woman who had changed jobs, only to have an AWA put in front of her at the end of a week in a training section. Her employer said, ‘If you don’t sign it, you lose your job.’ And do you know what that AWA said? It said that if you were five minutes late then you could be sacked. That is what happened. She had to take the job because she had two kids at home to look after. People hated the deception. They knew about the ideology, and the Australian public voted against ideology on 24 November 2007.
What is the legacy of Work Choices? Higher interest rates, almost zero productivity growth, infrastructure deficiencies, skills shortages, terms and conditions stripped away from working Australians, and higher education the least affordable in memory. The Work Choices legislation was fundamentally flawed because it assumed equality in the bargaining between employers and employees. There simply is not. Employers decided the terms and conditions of employment and the way they were done. Despite the rhetoric we heard about flexibility in the workplace, it was wilfully misleading. Very rarely was there any real negotiation with employees, and very often signing AWAs was the condition of employment, promotion, transfer or wage increase. All too often, women and those in low-paid jobs—for example, in the retail and cleaning sectors—suffered. The evidence is in. It eroded standards of living and left workers worse off, and it really was an offence to the traditional Australian values of decency and fairness. The notion of a fair go was undermined, and the fairness test was a joke. The government’s introduction of a real fairness test is about fixing the fairness problems, not about fixing the next election as happened in May 2007.
During the 2004 election John Howard promised Australian working families that he would keep interest rates at a record low. There was absolutely no mention of his extreme workplace relations system. On the day that Work Choices became law, John Howard breached his contract with the Australian people, forcing his extreme laws through. It was an assault on the people in my constituency and not once did my opponent mention Work Choices when he criticised me for campaigning on issues. Work Choices was egregious, extreme and unfair, and that is why the voters in my electorate ousted the incumbent. How could members opposite not know what Work Choices would do to people? How could you possibly believe the member for North Sydney on the Four Corners program when he said he did not know and the members in the cabinet did not know what Work Choices would do to people?
Section 33-17 says everything about the coalition’s attitude to university education, to academia and to the sector generally. It is emblematic of the previous government’s attitude to the higher education sector. Replacing that section of the act makes it crystal clear to the higher education sector that the days of conditional funding based on workplace agreements are over. Removal of the guidelines contrary to the prescriptive elements of the requirements and protocols is the right thing to do by the sector and by the working families and individuals whose members work as lecturers, as tutors and in administrative capacities.
The other important aspect of this bill is technical. It deals with the Commonwealth being allowed to designate bodies to perform auditing re higher education providers and to set requirements that must be met. It is anticipated that state and territory accreditation authorities and not just the Australian Universities Quality Agency would be involved. Two states—Queensland and Victoria—had a trial of this process. It is expected that audits and the accreditation process can be done contemporaneously to reduce time and bring about efficiencies. This is likely to reduce costs, red tape and the administrative burden for all concerned.
The Rudd Labor government is serious about good governance. Witness the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Bill, which was passed earlier this year. That was about transparency, accountability and good governance in relation to companies and directors and bringing these in line with the Corporations Law. The higher education sector has taken steps to ensure compliance with National Governance Protocols, and all the requisite state and territory legislation amendments necessary in this regard have been enacted. The Rudd government will encourage good governance in the higher education sector also. However, relations between universities and the previous coalition government were distrustful and antagonistic. The Work Choices requirements imposed by the Howard government on universities were about financially punishing universities if they did not become paid-up members of the Work Choices party.
Relations between the higher education sector and any government will not always be easy. Like any sector of the country, the higher education sector will have its barrows to push and its interests to protect, and no doubt it will let the Rudd government know what its position is. But relations must be based on respect, trust and cooperation. Dictating is not the way to go and it is not the Australian way.
The bill before the House is about securing a Work Choices-free higher education sector. It is about protecting working families and individuals involved in our universities. It is about ensuring that employers and employees cooperate in the workplaces of our universities. Our universities must be places of learning, life skilling and vocational preparation, not battlegrounds for the proponents and ideologues of Work Choices. I know that my constituents and those in the higher education sector in Blair will welcome this bill, and I do also. I commend the bill to the House.
2694
13:33:00
Perrett, Graham, MP
HVP
Moreton
ALP
1
0
Mr PERRETT
—Mr Deputy Speaker Bevis, with your education background, I know how interested and concerned you are with the Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008. It is an honour to speak about it in front of you today. Like the previous speaker, the member for Blair, I am very pleased to speak in support of the higher education support amendment bill, a bill that could be paraphrased as ‘sending down the HEWRRs’. This bill will overturn part of the Howard-Costello ideological crusade to infect Australian workplaces with harsh, extreme, unfair and impractical workplace laws. That last word, ‘impractical’, is most important. Unfortunately, the previous government was so hell-bent on this ideology that they even forced Australian workplace agreements on universities and then had the hide—the hide of a rhinoceros—to call it choice. When members opposite talk about choice, obviously the ‘Hobson’s’ is silent.
The bill before the House today revokes section 33-17 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003. This Hobson’s choice piece of legislation tied universities’ funding to their implementation of higher education workplace relations requirements, colloquially known as the HEWRRs, and also the National Governance Protocols, the NGPs. When I was growing up, whenever it rained in St George, which was not very often, my mum would always say, ‘Send it down, Hughie!’ So it is amazing that we have now got some legislation that is about sending down the HEWRRs, although I do not think it is connected to the previous word Hughie, which I think is a corruption of Jupiter or something like that.
Under this strange piece of ideology, in practice, a university would have its basic Commonwealth grants scheme amount reduced by about 7.5 per cent—that is, a higher academic institution would have its funding cut by about 7.5 per cent if it failed to satisfy the previous minister that it had complied with HEWRRs and NGPs. In other words, the Howard-Costello government held universities and higher education providers to ransom. Either they had to pursue the former member for Bennelong’s and the current member for North Sydney’s approach to workplace relations or they would suffer a significant financial penalty. I say that percentage again: 7.5 per cent. It is still hard for me to accept that, in this millennium, a government would be committed to taking money out of higher education or any education establishment rather than pouring money in. Furthermore, universities and higher education providers were not able to compete on an even playing field with the universities down the road unless they chose to undercut the rights and conditions of their workers.
Universities are already under significant financial pressure after nearly 12 long years of neglect when we saw the funding ripped out of the higher education sector. The OECD’s Education at a glance 2007 report—a very respectable journal—found that public investment by the Howard-Costello government in tertiary education between 1995 and 2004 declined by four per cent, while in the other OECD countries it increased by an average of 49 per cent.
I have got a couple of university degrees. I have got a diploma of teaching and a law degree and an arts degree, so it is completely unbelievable to me that a university system could be attacked by a federal government. That is such a shameful legacy that the people opposite need to hang their heads in shame every time this legislation is discussed. In terms of a plan for the future, they were going to base their plan for the future on the horse and cart, basically, rather than the smarter approach to education. When I was at university, I was either too busy for student politics or too busy studying—and I would like to say that I might be misleading the House. But maybe the people opposite had a different experience when they were at university and because they had a bad history of student politics they felt it necessary to wreak some revenge on universities with VSU legislation and the like. That record of ripping money out of our universities over the last 11 or 12 years is a shameful legacy.
Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd Labor government has a long-term enduring commitment to the importance of higher education in our universities, and we saw some of those measures unveiled in Wayne Swan’s budget last night. We believe in the future. We are not trying to make up for gripes or grievances from our university days; we actually have a plan for the future, a plan for the nation. I think it is important for members to be familiar with the history of this Hobson’s choice section 33-17. It is a history that needs to be hung around the necks of those people opposite like a dead albatross. Who was it who introduced this unfair legislation to the parliament? You do not have to go to your history books, because it is the former education minister, the current Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson. It is the same opposition leader who is now trying to scratch away from this policy like a veritable scrub turkey. Now he is trying to leave the dungheap that he created behind. It is just another example of the flip-flop characteristics of his personality.
The main element of the John Howard-Peter Costello higher education workplace relations requirements was for universities to offer Australian workplace agreements to all employees—yes, all employees, not just the academics at the top of their game who might be on a decent wage. It was actually being imposed on all the employees in the universities, and we have heard from the previous speaker, the member for Blair, of the consequences for people who have no bargaining power and no opportunity to negotiate with their employers. The fact that these requirements were included in legislation in the first place is a sign that even back then the former coalition government knew that workplace agreements were toxic. They knew that AWAs were so unpopular with employers and staff that the only way to get universities—and obviously with universities we are talking about many educated people, informed people who have perhaps a little bit of clout in terms of understanding industrial legislation—to consider offering AWAs was to hold a gun to the heads of the universities through legislation and those severe financial penalties that I outlined earlier. This was more about prosecuting an ideological agenda than sound public policy. The John Howard-Peter Costello government thought it knew better than university leaders and staff how to run their institutions. The people who were actually involved with running modern-day academic institutions were not consulted. How wrong John Howard and Peter Costello were. Their ideas added to administrative workloads, but for no gain whatsoever.
The passing of this bill will ensure that universities no longer be required to offer AWAs as a condition of funding under the CGS. It will ensure full Commonwealth grant funding for universities. In my electorate of Moreton, Griffith University has suffered because of section 33-17 and the John Howard-Peter Costello higher education workplace requirements, the HEWRRs. It has imposed a huge administrative burden and a huge cost on the university in setting up an industrial system that was unmanageable, unwieldy and unfair. It beggars belief why the previous government would force such an expensive system on already cash-strapped universities. As I mentioned earlier, there had been that real decline compared to other OECD countries. This is a time when universities actually needed a helping hand. Instead, all they were offered was a boot on their throat. Griffith University, the university in my electorate, and all other universities, were forced to waste huge amounts of time, money and staffing to implement this unwanted system, this bizarre ideological pursuit.
I am advised that Griffith University did nothing actively to force AWAs on their staff. Rather, they did what was required under the antediluvian legislation when the gun was at their head. In fact, the very day that Griffith University signed off on their latest collective agreement was the very same day that the Howard government’s higher education workplace relations requirements kicked in. It was a collective agreement negotiated fairly, with justice and with dignity, and one that all the participants agreed to. But, instead, the gun was put to the university’s head, and Griffith, like other universities, was hamstrung by the requirements which forced them to offer AWAs to all staff. But how effective was that system? Only a handful of Griffith University staff took on a workplace agreement. And even though they were academics and knowledgeable in their academic areas, those areas were not industrial law and so some of them had no idea what they were signing up for. They were offered AWAs but, although they are literate and academic, they did not understand the documents that were put to them.
In fact I heard a story about one senior academic staff member at Griffith who took on an AWA inadvertently after returning to Queensland from a stint overseas. He came back to the university, thought things were much the same as they had always been, was offered a job contract, effectively, but did not read all the details and so inadvertently signed up to an AWA. He was employed in 2006 under an AWA at a 2005 pay rate. It was not until 18 months later, when he was talking to his colleagues and found out he had not got a pay rise like all the other staff, that he realised what was going on and that he had signed up to an AWA. I am not suggesting there was duress or undue influence or anything like that. But it goes to show that if an academic, who is educated and has resources, does not understand what they are signing up for then what chance does someone like an uneducated cleaner have? Under the Australian workplace agreement that this academic had signed, even though he had 18 months without a pay rise while his colleagues did progress, he had no protection whatsoever. He was just another victim of John Howard and the current member for North Sydney’s unfair workplace laws. This was certainly not the fault of the university, just the result of that unworkable, unfair system. I know the higher education sector will welcome the passing of this bill. I have certainly been approached by many academics over the past couple of months who are very keen for that to take place because the bill ensures university funding is no longer tied to Brendan Nelson’s HEWRRs.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank Griffith University for their part in hosting the Moreton 2020 Summit on 5 April. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Academic, Professor John Dewar, and his capable senior staff ensured that more than 400 people from my electorate on Brisbane’s southside had a chance to rock up and have their say and explore real solutions for Australia’s future. That is the way to proselytise an idea: invite the public along and talk about things. That is the way to use academic institutions, rather than holding a gun to their heads and ramming something down their throats—if that is a mixed metaphor, I apologise. Universities should work hand in hand with government and their communities; they should be given a helping hand, not the hammer that was used by John Howard. This is exactly what universities should be all about. It is not a university’s job to implement the union-busting agenda of a coalition government, and those opposite should be ashamed of their role in that. As we have seen in this parliament since November last year, there have been ample opportunities for them to scrape Work Choices off their shoes but, no, while they can still smell it they have not agreed to do so. I look forward to a productive and healthy relationship with my university, Griffith University, and I am proud that such a progressive institution was acutely involved in the Moreton 2020 Summit. It was a fantastic event and I look forward to those ideas being implemented in the lead-up to the end of the year.
Returning to the legislation in front of us, the higher education support amendment bill, I think it sends a strong message that the Rudd government is serious about restoring a fairer workplace relations system in Australia. It will also remove the unnecessary administrative burden for universities—running around doing something that had no productive benefits—at a time when they are strapped for cash. As the Group of Eight universities have said:
There will be a much reduced compliance, bidding and reporting burden placed on universities and greater flexibility over the use of resources.
I will also quote from a media release from Universities Australia, which is the peak body. The release, issued on Tuesday, 13 May, says:
Universities Australia supports the Government’s action in this session of Parliament to remove the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements—
Nelson’s HEWRRs—
as a legislated condition of funding for universities.
“Universities Australia would welcome the removal of the HEWRRs as an indication from the Government that it is happy to loosen existing prescriptive requirements and allow universities to pursue their missions as self-governing bodies,” Universities Australia Chair, Professor Richard Larkins said.
That is basically saying: to do what they do best. Professor Larkins continues:
“Universities Australia looks forward to other restrictions being eased or removed across a range of Commonwealth funding and regulatory activity. Universities have been their most dynamic in areas least directed by government, such as postgraduate coursework and international student initiatives ...
That dry academic language—‘universities have been their most dynamic in areas least directed by government’—does not tell the story of how hamstrung they have been and how that has been such an assault on what universities do best.
The universities will be subject to the government’s fairer and more balanced transitional workplace relations which are also before the House. This government understands how to consult with industry, how to consult with unions, how to consult with the community. We do not try to rush things through quickly. We certainly will not be having the farce of one day’s consultation, like John Howard did in the past. More importantly, we went to the electorate seeking approval for what we stood for in terms of industrial relations and then we received a mandate in November last year to implement that. That is unlike the 2004 experience, when there was no mention of industrial relations in any of the political propaganda, and then all of a sudden, after election night and the Senate result, John Howard was a born-again industrial relations advocate. It was a shameful display in terms of his contribution to the Australian community. So, from now on, the universities will be subject to a much fairer regime. Thankfully, this goes hand in hand with the Rudd government’s approach to the future, which is: we believe in a future beyond election night 2010 or 2011, whenever that might be. We have a plan for all of Australia for all of the future, not just through to election night. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for addressing this matter so quickly and, in doing so, I commend the bill to the House.
2699
13:52:00
Cheeseman, Darren, MP
HW7
Corangamite
ALP
1
0
Mr CHEESEMAN
—It is a pleasure to speak on a bill that will remove systematic intimidation from the Australian higher education system. It is also good to speak to a bill that will help return some of the underpinnings of academic freedoms. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008 is designed to correct gross interference and clear intimidation suffered by universities and their staff.
In having to introduce this bill, the Rudd government shows how far the Howard government went with their ideological obsession before they were unceremoniously turfed out of office. We know this bill is about getting rid of the laws that forced every employee, every employer and every institution down the Work Choices road. It is a very important bill to restore the rights of employees and employers to enter into agreements of their choosing. But it has a wider context in the sweep of our country’s traditions. The need for this bill shows that, when John Howard left office, liberalism was dead and buried in the Liberal Party. These laws put in place by the Liberal Party were, in many ways, the symbolic gravestone of liberalism in the Liberal Party. These Liberal Party laws are total anathema to the higher education system. These Liberal coalition laws represented a clear and present danger to university academics.
Traditionally the role of higher education institutions formed an integral part of liberal philosophy and thought. Universities were places where freedom of thought was paramount. The liberal tradition held that knowledge, the advancement of social theory and scientific development were best fostered free from the interference of the state. Universities under the liberal tradition have clung fast to that view for centuries. Then along came Prime Minister John Howard, who tore up and totally shredded that theory and who did not worry about liberal principles or traditions. The then government decided exactly how universities would be run right down to every agreement entered into between universities and every member of their staff across Australia. John Howard tore up the liberalism and got his way on narrow ideological obsession, which amounted to a petty antisocial vendetta against university staff with more social views of the world. All universities and higher education institutions were compelled to think his way or lose millions of dollars in funding. All universities had to have John Howard’s view of the way people acted and reacted in their working arrangements. All universities and their working arrangements had to treat their tutors, professors, associate professors, deans and vice-chancellors as John Howard decreed or be harshly penalised financially. The clauses rammed through on the Higher Education Support Act 2003 by John Howard should be inscribed on the gravestone of the Liberal Party when they finally have the courage to admit that they are no longer liberals and the Liberal Party is no longer a liberal party.
Under liberal university tradition, tenure was very important. It was something that enabled university staff, academics, tutors, professors, associate professors and researchers to pursue ideas and theories without fear or discrimination. Of course, over the years, views about merits of tenure have changed. The one view that has remained constant in this time, however, is Labor’s view. We have always held fast to our principles. A core principle is that employees, whoever they are—whether academics, teachers, health workers, journalists or tradespeople—are entitled to some job security. We believe job security is important to people’s peace of mind. It is important for people to do basic things like knowing that they can pay the mortgage but it is also important in terms of them being able to express an opinion. Under the Work Choices legislation, how many times had we heard stories about an employee getting targeted, bullied, taken advantage of or sacked because they had expressed a view contrary to their employer? Time and time again we heard it. As we know, most employers are not like this, but some are. Some, when they have a bad day, take it out on others.
The academic world is to a large extent a world of ideas. It is also increasingly a competitive academic world. There is vulnerability for people in the academic world to be targeted and punished for their ideas under Work Choices legislation—which is what John Howard wanted. The changes he put through under the Higher Education Support Act forced universities to go down the Work Choices path. Universities had no choice. Every university had to put on the Work Choices straitjacket and goosestep down the recently unseated Prime Minister’s road. Work Choices, of course, shreds any sense of job security or tenure in any form at all. We need to give universities the chance to choose. Universities should not be forced to offer AWAs to staff. Universities should be able to sit down with their staff and work out the industrial relations arrangements that best suit them. They should be given the opportunity to sit down, talk with staff and work out a compromise to satisfy management’s desire to effectively manage employees’ desires for job security and reasonable salary and conditions.
The Work Choices laws that were foisted on Australian universities meant that, anywhere, anytime, employees could be sacked for no reason. If you were a lecturer at the University of Melbourne or the University of Sydney and someone took a set against you, anyone with a basic grasp of Work Choices could send you off down the highway—John Howard’s ‘my way highway’.
These terrible laws, which resulted in the Prime Minister losing his seat, along with dozens of his cronies, are bad for universities, bad for TAFE colleges, bad for schools and bad for every Australian workplace. They are especially bad for universities. The overwhelming majority of Australians recognise that. This bill will rid us of Work Choices from another important area of Australian life. This bill will rid important institutions of these rotten laws.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Corangamite will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
2700
14:00:00
Questions Without Notice
Budget
2700
14:00:00
2700
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Dr NELSON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Why has the Prime Minister failed to take decisive action and lay out a plan to deal with grocery, petrol and mortgage stress on all Australian families in last night’s high-taxing budget? Prime Minister, how will $19 billion of extra taxes, including taxes on family cars, oil, alcohol and computer software, ease the inflationary pressure on Australian families?
2700
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the honourable member for his question. This budget begins an era of responsible economic management in Australia. The reason is that we have generated in this budget a surplus which is the second highest in a decade. It is also a significant budget in Australia’s recent economic history in terms of the surplus rendered. The reason that we delivered this sort of economic outcome was that we needed to take on the fight against inflation. That meant ensuring that when it came to our handling of government outlays we did not perpetuate the spendathon of those opposite. As we have seen in recent years, government expenditure has mounted and mounted. Instead, we had to send that back in reverse direction. Now we have landed at a point where government expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product is lower than anything delivered by those opposite in their entire period in government.
Turning to the tax side, tax as a proportion of GDP has gone down as a consequence of this budget. That comes on the heels of our predecessors having run a series of tax outcomes for the Commonwealth which imposed larger and larger taxation burdens not just on families but also on businesses. All these measures were necessary to place downward pressure on inflation. When it comes to the alternative put by those opposite, their alternative as articulated by the shadow Treasurer is this: there is no economic case to cut government spending. That is the core characteristic of the economic strategy offered by those opposite. It is a recipe for economic disaster, because those who bear the inflationary burden are working families. We have acted responsibly for them in the fight against inflation and we have delivered at the same time a package of measures to support those working families under financial pressures, a package of which the government is proud.
Budget
2701
2701
14:02:00
Trevor, Chris, MP
HVU
Flynn
ALP
1
Mr TREVOR
—My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the steps taken in the budget to fight inflation and invest in the future?
2701
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for Flynn for his question. Last night, this budget began a new era of investment in the future, something that every member on this side of the House can be proud of. It is a budget that delivers for working families and invests in the future. It is a budget in which there is some real spending restraint for the first time in a very long time. Every single dollar of new spending was more than matched by savings elsewhere in last night’s budget. We have begun a new era of responsible spending after 11 years of recklessness from those opposite, and particularly from the former Treasurer, who went on a spending spree in the run-up to previous elections, which put upward pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates. That is why this government has tackled the inflationary challenge.
It is also why we have decided to make the investments in the future that we announced. We have announced three multibillion-dollar funds to invest in the future. The first one is the $20 billion Building Australia Fund. It has the strong support of everybody from this side of the House—after decades of neglect from those opposite. We have announced the $11 billion Education Investment Fund, which will pay for ongoing improvements in our TAFEs and universities as part of the education revolution. That is what we support. Thirdly, the $10 billion Health and Hospitals Fund will pay for better hospitals, better health care generally and important medical research. That is what this side of the House supports.
What does the other side of the House stand for in the middle of all of this? The Liberal Party has lost its way on the economy. What they are is the party of welfare for millionaires. They are the high-inflation party. They are the same old Liberals who neglect hospitals and neglect the education system. We on this side of the House are the only ones who are fair dinkum about fighting inflation and investing in the future. That is what last night’s budget proves.
Budget
2702
2702
14:05:00
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
0
Dr NELSON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how does increasing taxes on Australian families by $19 billion help the additional 134,000 Australians the government predicts will be out of work over the next year? Doesn’t rising unemployment across Australia illustrate that the Prime Minister has failed to take decisive action in his high-taxing budget to help people keep their jobs?
2702
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the honourable member for his question. As we have seen the unfolding of the global financial crisis and its impact across North America, across Eastern Europe and across the East-Asian hemisphere, the impact on growth across the world has been drawn down. As a consequence, that has impacted also on Australia. Secondly, if we are looking at impact on growth, one of the things which does have an impact on economic growth is 12 successive interest rate rises. What we have had as a consequence of economic mismanagement on the part of those opposite and their failure to address the supply side challenges in the Australian economy is the Reserve Bank acting time and time again. Ultimately, that has an impact on domestic activity; hence the projections for growth and employment that you see in the budget papers. On the question of tax, we have delivered an outcome which represents a decrease in tax as a proportion of gross domestic product, in contrast to what we inherited from those opposite. It is a record of which we are proud. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame.
Budget
2702
2702
14:07:00
Campbell, Jodie, MP
HWC
Bass
ALP
1
Ms CAMPBELL
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the benefits of last night’s budget to Australia’s future?
2702
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—Australia has begun, through this budget, a new era of responsible economic management, because we have delivered a big surplus of $21 billion plus. It is a budget surplus which is the second highest in 35 years. It is a budget surplus of which this government is proud. Furthermore, we have done so by bringing down government outlays. We have generated one per cent growth in government outlays in contrast to the 4.5 per cent real increase in outlays inherited from our predecessors. And, before they talk about what they were planning to do in the future, look at what they projected for the year ahead, 2008-09, in terms of their own outlays when they were last in government—an increase in outlays of nearly three per cent. Even against that measure we represent one-third of what those opposite were proposing to spend. This is not just a comparison in reflection; it is a comparison in anticipation of the clear plans outlined by those opposite.
So in terms of delivering a responsible outcome on outlays we have delivered an outcome with expenditure as a proportion of GDP being the lowest since 1989-90—lower than any of the budget outcomes delivered by those opposite. On top of that we are reducing the overall taxation burden as a proportion of gross domestic product, which is consistent with our pre-election promises, and we do so having inherited economic circumstances whereby those opposite delivered to this nation the highest inflation rate in 16 years.
Therefore, within that framework, the government has brought forward an economic strategy which does three things. Firstly, it fights against inflation by delivering a responsible economic outcome with a significant budget surplus. Secondly, it does not accept the proposition advanced by those opposite that working families have never been better off—that was their boast and they never contested it. We believe that working families are under pressure. That is why the centrepiece of our budget strategy is a $55 billion support package for working families, of which we are proud.
On top of that, as the Treasurer has just outlined, we have brought down a nation-building budget for the 21st century. We have brought down three investment funds for the future totalling $40 billion. We have brought forward the $20 billion Building Australia Fund, the $10 billion Health and Hospitals Fund and the $11 billion Education Investment Fund. We have done this because these have been areas of systematic neglect on the part of those opposite who year after year have taken budget surpluses and squandered them through unprofitable consumption.
We in contrast have a different economic strategy, which is to invest in the future. If you take infrastructure alone, CEDA reports that, as a result of underinvestment, the backlog in infrastructure investment for water, energy and land transport is alone around $25 billion. That is costing around 0.8 per cent of GDP a year in lost production—that is $8 billion a year. That is a stunning statistic given that those opposite had 12 long years to act on that underinvestment.
Well, we have decided to act. We have established the Building Australia Fund and we therefore will be acting on these key areas of challenge—challenges that the Reserve Bank of Australia presented those opposite with multiple warnings on during their period in government: skills constraints and infrastructure bottlenecks.
Look at the specific projects that we will investigate, with the states, in the 12 months from here, before the funds flow from the Building Australia Fund, from 1 July 2009: the western metro rail link and the eastern section of the M5 in New South Wales; components of the east-west transport corridor and the Western Ring Road in Victoria; key sections of the Bruce Highway and the Gateway Motorway in Queensland; a transport master plan for Perth airport; a transport sustainability study for Adelaide; and other projects as well.
Opposition members interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I hear interjections from opposite about these being state responsibilities. If you look at the cost of any one of those major projects for metro Australia, whether we are talking about Sydney or Melbourne or other transport projects for elsewhere across Australia’s capital cities, these are megaprojects. The response of those opposite is to say: ‘Not our problem. Buck pass to the states—blame the states. Not our job.’ Our response is: let’s be part of the national solution, not just be part of a carping national problem, which those opposite seem to specialise in.
We are proud of our investment plans for the nation’s future. The money invested in these funds for the future—$40 billion—is not our money; it is not the Liberal Party’s money; it is taxpayers’ money. What we have decided to do through this budget is invest their money back into the priorities which they themselves identified: transport infrastructure, ports, roads, broadband, as well as the needs in our TAFE system, our university system and our health and hospital system.
We believe this is the right way forward. It will take time to do, but we are determined to embark upon this course of nation building for Australia’s future and we are proud of this plan; it is core to the government’s budget strategy.
Budget
2703
2703
14:13:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer’s promises to make big cuts in net expenditure in his budget and to put downward pressure on inflation—promises so convincing that we were concerned that the Treasurer’s cuts might be too savage. Why is it then that the Treasurer’s own budget papers show that $15 billion of Howard government expenditure was cut, yet it was replaced with more than $30 billion of his own expenditure? Will the Treasurer now concede that there will be a net increase in expenditure in this high-taxing budget over the next four years and that all of his prebudget rhetoric was a complete con?
2704
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I will be pleased to answer that question because I think the member for Wentworth is playing with the figures as usual.
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr Nelson interjecting—
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—And the numbers of course—he knows the numbers. The ones in the party room, they are the ones he knows.
Spending in this budget as a share of GDP is the lowest for any budget since 1989-90—lower than any year of the Howard government. And so is the tax to GDP ratio. I do not expect those opposite to take my word for it but I tell you what I think they should take the word of. They should take the word of Goldman Sachs and their budget review today. This is what they had to say:
After 2 years of notable conflict, finally we have fiscal policy that is pushing in the same direction as monetary policy.
That is what Goldman Sachs had to say today in their economic monitor. This is what they also had to say:
A clear picture of the restrictive nature of the budget emerges from the expenditure estimates which suggests that the reduction in new policy decisions is equal to the coalition’s first and only attempt at fiscal restraint.
End of story.
Budget
2704
2704
14:16:00
D’Ath, Yvette, MP
HVN
Petrie
ALP
1
Mrs D’ATH
—My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer explain to the House the need to provide transfer payments in the most responsible way?
2704
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for Petrie for that question. This side of the House does not believe that the wealthiest Australians need welfare from the government. Paying transfer payments to millionaires is simply impossible to defend. We believe we need to put transfer payments onto a more sustainable footing to help us with the fight against inflation. That is why we took the tough decisions in last night’s budget to means test family tax benefit part B and the baby bonus. That is a decision we made; it is a decision we stand by. Unfortunately, those on the other side of the House do not appear to have any idea about where they stand on this issue.
The Leader of the Opposition was interviewed this morning. He was asked on ABC TV, ‘Is that reasonable—$150,000?’ Dr Nelson said, ‘Of course we, well—just have a look at this.’ Chris Uhlmann asked Dr Nelson, ‘You have not got an opinion on that?’ Dr Nelson said, ‘Well, let’s just have a look at the fine print.’ That is really decisive, isn’t it? Of course, we have the shadow Treasurer. Last week, he said there was no case for spending cuts; this week, there is a real case for spending cuts and he wants more. They do not know whether they are Arthur or Martha. The Liberal Party have lost their way.
Budget
2704
2704
14:18:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is to the Treasurer. I ask the Treasurer to confirm that his high-taxing budget will directly increase the price of alcohol, cars and, as the Prime Minister confirmed today, health insurance premiums. I ask the Treasurer: how can he reduce inflation by increasing prices? What kind of voodoo economics is he peddling? Doesn’t this show, yet again, the government has no decisive strategy to meet Australia’s economic challenges?
2705
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—It is a bit rich getting that question from the Liberal Party. They are the best friend inflation ever had. A 16-year high—that was the legacy to this country. It has fallen to the Labor Party in government, the Rudd government, to take the decisive action that is needed in cutting spending: $7 billion worth of spending cuts, $7 billion worth of savings in the 2008-09 year and $34 billion over the forward estimates. That is our contribution to the fight against inflation. Those opposite do not have a policy to tackle inflation at all. Before this week and before the budget, the Treasury spokesman said there was no need for spending cuts. Today he is out there saying there is a need for substantial cuts. He does not know what he is doing.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order of relevance. I have asked the Treasurer whether he would confirm that the budget will increase the price of alcohol, cars and health insurance premiums and how that can reduce inflation. He has not chosen to answer either question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—The whole budget is tackling inflation. The forecasts are there.
Budget
2705
2705
14:20:00
Jackson, Sharryn, MP
00AN2
Hasluck
ALP
1
Ms JACKSON
—My question is to the Minister for Education, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the 2008-09 budget will boost productivity?
2705
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for Hasluck for her question. Of course, I do wait every day to be asked a question by the shadow minister for education, but it never happens. The Marcel Marceau of Australian politics, he still cannot quite work his way out of that imaginary glass box. But one of these days we might see him actually spring out to the dispatch box and ask a question.
The member for Hasluck has asked an important question about the future of this nation and what was delivered for productivity in last night’s budget delivered by the Treasurer. Productivity is a concept that the Liberal Party has never understood. It never understood that you needed a fair and balanced workplace relations system to deliver productivity and it never understood that you need a world-class education system now so that we can have productivity, participation and prosperity in the future. Our government, the Rudd Labor government, is committed to delivering a new era for our education system: the education revolution that we promised the Australian people. An important thing to recognise in this budget is this is a government that delivered what it promised at the last election. Across the suite of education—from the education of our smallest children in preschool through to our university system, through schools, through vocational education and training—this is a government that is delivering on its commitments. That was a foreign concept to the former government, which, of course, invented the terminology ‘non-core promise’.
This is a government that takes its promises seriously and is delivering them through this budget. I do not have the time to take you through every education measure in this budget but it is important to recognise that the earliest education of our youngest children—where the world research undoubtedly says that if you can invest in the education of children between the ages of zero and five it is the most prudent sort of investment—is an area where Australia, courtesy of the Howard government, radically underperforms by world standards. In this area, in this budget, the government has committed $2.4 billion to early childhood education and care initiatives, including our commitment to universal preschool for all children in the year before schooling.
And, of course, this budget delivers on the substantial investments we want to make in schools: on our digital education revolution, our trades training package, national curriculum, Asian languages—and the list goes on. This is a budget that invests in the future of Australian schooling. It is a budget that assists families, through the education tax rebate, to enable families to have some assistance to afford that expenditure that they want to make to facilitate their child’s education. So whether it is with broadband at home or a textbook at home, there is relief for working families with the education tax rebate. Then, in vocational education and training, this is a budget that delivers on the government’s promise to address the skills crisis left to it by the inaction and neglect of the former government. It is a skills crisis entirely of its making, on the watch of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, because they did not invest in skills.
This budget delivers on the government’s promises to bring on 450,000 new training places within the next four years to enable that investment in skills and to make sure that people have the skills they need to be in work and be able to progress in work. We are investing in the skills and future of the Australian community. And, in universities, we have not only delivered on our promises; we have delivered more. We have delivered on our promises to phase out full-fee-paying places. We have delivered on our promises about scholarships and the like. I understand the opposition think education is boring. They manifested that in government through their neglect and lack of investment. I know they think it is boring. They do not care about education, and that is why their shadow minister never speaks.
Apart from that, we are a government that has not only delivered our promises to universities but delivered more—including a $500 million investment this year in our universities. I am sure the member for Hasluck would be interested to know about the $50 million which will be delivered to Western Australian universities before 30 June this year. I am sure the member for Rockhampton will be interested to know about the $5.5 million to be delivered to Central Queensland University. I am sure that the member for Kingston will be interested to know about the $8.9 million being delivered to Flinders University. I am sure the Tasmanian members of this parliament will be interested to know about the $11.5 million being delivered to the University of Tasmania. And I have no doubt that the member for Lindsay will be interested in the $15.9 million being delivered to the University of Western Sydney—a down payment on making up for the decade of neglect of our university system by the Howard government.
We have also made special provision for educational investments in the future—an $11 billion fund to bring renewal to our higher education institutions and vocational education and training institutions. For the first time ever, this money will be delivered in accordance with a strategic plan. This is a government that believes in the future of universities and charting their course for the next decade, and in the future of our vocational education and training system, and charting its course for the next decade. This stands as a stark contrast to the former government, which used to abuse university academics, micromanage their affairs and impose extreme industrial relations on them. It is a stark contrast to their failure to invest in vocational education and training, which has created today’s skills crisis, putting upwards pressure on inflation and interest rates. This is a budget that lays the foundation stones for the government’s education revolution. It is part of ensuring we have a world-class education system—something valued by every member on this side of the House, and something dismissed as irrelevant by every member on that side of the House.
Budget
2707
2707
14:28:00
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
0
Dr NELSON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of his commitment to Australian seniors and carers to lock in the annual lump sum payment. Why has the Prime Minister failed to honour his promise to seniors and carers in last night’s high-taxing budget? Doesn’t this illustrate that the government has failed to take decisive action in helping seniors and carers facing higher fuel, grocery and housing prices?
2707
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—Seniors and carers are doing it tough in Australia, and that is why the government has sought to provide some assistance through this budget package. We are committing $5.2 billion in additional funding for seniors in this budget. That is 3½ times the amount pledged by the previous government in the 2007-08 budget. The implementation of Labor’s election commitments in this budget will provide age pensioners and seniors with an additional $900. To put this in perspective, the average gains of age pensioners over the last six coalition budgets was around $327 and, for seniors, $400. Today we introduced into the parliament a bill to pay age pensioners and seniors a $500 bonus; 2.7 million Australians will benefit from this measure. This bonus will be paid from the end of the current financial year, 30 June 2008.
These bonuses come on top of an increase in the utility allowance from $107.20 per year to $500 per year, and this is locked in. We have already paid out the first quarterly instalment to age pensioners and seniors in March, and we are working to deliver our commitment to index pensions by the highest of the living cost index for age pensioner households, consumer price index or male total average weekly earnings. These important financial measures come on top of an extension to the telephone allowance, new dental funding for concession card holders and petrol vouchers for volunteers who use their own transport.
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr Nelson
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question is, ‘Why has the Prime Minister broken his promise to carers and seniors to lock in the lump sum payment?’
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—If points of order are going to be used to repeat parts of the question, they need to recognise that there were other parts to the question which the Prime Minister is addressing.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I also note that these measures that are contained in the budget for seniors and other related measures for carers, from our point of view, represent barely a start. Seniors and carers have real challenges in terms of cost of living pressures. We recognise that. That is one reason why the question of future financial support by the Commonwealth for seniors and carers will form part of the overall commission of inquiry conducted by the Secretary of the Treasury which looks at the totality of tax, welfare and retirement incomes policy. On top of that, could I just remind those opposite that in every budget where the previous government indicated that it would make a one-off payment at the conclusion of that financial year it made no forward provision for that bonus in the out years, and they know it.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
2707
Distinguished Visitors
2707
14:31:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I have received a few messages from members indicating that there are former members and senators in the gallery. As there are several former members and senators in the gallery, I do not intend to recognise them all, but I welcome them all. As an alternative, I welcome the Australian Institute of Sport cricket squad, because importantly, amongst the former members, there are now a number of cricket tragics who I think would recognise that these young men are the future of Australian cricket. I welcome them.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
2708
Questions Without Notice
Budget
2708
2708
14:32:00
Sullivan, Jon, MP
HVS
Longman
ALP
1
Mr SULLIVAN
—My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister outline to the House what steps the government is taking to build a better health system for a modern Australia?
2708
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Ms ROXON
—I thank the member for Longman for his question. I am sure that everybody on this side of the House will be very interested to hear of the investments that the Rudd Labor government is making in shaping a health system for the future. It is interesting that the members opposite do not want to hear about investments that are being made across the health sector—across the public and private sectors—because when they were in government they neglected the public health sector. The previous government did not accept that in a modern Australia the modern health system that we need needs a strong public and a strong private health system. That is what our budget has delivered, and after 11 years of neglect by the previous government we have started the important work of rebuilding the health system.
We are investing $3.2 billion in a range of health programs which I will take you through, but that $3.2 billion will bring health expenditure next year, for the first time ever, to over the $50 billion in one year threshold. It is something that we are very proud of. When we add the $10 billion Health and Hospitals Fund announced last night by the Treasurer—the single biggest investment in health infrastructure ever made by a Commonwealth government in the history of the country—we are very proud that we are spending and investing in our future and in the health needs of the country. This fund is going to support the future health infrastructure priorities which will include health and hospitals facilities and equipment, medical technology and equipment, and major medical research facilities and equipment, including projects and facilities which will support links between hospital based clinical research and high-quality clinical practice. In short, this is a major step towards building a modern health system for the future.
What I think is also important to announce today—and I am sure that, even if the members opposite are not interested, the members on this side will be—is that, despite the very difficult circumstances in which the Treasurer framed this budget, I am very proud to announce that for the first time ever a Commonwealth government, the Rudd Labor government, will be providing funding for insulin pumps for type 1 diabetes in children. For the first time ever, up to $2,500—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey interjecting—
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—The shadow minister just comes right in after 11 years of doing nothing. All that the previous government can say is that they promised it. They never delivered it. All they did was promise it.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is delivering half what we promised at the last election.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney is warned. That was not a point of order; it was abuse of the standing orders. You are warned.
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—It might not have been a point of order, but it was right. We are delivering when you did not. That is the difference. You had 11 years, and we are delivering in our first budget up to $2,500 for children who have type 1 diabetes. This is an important initiative. I would be very surprised if the member for Flinders does not think it is a good idea to support children with type 1 diabetes but, if he does not, that is fine. He will probably stand alone as the one person in this House who does not think that this is a good idea.
00AMU
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
Mrs Mirabella interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Indi is warned!
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—Other measures that are very important in the health area include an extra $1 billion—
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do find those remarks offensive. I have walked 500 kilometres around my electorate to raise funds for juvenile diabetes, and if the minister bothers to do the same then I would be happy for her to make those remarks.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Again, because of the interruptions of others and the general hubbub, I am unclear as to what it is that the member for Flinders is wishing to have withdrawn but, if it caused him offence, on this occasion I will ask for it to be withdrawn only so that we can get on with proceedings.
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—I withdraw. I am pleased that the member for Flinders and other members on the other side of the House support our initiative to fund insulin pumps for people with type 1 diabetes.
What I am sure that many members in this House will also be relieved to know is that an extra $1 billion is flowing to our state hospitals, our public hospital system, an area neglected year after year after year by the previous government. We add to that $600 million for elective surgery, $780 million for dental care, $275 million for GP superclinics in local communities and, as I said, bring to an absolute historic high Commonwealth funding for health and ageing, topping $50 billion for the first time in the coming financial year—something we are very proud of.
Budget
2709
2709
14:38:00
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
0
Dr NELSON
—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his budget statement last night, in particular that rural Australia has been going through the worst drought in 100 years. I further refer the Treasurer to his radio interview this morning in Melbourne on 3LO. When asked about interest rate assistance for drought-stricken farmers the Treasurer replied: ‘I can’t give you the exact answer. I’ll go and look it up.’ Treasurer, if you do not have confidence in your own ability to understand something as important to this country as farmers and drought, how can Australian families have confidence in you to manage their home loans, let alone a $1 trillion economy?
2709
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I do welcome that question because it is a partial reading of the transcript, which is what you always get from the Leader of the Opposition. What I said was that the exceptional circumstances were continuing—that is what I said. Interest rate relief is part of exceptional circumstances. And I said I would get further detail—a perfectly reasonable and responsible thing to do.
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr Nelson
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To assist the Treasurer, I would be happy to assist by reading the full transcript.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—If the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about transcripts, let’s have a look at the transcript that he issued last night at 9.30 pm—a transcript which was actually doctored from earlier in the day.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer was asked a question about his own words on radio this morning where he did not know the answer to a question about his own budget.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—There is no need to debate the point of order. I will listen carefully to the Treasurer’s response.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—At 9 pm last night the Leader of the Opposition issued a statement—
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. She can seek the call if she has a different point of order to the member for North Sydney; otherwise, I am listening carefully to where the Treasurer is going with his response.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—The Leader of the Opposition, in the doorstop transcript issued at 9 pm last night, said this: ‘Our economic analysis is that one quarter of one per cent will be’—
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was about the Treasurer’s transcript this morning and the fact that he did not know his own budget. He is continuing to defy your ruling and refer to other transcripts at other times which are not his.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The question then went on, after mentioning the radio—
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr Downer
—So he’s in order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Mayo can go and have his cup of tea for an hour under 94(a). Off you go. The question went on to query the Treasurer’s ability to run the trillion-dollar budget, and I guess that the Treasurer is now going to make some comments about varying abilities to run a trillion-dollar economy.
The member for Mayo then left the chamber.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—At 9 pm last night the Leader of the Opposition issued a transcript which said: ‘Our economic analysis is that one quarter of one per cent will be added to the consumer price index.’ Then at 9.30 pm he issued a revised transcript which said: ‘Our economic analysis is that 0.4 per cent will be added to the consumer price index’—a doctored transcript from the Leader of the Opposition.
Budget
2710
2710
14:43:00
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
1
Mr BEVIS
—My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How will the government’s plans for the Building Australia Fund help prepare Australia for its long-term future and change the way that the Commonwealth has approached infrastructure coordination? How will the government be tackling urban congestion and planning for the future?
2710
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
Mr ALBANESE
—I thank the member for Brisbane for that question. The creation of the Building Australia Fund announced last night, together with the establishment of Infrastructure Australia, once again reaffirms that it is Labor that is the nation-building party for this country. It is an unprecedented overhaul of the way that we think about infrastructure coordination for the nation. The Commonwealth government is back—we are back—in the business of nation building. We are setting about repairing years of neglect by those opposite. We all know that capacity constraints at our ports, on our roads and in our rail lines all add to inflationary pressures in the economy. Congested roads and rail lines add to the cost of moving freight from the farm gate to the kitchen table and from the mines to the ports. It adds to the cost of doing business.
That is why the business community, including the Business Council of Australia, ACCI even and other organisations such as Engineers Australia, have all applauded the Building Australia Fund, just as they all supported the creation of Infrastructure Australia—because they know that the previous government did not invest for the future, did not build for the future and did not plan for the future. The only thing they had a plan for was the next election. Of course, the infrastructure failure of those opposite does not have just an economic cost; there is a social cost. Urban congestion means that many working families spend more time in their cars commuting to and from work than they spend at home with their kids.
Last night, the Rudd government proudly began the long process of reversing 12 years of neglect. By establishing Infrastructure Australia, we established the way forward. Yesterday we provided the means to back up that commitment. The $20 billion Building Australia Fund will secure investment in Australia’s infrastructure. It will enable the Commonwealth to attack infrastructure bottlenecks in regional Australia that are restricting our export potential. It is also a loud announcement that the Commonwealth is back in the business of our cities and that we will engage in infrastructure in our cities, including public transport. It comes on top of the establishment two weeks ago, as we announced, of the Major Cities Unit, which will work with Infrastructure Australia.
But we are not sitting back waiting for the $20 billion to come online. We are investing $75 million, as announced last night, to do the planning now on important projects for Australia’s future. As part of our commitment to end the blame game, the states will kick in a further $57½ million dollars, bringing the total to $132.5 million. In Melbourne, we will look at improving the east-west road and rail connections through the recommendations of the Eddington report, and we are looking at advancing planning for the Western Ring Road. In Brisbane, we are planning the Gateway Motorway missing links. In north and Far North Queensland, we are planning for the $2.2 billion that we have committed to fix up the Bruce Highway—improvements in Cairns, Townsville, Mackay and Gladstone. In Sydney, we are looking at the western metro line, a visionary urban public transport plan that would not have been touched by those opposite. There is the M5 duplication, which will assist in getting trucks to the port and off our urban roads. In Adelaide, there is a transport sustainability study. In Perth, we are looking at the airport transport master plan, including a rail link.
Doing this work now means that we will be ready to go when the $20 billion fund comes online. This comes on top of the government’s commitment to invest $25.8 billion between now and 2013-14 under AusLink. It was also added to in the budget last night by bringing forward $560 million in funding to get early starts on our election commitments: the Ballina bypass, the new Perth to Bunbury Highway, the Northern Expressway in Adelaide and the Townsville port access road. We are getting on with the job.
But those opposite continue to criticise this plan for infrastructure, and maybe there is a hint as to why they do that in the Leader of the Opposition’s comments on ABC radio in Queensland last month. Those comments highlight a big difference between the Labor approach and the approach of the Liberal and National parties, because this is what the Leader of the Opposition said:
In terms of infrastructure the Federal Government is primarily responsible for airport infrastructure. That’s it.
That is their approach to nation building and infrastructure. The Rudd government will end the neglect that occurred under those opposite over 12 years. It is no wonder that the business community has been unanimous in its support for the plan announced by the Treasurer in last night’s budget. (Time expired)
Budget
2712
2712
14:51:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
0
Mr TRUSS
—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he will spend not just the earnings but also the capital from the $40 billion in slush funds set up in last night’s high-taxing budget? Why isn’t the Prime Minister trying to lock in the benefits of the mining boom rather than squandering all the income to prop up failed state Labor governments?
2712
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—Here we have the once great National Party deserting the people of rural and regional Australia yet again—because, if you travel through rural and regional Australia, what is lacking most? Effective infrastructure. And where does the lack of infrastructure start? It lies in the absolute lack of effective broadband services right across rural and regional Australia. For 12 long years, those opposite had an opportunity to address that constituency’s need for broadband services, and they did practically absolutely nothing. All we had was one fund after another, with nothing really happening. As a consequence, there are second-rate, third-rate or fourth-rate services out there for rural and regional Australia, and they are unacceptable.
If you go to rural and regional Australia, you find the other thing that those there legitimately object to is the state of many of the roads. When you look at major roads for which there is a particular responsibility here, including the Bruce Highway, the response that we get from people in rural and regional Australia is, ‘Where is an effective long-term plan for dealing with these critical infrastructure and road transport needs?’ It is for these reasons that this government has decided: ‘Enough of the buck-passing; enough of the blame game. Let us get on with the business of building the nation.’ That is why we have established a Building Australia Fund, as the minister for infrastructure was just outlining in response to the previous question. We believe the national government has a responsibility to lead.
When I look at those opposite, particularly those representing that once great National Party—the party of Jack McEwen, the party of Doug Anthony and now the failed rump that it has become—it is time they stood up for the requirements—
83Q
Schultz, Alby, MP
Mr Schultz interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Stop laughing, Alby. It is time they stood up for the interests of rural and regional Australia. That begins with infrastructure. Our fund delivers on that.
Budget
2712
2712
14:53:00
Symon, Mike, MP
HW8
Deakin
ALP
1
Mr SYMON
—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What steps has the government taken to reduce spending growth in the budget? What is the government’s response to claims that this is a high-spending, high-taxing budget?
2712
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
1
Mr TANNER
—I thank the member for Deakin for his question. The budget last night delivered in full on the Prime Minister’s January commitments to macroeconomic management. It delivered a surplus of 1.8 per cent of GDP—$21.7 billion—over 1.5 per cent of which was not reliant upon a minor revenue surge; $3.8 billion in spending cuts, on top of the $1.6 billion in spending cuts that were projected prior to the election during the campaign; and $1.9 billion in revenue measures, totalling savings of approximately $7.3 billion. Government spending growth has gone from about five per cent in real terms in the financial year that is about to end to one per cent in real terms, a significant contraction of fiscal policy in order to assist the Reserve Bank and to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates.
Honourable members may have noticed that Budget Paper No. 2 this year—which, of course, is the statement of all the measures in the budget—is a little bit thicker than it usually is. It is actually quite a bit longer than it usually is. In fact, it is 104 pages longer than last year’s Budget Paper No. 2. There is a simple explanation for that, and that is that there are 106 pages of savings measures in the budget in Budget Paper No. 2. The reason why the two figures are almost exactly the same is that there were virtually no savings measures at all in the 2007 budget—and, in fact, in the last four budgets there were virtually no savings measures at all.
The government has done the hard yards not done by the previous government. But, inevitably, some commentators say that we should have done more. To be fair, some of those people have been consistent in this message over a number of years. But imagine my surprise last night when, casually watching The 7.30 Report, I saw that they had been joined belatedly by the member for Wentworth, who described this budget as ‘a high-taxing, high-spending budget’. As I was watching this I asked myself, ‘Is this the same member for Wentworth who, on Meet the Press only 10 days earlier, said that there was no need to cut government spending, that inflation is not a problem and that inflation is merely a fairytale?’ Somehow, within the space of 10 days, the member for Wentworth has moved seamlessly and shamelessly from saying, ‘Don’t do anything,’ to saying, ‘You haven’t done anything.’ Somehow or other, he has slipped from one to the other with nothing in between. This, of course, is a great mystery to me. I have racked my brains for an explanation for this blatant contradiction. The only explanation I have been able to come up with is that somehow the member for Wentworth has managed to clone himself and that there are actually two Malcolm Turnbulls out there. He has managed to clone himself—and there is no truth in the rumour that he used his ego as the stem cell either, by the way.
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr Hartsuyker
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The cloning of the member for Wentworth was not part of the question.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will return to the question and continue his response.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—It would appear that, commenting on the budget, out there we have somewhere a soft Malcolm and a hard Malcolm. We have got two Malcolms: one is out there with his leader feeling everybody’s pain, protecting the millionaires’ baby bonuses and ensuring that every child gets a prize; and then there is hard Malcolm, off with the big end of town, off with his mates, hurrumphing about middle-class welfare, demanding big cuts in spending on poor people and promising big tax breaks for the wealthy. No doubt this comes in useful in his manoeuvrings within the Liberal Party, because soft Malcolm can have dinner with the wets and hard Malcolm can have dinner with the dries both at the same time.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. If the Minister for Finance and Deregulation has not got anything to say about his budget then he should be asked to sit down.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member who asked the question—a very well-crafted question—asked about alternative comments that have been made about the budget. This is a response in the tradition of responses that cater to the standing order of relevance. It is bordering on debate, and I am not happy as an occupant of this chair that answers do go into debate, but that might be something that the new Standing Committee on Procedure might look at and might get agreement from both sides of the chamber to change. But I suggest to the minister that he return to the dispatch box and conclude his answer.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—I will conclude with an observation about a specific budget matter that the opposition has commented on and criticised the government on, claiming that we are high taxing, notwithstanding the fact that, of course, all the data shows the contrary. That is that yesterday the opposition managed to put out two different calculations of the implications of tax changes in the budget—two different figures. On the basis of what we have had from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Wentworth, it is absolutely clear that they cannot even add up. They cannot even add up their own assessments of the tax impact of the budget, because they put out two different figures.
The true picture is that government spending for the forthcoming year will be one per cent lower as a proportion of the total economy than it was in 2007-08. It will be the lowest that it has been for nearly 20 years and, importantly, it stays significantly lower—substantially lower—than in the previous financial year across the forward estimates, and broadly the same thing has happened on the tax front as well. There is a substantial reduction in the tax take as a proportion of the overall economy, and that is broadly preserved over the forward estimates.
Whichever Malcolm was on The 7.30 Report last night, it is clear he had not read the budget papers, because the Rudd government’s budget has delivered a substantially bigger surplus, substantially larger savings and a much tougher fiscal positioning in order to put the budget in the right position to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates and protect the working people of this country.
Budget
2714
2714
15:01:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
0
Mr ABBOTT
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the government’s Centrelink website, which states: ‘If you are not eligible for the childcare benefit, you will not get the childcare rebate.’ Can the Prime Minister confirm that last night’s budget means that eligibility for the childcare benefit has been capped to families earning less than $110,000 a year? Does this change mean that parents earning more than $110,000 will not be eligible for the 50 per cent childcare tax rebate? I ask: why has the government imposed what looks like a stealth means test on the working families of Australia?
2714
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—Based on my advice, the answer to the honourable member’s question is no. On the changes to the childcare tax rebate, I would have thought that all working families in Australia would welcome the fact that we have increased that rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, helping working families under financial pressure.
Budget
2714
2714
15:02:00
King, Catherine, MP
00AMR
Ballarat
ALP
1
Ms KING
—I will endeavour to ask my question without breaking anything! My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. What support is available for working families?
2714
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
Ms MACKLIN
—I thank the member for Ballarat for her question. This budget is delivering a $55 billion package for working families, implementing our election commitments and investing for the future. Working families know that these are very, very challenging economic times, putting families under very significant financial pressure. Whether it is increasing mortgages, increasing prices or other cost of living pressures, families know that inflation is their No. 1 enemy. That is why this budget is, at its heart, about fighting inflation.
By contrast, the opposition really do not seem to have any idea. I certainly cannot figure out what it is that they believe in on these issues. The member for Warringah just a little while ago instructed the government to—
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, relating to relevance. I did not hear the question go to alternative policies; I thought it was just directed to the government’s budget. So I raise the question of relevance, Mr Speaker.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The question was: what support is there for working families? The minister will respond to the question.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—The opposition does not have any policies, so there would not be any point in asking that. What we certainly know is that the opposition cannot figure out whether they are for or against making cuts in this budget. What the government is about is targeting support—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a further point of order?
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—Yes, Mr Speaker. I rise on a point of order. In response to your direction that she come back to the government’s budget and the question, she continued to refer to the opposition.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—There is no point of order.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—Going to the specifics of the benefits that this budget is delivering for working families, first and foremost it is delivering more than $46 billion of tax cuts to working families over the next four years to really help take the financial pressure off family budgets. We are delivering to working families with assistance with child care, which certainly is something that so many working families facing increasing costs of child care will welcome. We are going to increase the childcare tax rebate from the current level of 30 per cent to 50 per cent—so half of working families’ out-of-pocket childcare costs will be met as a result of this budget.
We are going to double the Commonwealth financial counselling scheme to provide more assistance for those families who get into financial difficulty. The Minister for Health and Ageing has delivered for working families a new teen dental health plan, something that so many working families will benefit from as their children grow older. The education tax rebate is something else that will help working families with the increasing costs of education.
The Minister for Housing, of course, has delivered for working families with a $2.2 billion package of housing affordability measures that will help with the very serious pressures that families are facing with the cost of housing. Most importantly from my point of view, for 19,000 carers who are really doing it hard we are delivering almost $300 million to help carers of profoundly disabled children. The eligibility rules for carer payments at the moment are far too restrictive and insensitive, and under this government they will change.
Unlike the former government, this government is about making sure that it delivers the support and certainty that families need and making sure that funding is responsibly targeted to those who need it. That is why we are also introducing as key measures in the government’s fight against inflation two new income tests, one to family tax benefit part B and the other to the baby bonus, making sure that these benefits go to those families who need it most. What is important is that these measures alone deliver $900 million of savings over the next four years to help in this government’s fight against inflation.
Fuel Prices
2716
2716
15:07:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. How does $21 million to establish FuelWatch and $11 million to fund the new Petrol Commissioner deliver lower petrol prices when all evidence today is that Perth’s FuelWatch is delivering the highest petrol prices in Australia? Why has the Treasurer failed to take any decisive action to deal with rising fuel prices?
2716
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I am pleased to answer that question. The government is doing what we said we would do. We said we would put a Petrol Commissioner into the ACCC to make sure we had a competitive market out there and to make sure that people who were buying petrol were not being ripped off at the bowser. This FuelWatch scheme, which will be coming into operation through the year, will be a very important measure to give consumers access to information so that they can access cheaper prices. I simply cannot understand why the opposition would oppose it.
Alcohol Abuse
2716
2716
15:08:00
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
1
Ms BURKE
—My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister provide information to the House on the government’s efforts to tackle binge drinking in our community? Are there any alternative public views on this issue?
2716
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Ms ROXON
—I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. I know that it is an area that she has been concerned with, being particularly interested in the health of young women in a range of different areas. We believe that binge drinking is a community-wide problem and deserves a community-wide response. We think that young people are particularly at risk and we know that alcopops are used to hook them on drinking when they are young. In fact, research shows that many young people cannot detect the taste of alcohol when it is combined with either sweet mixers or milk, which we know is exactly how these products are used to get young people interested in drinking and hooked for a long time. We are not prepared, as a government, to stand by and just let the increase in alcohol consumption in the community continue.
The Rudd government is taking a range of steps to tackle this problem through the implementation of our $53 million National Binge Drinking Strategy. This is going to involve parents, community organisations, sporting clubs and an advertising and education campaign, which we know and hope will make a significant difference in slowing the growth of alcohol consumption amongst young people.
We have also, as the House is aware, moved to close the previous tax loophole on ready-to-drink products. This was a loophole that was opened up in 2000 by the previous government. It is a loophole that makes no sense because it treats alcopops differently to other spirits and it has led to an explosion in young women in particular drinking these products. I was initially pleased to hear, when we announced this measure, that the Leader of the Opposition was going to support it. On the first day that the measure was announced, the Leader of the Opposition—we welcomed it; he was out of the blocks—said:
The proposed increase in the excise on alcopops is something that will be supported by us …
Only days later the Leader of the Opposition changed his mind and called this an outrageous tax binge on ready mixed drinks. Last night, the Leader of the Opposition confirmed, his U-turn obviously complete, that the Liberals will be opposing this measure in the Senate. Even though he knows 20,000 young women under 15 every week are now drinking to risky levels, the Liberal Party want to stand by and not do anything about it. There has been a lot of discussion in the parliament and elsewhere about this measure over recent days. I think there is an important bit of information that this House should have.
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr Nelson interjecting—
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—The Leader of the Opposition would like some facts. I will give him a fact. Our modelling and the modelling from Treasury show that our measure will reduce consumption by 43 million 375-mil bottles every year. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks that it is not a good thing for us to have 43 million fewer bottles being drunk—mostly by young people—every year, then he should stand up and say that. It means that the Leader of the Opposition, who is actually a former AMA president and who was a well-respected health professional, now stands totally alone, not just in his party but amongst the health community, in not recognising that this is an important health measure. He will stand condemned for that. This is going to have a positive impact on reducing consumption and, of course, with money that is raised from this measure, as we have already made clear, we will be able to contribute to the biggest commitment to prevention that a Commonwealth government has ever made.
HWT
Robert, Stuart, MP
Mr Robert interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I warn the member for Fadden!
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—If the Leader of the Opposition is no longer interested in reducing consumption by 43 million bottles per year then he should stand up and tell the Australian public.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I ask that the minister table the modelling from her own department from which she was reading.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Was the minister reading from a document?
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms Roxon
—Yes, and it is marked confidential.
Alcohol Abuse
2717
2717
15:13:00
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
0
Dr NELSON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to last night’s high-taxing budget and note that $3.1 billion is projected in extra alcohol taxes on ready-to-drink mixes. Given that this tax increase was meant to tackle binge drinking of ready-to-drink alcohol, particularly amongst young people, why is alcohol consumption actually going to increase over the next four years? Why is only $53 million budgeted to tackle binge drinking? Prime Minister, why is the government on a tax binge instead of taking decisive action to deal with binge drinking itself?
2717
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the honourable member for his question. On the question of binge drinking, we in the government are responding to the evidence that we have been presented with. If you go to the study Alcohol consumption patterns among Australian 15-17 year olds from 2000 to 2004, a research report commissioned by the Department of Health and Ageing in 2005, it says that between 2000 and 2004 the percentage of female drinkers aged 15 to 17 reported that they had consumed RTDs on their last drinking occasion, an increase from 14 per cent to 62 per cent. That is the first point. The second point is this: in addition, between 1999 and 2005 the proportion of teenage girls aged 12 to 17 who chose RTDs as their preferred drink rose from 23 per cent to 48 per cent. That is in the Australian secondary school students’
use of alcohol in 2005 report. What is extraordinary about these two pieces of data is that those opposite actually choose not to act on them. We have looked at this data and said that we have a responsibility to act. It is very difficult not to go around Australia today without being confronted by the nation’s police commissioners in the various states to be told that binge drinking is a huge problem in inner metro Australia, particularly with girls, and that RTDs are part of the challenge. Therefore, we need to act in this way in order to reduce the growth at which they are consuming.
On the question of the overall integrity of budget measures on how these funds are used, the challenge of preventative health care is going to require a large injection of funds on the part of the Commonwealth. Preventative health care under the previous regime represented some 1.7 per cent of the nation’s total health budget. If we are serious about dealing with the problems of alcoholism and the problems of other chronic diseases emerging in the community, we are going to have to invest hugely in this area. That is why this government is committed to a significant new partnership with the states and territories to ensure that we have a proper funding and policy response to the emerging health needs of the community. Our overall strategy on the budget is to make sure that we properly invest these funds in the future while at the same time producing responsible economic outcomes for the country.
In terms of responsible economic outcomes, I would just say this to the Leader of the Opposition: it is important that those opposite decide where they stand. Within a week the Leader of the Opposition said that he fully supported the extra taxes on RTDs, a measure that we are going to introduce, and then he backflipped completely. This is part of a pattern. The Leader of the Opposition one day says that there is no inflation problem—it is a complete charade—and then we are told, of course, that there is a problem because it is now not sufficiently an anti-inflationary budget. We see the same conflicting position emerging between the Leader of the Opposition and the alternative Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, on the whole question of cuts. Remember that the member for Wentworth says, ‘No, we do not think that there is any economic need to cut it,’ meaning overall—
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr Hartsuyker
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question related to binge drinking.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister is relevant.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The answer goes to the overall question raised by the Leader of the Opposition about the integrity of budget finance and how it is deployed and it goes to the consistency of the Leader of the Opposition’s position on binge drinking, on inflation and on the need for expenditure cuts. Then, of course, we go to this extraordinary debate that we have had in the last 24 hours between the Leader of the Opposition and the alternative Leader of the Opposition on whether the baby bonus should be means-tested. On and on it goes. Should there be a $150,000 means test? We have a question that goes—
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was why the tax increase is based on an increase of alcohol consumption, not about the baby bonus. I ask you to draw the Prime Minister back to the question of why the budget takes into account an increase of alcohol consumption, not a decrease.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order goes to the standing orders relating to frivolous points of order. During 2007 there were 178 points of order moved at an average of 12.7 per week or 15.3 per cent of total questions interrupted. We are just into the fifth week of sittings and already there have been more points of order taken this year than the entire sittings last year.
A8W
Pearce, Christopher, MP
Mr Pearce interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Aston will resume his seat. I will give him the call when the Leader of the House has completed his point of order.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Over 180 points of order have been moved by those opposite with 40 per cent of questions asked being interrupted by those opposite, as a deliberate tactic to hide from the fact that they have got nothing to say. Mr Speaker, I ask that the standing orders with regard to frivolous points of order be enforced.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Aston has the call, because I promised it to him.
A8W
Pearce, Christopher, MP
Mr Pearce
—No, thank you.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Would the member for North Sydney like the call?
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—I would, Mr Speaker. Further to the point of order of the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House made commitments that they would improve question time by shortening answers and making them more relevant. Clearly, when the Prime Minister is asked a question about binge drinking and the baby bonus starts to weasel its way into his answer, then you ask yourself: is he being relevant? I just make the point that the Prime Minister is very good at asking himself questions and answering them. He can ask himself one on the baby bonus, but answer the question about binge drinking.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The first observation that I would make is that I hope that those members of the Procedure Committee who have listened to this exchange of points of order might address it in any future inquiry on matters surrounding question time.
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr Billson
—Or poor quality answers.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—If the member for Dunkley has a comment, he could seek the call. Perhaps he does not have a comment, so he will sit there quietly. Successive Speakers have been in great difficulty over these matters for time immemorial. The point is that one would hope that there could be an understanding from both sides of the chamber of the need to have a question time that is more of what the people observing the proceedings of the House think is relevant.
Whilst I have not used this ruling before in this parliament, it has been understood that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have been given longer lengths of rope than other members of the House. So this particular occasion probably was not the greatest example to bring into this debate about points of order. In that context and given that this is the question time after a budget, when people are perhaps a little testy, that is where we are really at.
With regard to other matters, it would be helpful if answers were shorter. It would be helpful if they were not interrupted as much with points of order that are fairly obvious but are not points of order that I can agree with and rule on. In relation to the way in which relevance has been conducted in this parliament for quite some time and answers, since the election, which I think have been consistent with previous rulings, there has been a slight improvement in the way in which questions have been couched, to make sure that they do not give us an opportunity to have debates when we should not be having debates during question time.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Thank you, Mr Speaker. To recap where we were on the question of alcopops, I ran through before the evidence upon which the government is acting. These are sober reports indeed about the impact of these particular ready-to-mix drinks on young girls. I think all responsible members of this House would wish to act in an appropriate way to deal with this challenge, which families are concerned about right across the country and which the police forces are concerned about right across the country. As the Minister for Health and Ageing said in terms of the impact of the quantitative consumption of alcohol overall in this category, it is a measure worth backing. My concluding point is this: this debate would be much more focused if we had a consistent position on the part of the opposition. As the Leader of the Opposition said on 27 April:
The proposed increase in the excise on alcopops is something that will be supported by us …
Then he went on to say on 13 May that, ‘There are a number of measures,’ referring to tax measures, ‘that we are now particularly concerned about,’ referring to the action which has now been referred to by the minister for health: that they intend to use their numbers in the Senate to obstruct this measure. It is important for the Leader of the Opposition to have a consistent position when it comes to this important public health policy matter, a consistent position on inflation, a consistent position on whether there is an economic case for cuts in government spending and a consistent position on whether in fact we should have a means test at about the $150,000 point. He says there should not be; the member for Wentworth says there should be. It is very difficult to work out these days where the opposition stands on any core question of economic policy or social policy.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the Prime Minister quoted extensively from the evidence he talked about in the modelling. I ask that he table those documents and that evidence and make it public.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Was the Prime Minister quoting documents?
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Yes.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Are the documents confidential?
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Yes.
Budget
2720
2720
15:26:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
Ms SAFFIN
—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister please update the House on what the budget delivered for rural and regional Australia and, further, how these measures have been received?
2720
Burke, Tony, MP
DYW
Watson
ALP
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr BURKE
—I thank the member for Page for her question. The government provided an important opportunity for regional Australia where we were able to deliver on the commitments we had made, where we were able to provide a long-term vision and, in particular, where we were able to take on the war against inflation, to which rural communities are particularly sensitive. A centrepiece of the preparation for that future is the program Australia’s Farming Future, criticised by the opposition spokesperson for being too focused on climate change, yet welcomed by others. I am pleased to note the following comments with respect to Australia’s Farming Future:
The $130 million under ‘Australia’s Farming Future’ begins the shift towards the NFF’s call to better prepare our agricultural productive base for less water, increased climate variability and the possibility of longer periods of drought.
It’s about long-term management, preparedness and planning.
I am pleased to have seen from both the National Association of Forest Industries and the NFF an endorsement of the policies contained within the budget. A criticism went out with respect to what the budget did in drought relief. The criticism was fairly scathing. It came from the Leader of the Nationals. The only problem with his critique of what was contained in the budget is that his media release criticising it went out on Monday, before the budget, on the basis that:
There are extremely strong rumours coming out of the public service that this much-needed assistance is in the firing line in Labor’s first Budget.
Then the budget papers come out, and what is the system being used? The same as under the previous government. What is the system used to assess whether or not people should remain on exceptional circumstances assistance? The same as under the previous government. Not only that, the decisions and the determinations will be conducted by NRAC, all of whom were appointees by previous National Party ministers, without exception.
I heard the scoffing before about whether regional Australia should be concerned about the fight against inflation. May I make clear to the House that, if anyone in the bush is concerned about inflation, it is because they are concerned about fertiliser prices and because they are concerned about fuel prices. You do not end up with debates about interest rate subsidies unless there are concerns about inflation.
The thing that concerns me about the scare campaign being run by the Leader of the Nationals is that, if he wins, if he actually persuades people as he goes from regional radio station to regional radio station claiming benefits are being slashed, the best he could achieve is to end up having farmers who are 100 per cent entitled to support not claiming it. That is the sort of irresponsibility that the Leader of the Nationals is willing to go ahead with.
It is not only that. While they want to airbrush any memory of inflation, they also want to airbrush transcripts that refer to it. I say to the members opposite: you can airbrush your transcripts but you cannot airbrush away inflation. Yesterday the shadow Treasurer put out a printed press release where he said that the measures will add 0.4 percentage points to the CPI. That was at 8.30 pm. At 9 pm the Leader of the Opposition said in his actual doorstop that, ‘Our economic analysis is that one-quarter of one per cent will be added to the consumer price index.’ That is what he said—one-quarter. But when the Leader of the Opposition released his actual transcript, the figure of one-quarter was gone. It had disappeared entirely because the transcript had been airbrushed to match the words of the shadow Treasurer. You might be able to airbrush your transcripts but you cannot airbrush the previous government’s record on inflation.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
2721
Questions to the Speaker
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I regrettably inform the House that I received a note from someone who did not sign it. They have a question to me, but they have not jumped up.
Points of Order
2721
2721
15:31:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
0
0
Mr PEARCE
—Mr Speaker, the note was not from me, but I have a question for you. I would like to seek your clarification on standing orders. During question time today the Leader of the House stood on a point of order and then proceeded to debate the point of order, which I understand is against standing orders. I rose to make a point of order and to bring to your attention that the Leader of the House was in fact debating that point of order. Standing order 86(a) says a member may raise a point of order with the Speaker at any time, which is what I sought to do; however, you did not give me the call. Could you clarify whether a member can or cannot raise a point of order or seek to raise a point of order with you at any time.
2721
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—My first proviso is that I am not encouraging this sort of questioning of things that happen during question time. But, as it happened only a few moments ago and I did offer him the chance to make a point of order, I will tell the member for Aston that if he goes off and does his homework and reads the House of Representatives Practice he will see that that was well within what has happened in the past. I think that I could have anticipated what you were actually going to say. I was willing to let the Leader of the House finish and then give you the opportunity to raise your point of order at that point in time. It was not a matter of denying you the right to have your point of order; it is a debate about what ‘immediate’ actually means. If you look at the precedents that are covered by the House of Representatives Practice you will see that that has happened in the past.
Speaker’s Ruling
2722
2722
15:33:00
Broadbent, Russell, MP
MT4
McMillan
LP
0
Mr BROADBENT
—Mr Speaker, I wanted to ask you a question about a ruling you made about the member for Mayo, but you have just indicated that you do not want questions on your rulings.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—No.
MT4
Broadbent, Russell, MP
Mr BROADBENT
—You agreed with him, he agreed with you and then you threw him out.
2722
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—No. I do not think that this is a matter for debate. My observation would be—and I do not want to fit him up and put words in his mouth—that he copped it sweet.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—There was a comment from the opposition front bench that he might have been pleased to leave, but I think I will leave that alone.
Public Gallery
2722
2722
15:34:00
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
83M
Sydney
ALP
1
Ms PLIBERSEK
—I observed during question time—and I think that a number of us did—that there was a little child who started crying in the gallery. I just wanted to ask you a question about your instruction to the attendants just to ensure that we are clear that, if children begin to cry in the gallery, their parents are not asked to leave or made to feel uncomfortable about that and that if they choose to leave voluntarily they have the soundproof gallery pointed out to them because, frankly, with the level of interjection we have, particularly from the members for Sturt, Dickson and Flinders, crying children are like music to our ears.
2722
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—First of all, can I go to the last part of that question from the minister. It was not really helpful. Regrettably, I do not think that the barbershop quartet really need any encouragement about their level of interjection. I was hoping that the member for Dunkley could quieten down the other three, but he has not been able to. On the serious matter that the minister raises, it took me a while to work out where the crying was coming from because I think the child was not in my line of sight early on. I observed that there was an attempt to handle it with due consideration. But I take the latter point about whether there was an offer for the proceedings to be observed from the upstairs gallery, which is perhaps something that should be observed. You made the point that, given what goes on during question time, a few sounds of bawling children in the gallery is the least of the House’s worry—and it is the least of the chair’s worries, I can tell you.
DOCUMENTS
2722
Documents
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
15:36:00
—Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
2722
Matters of Public Importance
Economy
2722
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wentworth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to act decisively to set out clear economic strategy which addresses the cost of living pressures on Australian families.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
2723
15:37:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—The key test that the Rudd government set for itself in this budget was whether it would strengthen the Australian economy and put maximum downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. The government, and in particular the Treasurer, has failed miserably on both counts. Most importantly, the government has failed to act decisively. It has not set out a clear economic strategy which addresses the cost of living pressures on Australian families.
The first budget of the Rudd government is not an inflation-fighting budget. It is not a budget that lifts a single finger to help Australians battling with the rising costs of living—petrol, groceries, private health insurance and home interest rates. The only bright light in which we can all take comfort is the strength of the Australian economy and the cuts in personal income tax, which are all courtesy of the previous coalition government.
The Rudd government has inherited the strongest, most flexible and dynamic economy in our nation’s history. It could not have inherited a better fiscal situation. The substantial surplus is a tribute to strong economic management over many years. Remember that when the coalition was elected in 1996 interest expense was two per cent of GDP, a two per cent cost to the budget. If that were still the case, this budget would be in deficit and substantially. Instead, today the Commonwealth is a net lender and interest next year, at over $6 billion, is more than one-half of one per cent of GDP to the revenue account, and that does not include the income from the Future Fund.
Australians had high hopes for this government. We were told that the Rudd government would provide new leadership. We were told the buck would stop with Mr Rudd. But they were just empty slogans. It is time to look behind all the spin and the rhetoric. The reality is that the budget is a missed opportunity. The Treasurer failed to seize the moment and do what was right for the future. In truth, we have the same old Labor Party budget.
In January Mr Rudd unveiled his five-point plan to tackle inflation. What happened to it? Where has it gone? There was no mention of it at all in the speech last night. The government’s five-point plan has been the key focus of this government over the last few months. We were told that spending would be reduced and maximum downward pressure would be placed on inflation and interest rates. Back on 23 January the Treasurer said:
… we have said from day one, that we have got to deal with the inflation problem that we have inherited … This is urgent. We haven’t got a minute to lose. It is a big challenge but we are up to it.
What happened to the urgency? Was the Treasurer so fearful and inexperienced that he could not take the hard and courageous decisions that were needed?
It is clear from last night’s budget that the Treasurer thinks that increasing spending is cutting spending, that increasing taxes reduces inflation and that fiscal profligacy is fiscal rectitude. Australian families will be scratching their heads today. The effect of this government’s policy decisions will be that spending will go up and tax revenues will increase. Where is the five-point plan?
Australians will be reading today’s newspapers thinking they are back in the late 1980s and that this is the same old Labor Party, and they would be right. The budget reveals that this government is wedded to the same old Labor way of managing the economy—higher spending, higher taxes, higher unemployment and lower economic growth. That is what the budget forecasts, and there is no clear economic strategy to address any of these issues. It is an ad hoc set of measures, none of which will strengthen the economy or put downward pressure on inflation.
The coalition left the Australian economy in the best shape it has ever been in. Real wages increased by more than 20 per cent. Real GDP per capita grew by 32 per cent. The unemployment rate was halved and is now at a 34-year low. More Australians are now in work than ever before. Labor’s $96 billion debt was eliminated and there was no net debt. Inflation was kept at 2½ per cent, on average, over the cycle. That did not happen by accident. It was the result of sound economic management by the coalition. The one thing Australians knew about Peter Costello’s budgets was that they were decisive. The coalition took strong decisions and took action. There was a coherent economic strategy and the dividend was a strong and resilient economy that increased living standards for all Australians.
With results like these there was good reason for Australians to remain optimistic and confident about our economic future. But since the Rudd government came to office that optimism about our economic future has faded. Business confidence and consumer confidence have plummeted. Nothing in the budget will do anything to lift that confidence. The Treasurer does not inspire confidence at all. He exudes weakness, nervousness and uncertainty. He is not even prepared to sit here and engage in the MPI debate about his own budget. He is hiding in his office and he sends his junior minister along to front. What a gutless wonder. His anxiety and inexperience are written all over the budget documents. He does not know what he is doing.
Time and again the Treasurer has gone around the country saying: ‘Government spending will be cut—massive cuts.’ And so has the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, who said on 11 April:
We will have substantial spending cuts … They will involve some pain, spread pretty widely across much of the community. That’s part of getting the budget back under control …
That was the story—big cuts and big downward pressure on inflation, because aggregate demand would be reduced by big cuts in government expenditure. And we believed them. We thought they might go too far. Obviously, any cut in net spending that was less than half a per cent of GDP would not make any difference, so we assumed that they would be true to their word. But what have they done?
As the budget papers show, as a result of the policy decisions taken by this government, spending will increase by $14.9 billion over the four years of the forward estimates, and that does not include the extra spending of $3.1 billion as a result of policy decisions taken in this financial year. How is that cutting spending? We know what he actually meant when he said he was going to cut spending. The Treasurer seems to think that, if you cut $15 billion in planned coalition spending and replace it with $30 billion of Labor spending, you are still cutting spending. So the only spending he believes in cutting is coalition programs.
There we have it. The Treasurer seems to think that when you increase net spending you are really cutting it. Can you believe it? Is that what we can expect from the Rudd government during the rest of its term—that when you spend more you are actually spending less? How will that kind of economic logic strengthen our economy? Under Mr Swan’s new accounting rules, spending more means spending less. What hope is there of putting downward pressure on inflation and interest rates? Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he talked about new leadership? Well, it is certainly new economics. It is voodoo economics. It is unbelievable economics from an unbelievable Treasurer.
Here is another example. The Treasurer is directly increasing the price of cars and alcohol in this budget by increasing taxes on those goods. The budget papers clearly show the government expects people to drop out of private health insurance, which, as the Prime Minister conceded today, would put upward pressure on premiums and private health insurance premiums will go up. What Australian families are entitled to know is: how does increasing the price of goods and services reduce inflation? I asked that question of the Treasurer in question time. He could not answer it; there was no answer. It is just part of the voodoo economics. You do not have to provide answers. What on earth is he thinking? What on earth are they thinking, imagining that we can be conned, that this country can be conned, with the claim that the increased tax on alcopops is actually going to reduce consumption. And yet we know from their own budget papers, Budget Paper No. 2, that the revenue from that increase in excise will go from $600-odd million in the first year to over $800 million in the fourth year. How can that happen unless there is more consumption—unless there are more alcopops drunk and more excise paid? And yet we have the health minister saying, in blindness to what was in the budget, it will reduce consumption.
Here is another example. The big anti-inflationary so-called trump card in this budget was supposedly, after a big surplus was generated—no thanks to the Treasurer or his colleagues—to take money out of that surplus and put it away in several new funds. Let there be no mistake. What the Treasurer has done with the Building Australia Fund is nothing at all like the coalition’s Future Fund. When the coalition introduced the Future Fund, it put in place a strong governance structure with an independent investment manager with a responsible investment mandate. The Future Fund’s earnings were quarantined and reinvested in the Future Fund. We never claimed the fund’s earnings as part of the fiscal surplus. There was no confusion about what the Future Fund was designed to do. It was designed to deal with the unfunded obligations to Public Service pensions and take the burden off future generations. It was very clear, very accountable and very transparent.
What has Labor done? It has put $20 billion into a Building Australia Fund; a Labor Party slush fund paid for with the savings of Australians. What rate of return will investment proposals have to achieve? There is no investment structure, no governance structure and, most importantly, no guarantee that the money will be spent wisely. We will not know what financial or economic return the fund is required to seek. You could not raise $20 for infrastructure in the public markets with that lack of detail, but this Treasurer—this absent and gutless Treasurer who will not stand in the House to debate his own budget—believes he has the right to draw a cheque payable to himself with the savings of Australians without providing any of the details that are owed to Australians as to how their savings are going to be dealt with.
Compare that to our commitment of $10 billion under the National Plan for Water Security—real money for real infrastructure needs. We made it very clear precisely where that money was to be invested. We made it clear what return we would seek in terms of shared water savings. Everything was laid out and the commitment of the funds was set out in the budget papers. Everything was transparent. Nothing, not one dollar of these investments from the infrastructure fund, has been dealt with in the budget papers—not a dollar. We do not know when it is going to be spent, how it is going to be spent, what the return is going to be or how it is going to be managed. It is just a bank account with ‘infrastructure’ written on it, and that is all we know.
While Labor inherited the strongest budget in our nation’s history, the strongest surplus courtesy of decisions taken by the coalition, it is now sowing the seeds for wasteful spending, leading inexorably to budget deficits and debt in the future. A responsible and decisive Treasurer could have taken action today and put his foot down. He could have insisted that the taxpayers’ money in this fund be quarantined and the funds spent wisely. He could have laid down some conditions and parameters. There are plenty of precedents for it, but he chose to do nothing. He lacked the courage and the guts to do it. Instead, all we have is a series of vague suggestions, a blank cheque drawn by the Treasurer to himself.
The budget also does nothing to secure the economic future of Australian families. We know that one of the great challenges we face is the challenge of declining birth rates. Indeed, a few years ago, you could not find a demographer in this country or anywhere that would say that Australia’s birth rate was not inexorably destined to go down to 1.6 and keep falling. But, instead, it has gone up. The reason it has gone up, alone in the developed world, is that the coalition made a commitment to send a strong social message, to send a statement that children are a social good and that all of us have a vested interest in each other’s children. Part of that strong social message was the universal availability of the baby bonus, and now the Labor Party proposes to means test it. That means test, which is clumsily designed and will create many disincentives, will save $70 million a year out of a $1.5 billion program—a sum of money which is tiny in contrast to the budget. It is $70 million paid to achieve one thing: a headline entitled ‘Soak the rich’—an appeal to Labor’s divisive envy politics. (Time expired)
Opposition members interjecting—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey interjecting—
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Order! The member for North Sydney will remove himself under standing order 94(a). The member for Prospect will be heard in silence as the member for Wentworth was.
The member for North Sydney then left the chamber.
2726
15:52:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer
1
0
Mr BOWEN
—This MPI is quite encouraging. At long last it appears the opposition now accepts that there are cost of living pressures on Australian families. At long last it seems that they finally accept that ‘Australian working families have never been better off’ was a false premise. At long last they accept that inflation is a problem. This MPI is about cost of living pressures on Australian families. What are cost of living pressures? Cost of living pressures are price rises. What are price rises? Price rises are inflation. So the proposition being put to us by honourable members opposite today is that last night’s budget did not do enough about inflation—not enough about the cost of living. Last week inflation was a charade! The Leader of the Opposition said:
The inflation crisis is a complete charade.
The honourable member for Wentworth has said:
We have heard a lot of fairy stories about the important challenges of inflation ...
So last week it was a charade and a fairy story; tonight he says that we did not do enough. The view of the opposition is that they would like us to do more about the charade. They would very much like us to deal with the fairy story. That is the position they are putting to the Australian people. They have been trying to convince us that the inflation problem is overblown or, as the shadow Treasurer might say, ‘overdramatised’—as he has said about interest rate increases in the past.
On 6 February he even penned an op ed. He sat down at his desk and wrote an article for the Australian, claiming that the government was wrong when they said that inflation is higher in Australia than generally in the OECD. And to support his argument he pointed out that inflation was actually higher than Australia in China, India and Singapore. But those countries are not in the OECD—a slight technical problem for the shadow Treasurer! His answer to inflation being higher in Australia than it is in the OECD is to put more countries into the OECD. Next he is going to be coming in here and saying, ‘Inflation is not much of a problem in Australia because it is actually higher in Zimbabwe.’ That is his solution to inflation in this country. That is his solution to the cost of living pressures on Australian families.
There are three things the government can do to deal with inflation: we can get government spending under control, we can deal with the infrastructure crisis in Australia and we can deal with the skills problems in Australia—the three things that the Reserve Bank has pointed out have led to inflation.
Let us deal with getting government spending under control. I have to say that there are people who can explain this better than I can. I would like to share with the House an article from the Sydney Morning Herald by Stephen Anthony, a former very senior official in the Treasury and department of finance. This is what he had to say about the tax-and-spend Liberals who sit opposite. He said this:
Unfortunately, the Howard government lost its way from 2004. When the China boom arrived with soaring commodity prices there was no offsetting tightening in fiscal settings to “bank” windfall revenue gains from mining. The drunken sailors pillaged the budget for political expediency and produced a structural deterioration in the bottom line.
Those are not my words; they are the words of a former senior official in the Treasury and the department of finance. He went on:
The huge spending injection coincided with the further upturn in the business cycle. Blind Freddy knew inflation would be the result.
That is what Stephen Anthony has said. He has told us of the lie in what the shadow Treasurer has just put before the House. They say they had government spending under control. Well, if hypocrisy were a crime the shadow Treasurer would be doing life, because they had government spending completely out of control and it has been up to us to put downward pressure on inflation by getting government spending back under control.
We have reduced government spending as a percentage of GDP by a full percentage point to make it the lowest it has been since 1989-90—that is real spending cuts and real responsible economic management, which the former government could not achieve. The increase in government spending of 1.1 per cent is exactly a quarter of the average over the last four years. That is what responsible economic management is all about. That is what being serious about inflation is all about—when you go through an ERC process and put a ruler over every single item of government expenditure, which they became too lazy to do.
They became too lazy to do that, because they did not think inflation was a problem. The previous Treasurer, the member for Higgins, said, ‘Inflation is right where we want it.’ That is what they really thought about inflation. Now it is ‘a charade and a fairytale, but we’d like you to do more about it, thank you very much’! No wonder the opposition has lost all economic credibility with the Australian people. The other focus to this budget is on helping working families—helping families deal with the cost of living pressures. You can put downward pressure on inflation by getting government spending under control but you also need to put measures in place to help working families.
Now the shadow Treasurer—I was almost going to call him the Leader of the Opposition; I am getting slightly ahead of myself—has become the John Cleese of Australian politics. You can just imagine him. He says to the Australian people, ‘What does this budget do for Australian families?’ They say, ‘Well, it delivers tax cuts for lower-middle income earners.’ And he says, ‘Yes, but apart from tax cuts for lower and middle income earners, what does it do for the Australian people?’ They say, ‘It increases the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent.’ And he says, ‘Well, apart from the tax cuts and increasing the childcare rebate what does it do for Australian families?’ And they say, ‘It introduces an education tax rebate.’ He says, ‘Well, okay, apart from the education tax rebate, the increase in the childcare rebate and the tax cuts for working families, what does it do for us?’ They say, ‘Well, it increases the utilities allowance for pensioners.’ And he says, ‘Okay, apart from the increase in utilities allowance, and the increase in the childcare cash rebate, the introduction of the education rebate, and the tax cuts, what have they ever done for us?’ They say, ‘Well, they got government spending under control, which you never did.’ And he says, ‘Okay, apart from getting government spending under control, the childcare cash rebate, the education rebate and the tax cuts, what’s this government ever done for us?’ At least John Cleese was trying to be funny. The shadow Treasurer is just a joke and a laughing stock. No wonder the Australian people have passed their judgement on this mob, who no longer stand for anything but make cheap political points.
I agree with the comments of several commentators on the complete lack of responsibility that the shadow Treasurer has shown over the last few weeks. Let’s have a look at what some of them have said. The shadow Treasurer said, ‘Inflation is a fairytale,’ whereas Chris Richardson from Access Economics says, ‘You have an inflation time bomb.’ Chris Caton, Chief Economist of BT Financial, said he was ‘not so much surprised as amused at the coalition’s attacks on Labor’s cut in government spending’. Saul Eslake said:
The last two terms of the Howard government featured wasteful and misdirected spending that needs to be corrected.
He said:
Turnbull is advocating a do-nothing budget. He is all about politics and not about economics.
He is all about the leadership of the Liberal Party, trying to make himself look better, and not about economics. Economic credibility is actually important in this country, and you no longer have any. You have completely bankrupted yourselves and sold yourselves out.
When we are talking about cost of living pressures we also need to talk about the pressures on the Australian people from things like grocery prices and petrol prices. Our old friend the member for Dickson has been talking about those. He has been making certain commitments on behalf of the opposition. This is what he said on 14 May:
I think Brendan Nelson would have a greater capacity to deliver lower petrol prices for families and lower grocery prices.
Oh, really! This was the promise by the shadow minister for finance. He said that they will reduce grocery prices and petrol prices. Let’s talk about petrol prices. Why don’t you give motorists a fair go? Why don’t you get on the side of motorists for a change and back our FuelWatch scheme? The ACCC did an analysis of FuelWatch and found that it puts downward pressure on prices by 2c a litre. Why don’t you accept the offer of a briefing from the ACCC? The ACCC has offered you a briefing on the modelling and you have declined it. What have you got to hide? Why don’t you accept the offer of a briefing from the ACCC? Members opposite do not need to take my word for it. They can listen to one of their own, our old friend the leader of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, Mr O’Farrell, who said that FuelWatch:
... will ease the burden on families and pensioners by helping drive down petrol prices.
That was not from a Labor leader; it was from a Liberal leader. He went on to say:
This is about putting the interests of motorists’ wallets ahead of oil company profits.
Which side are they on? They have a choice. They are either on the side of motorists or they are against them. They have chosen to take the evidence of people with a vested interest ahead of the evidence of the people’s watchdog, the ACCC. Shame on them. They have outsourced policy development to the oil companies and to people with a vested interest and they are putting motorists last. This government will not do it. We will proceed with FuelWatch and we will put it through the parliament.
If the opposition blocks FuelWatch in the other place, they will have some talking and explaining to do. When prices go up at the end of the week and in the lead-up to a long weekend by 10c or 15c a litre and people have no notice of that and FuelWatch is not in operation because the opposition blocked it, they will have to explain why they stood in the way of this reform, which will give motorists more information about where to find the cheapest petrol and 24 hours notice of increases in petrol prices so that they can get ahead and buy the petrol before the price goes up.
On any given day in any capital city the difference between the price of petrol at the cheapest petrol station and the most expensive one can be as high as 10c or 15c a litre. How can people find it at the moment? They have to drive around. They have to drive around and use a lot of petrol to find it. Under FuelWatch they will be able to log on and find where to get the cheapest petrol. But those opposite will stop it. They will stop this happening and they will not do anything about the price volatility.
The government will take FuelWatch to this House, where I expect it might pass, and we will take it to the other house, where crossbenchers have indicated support. But it would be a lot easier with the support of the opposition. You have to decide: are you with motorists or against them? Are you with the vested interests or are you against them? You come in here and lecture us about the cost of living. You can do something about petrol prices. You can do something about giving consumers more information about where they can get the cheapest petrol by backing our plan. You have said that you could reduce petrol prices. The member for Dickson said it in his endorsement of the Leader of the Opposition against the member for Wentworth. He said, ‘Brendan Nelson could do a better job than Kevin Rudd about bringing down petrol prices and grocery prices.’ Where is your plan? Either back our plan or come up with your own. If you cannot come up with your own then back ours and do something about it.
It will hang around your head if you stand in the way of this important reform. At last you say that Australian people are doing it tough. For a long time you said that Australian working families have never been better off. The opposition has said, ‘Australian working families were never better off than under the Howard government.’ At last now they recognise that the price of non-discretionary expenses—groceries and petrol—is putting working families under pressure. But what they have to do is back up their promise with a plan, or they have to back ours. They have to back our spending cuts, back our reduction in government expenditure as a percentage of GDP and stop going along with emotional claptrap about every mother loving their baby to justify millionaires getting the baby bonus. You have got to become serious about economic credibility in this country. You have got to become serious about getting inflation under control. You have got to become serious about getting government expenditure under control. You have got to become serious about putting more transparency in the petrol market and more competition into the grocery market.
The government announced a modest reform freeing up foreign investment rules to encourage more foreign owned grocery retailers and supermarkets into this county, to get more competition. All the evidence shows that when you have more competition you have more downward pressure on grocery prices. Do you know what the opposition said? They said, ‘You should not support foreign grocers and supermarkets.’ They engaged in Hansonesque xenophobia instead of putting Australian consumers first. That is what they said. They have completely bankrupted their policy development by refusing to back Labor’s practical and sensible plans to put downward pressure on prices wherever we can and to get more transparency and competition into the market.
We have a choice. You can have a government which says: ‘Working families are doing it tough and we will do what we can to help where we can. We will get government expenditure under control. We will increase the childcare rebate. We will introduce an education rebate. We will have tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners. We will put more transparency and competition into the petrol market. We will put more competition into the grocery market, and we will do what we can where we can to help.’ We have an opposition that says, ‘We thought Australian families had never been better off.’ It seems they now accept that they were wrong, but they say: ‘We are not sure what we can do about it. We are going to oppose everything the government puts up to do with it.’ No wonder you are a joke; you are pathetic, and the Australian people have come to that conclusion.
2730
16:07:00
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
0
0
Mr DUTTON
—That was a dreadful contribution by the Assistant Treasurer, otherwise known from this side of the dispatch box as ‘Cygnet’. ‘Daddy Swan’ could not come down, so he sent baby along and baby went on with the usual rubbish that he continues on with. It is good enough for the Treasurer to send down his advisers to the dispatch box, to send advice down to ‘Cygnet’, but it is not good enough for the Treasurer to come down and contribute to part of this debate, because that man is completely and utterly out of his depth.
It is a joke when you listen to the rhetoric of the government on the cost of living pressures. They promised the Australian people at the last election that they would bring downward pressure on interest rates; they promised Australian families that they would bring downward pressure on groceries; they promised the Australian people that they would bring downward pressure on petrol prices. They have had six months in government to come up with a plan to deliver on that promise and they have done nothing on this, their major piece of policy announcement since they were elected. The budget that was discussed last night delivered no support to Australian families.
The Australian people will shortly start to understand that this is a government full of style, full of bravado, full of spin but very, very short on substance. They have no substance. The Australian people, when they go to the bowsers this week to fill up and see petrol prices at record highs, will realise that Mr Rudd promised at the last election but in this budget failed to deliver any measure targeted at reducing that petrol price. When the Australian people go to do their grocery shopping at the supermarket shops this week, when they pay higher prices at the checkout, they should recognise that Mr Rudd promised at the last election that he would bring grocery prices down, and he did nothing in this budget to deliver on that promise.
The interesting part to examine is the rhetoric and the debate that took place in the run-up to the budget announcement last night—the period between November last year and the budget announcement last night. When we have seen ‘Daddy Swan’ out and ably assisted on many occasion by ‘Cygnet’, when we have seen the two of them out talking to—
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—The member will refer to ministers by their proper titles.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr DUTTON
—the Australian people, they have been talking up the issue of inflation. They have said that this budget would be about bringing the cost of living pressures down by bringing inflation down. They have said to the Australian people on a constant basis that they need to bring inflation down because that is the biggest scourge in the Australian economy at the moment. When you look at the facts, though, and when you go beyond the media spin that really is the front of this government, you realise how hollow their rhetoric is and you realise what considerable damage the Treasurer has done to this economy over the last six months. He has belted the hell out of confidence, not just for consumers but for business as well in this country over the last six months. It has been a great demonstration of the way in which a Treasurer—as Treasurer of probably the greatest nation on earth—should never, ever conduct himself or herself. It has been an appalling display and it goes completely to political motive and has nothing to do with economic responsibility and certainly nothing to do with economic conservatism.
I just want to point to how confused the Labor Party is on the issue of inflation. It was the Assistant Treasurer himself who, on 22 January this year at a press conference—and this is the Assistant Treasurer whose contribution we have just heard—in his own words said: ‘Inflation has been low in Australia over the last few years.’ How do you reconcile that statement at his press conference in January this year with his contribution today, because it shows him, like the Treasurer, to be a liar on the issue of inflation, and that is a—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member will withdraw that.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr DUTTON
—I withdraw. But the point that I make is that they have been running around deceiving the Australian people on the issue of inflation. They have no consistency because they do not have any fundamental understanding of running an international economy, and this is a real problem into the future for this country. We have had people like Wayne Swan, the Treasurer of this country, at a time when there are international pressures on our economy, when there are domestic pressures on our economy, out there saying:
... I say it to everyone; we’ve got a difficult fight on our hands as a nation. The inflation genie is out of the bottle, it’s been on the march for a couple of years.
That was a message that was sent to the Reserve Bank Governor and to the Australian business community—that, in the Treasurer’s opinion, inflation was out of control. That is what the Treasurer was out there saying to the markets in this country and then he wondered why inflation tracked up afterwards. The markets hang off every word that that man has to say. The markets depend on every word that that man has to say. He is an irresponsible person and he is incapable of managing the Australian economy. The Reserve Bank Governor has dismissed basically as rubbish the contribution of the Treasurer in relation to that statement, when he said that the genie was out of the bottle in terms of inflation. He has been slapped down, in essence, by not just the Reserve Bank Governor but many business leaders in this country.
The fact is that, in relation to inflation, the Reserve Bank had provided advice to the last government. The PEFO—which is the most recent document of the last government that I can point to—offered advice in October 2007 to the Howard government in relation to inflation along these lines, and I will quote from the document. This is PEFO—not signed off by Peter Costello, John Howard, Nick Minchin or anybody else but signed off by Ken Henry, the Secretary of the Treasury, and Ian Watt, the Secretary of Finance. Their independent advice in October 2007 to the government was that their forecast for inflation in 2007-08 was 2¾ per cent. In 2008-09 it would be 2¾ per cent. Their projection for 2009-10 was that it would be at 2½ per cent, and their projection for 2010-11 was that it would remain at 2.5 per cent. That is the advice that the government had from Treasury and Finance in October last year.
Nobody doubts that inflation is an issue which, for any developed economy, is a constant that has to be dealt with. The previous coalition government was able to deal with the issue of inflation. We were able to deal with inflation at the same time that we continued to have significant economic growth. We were able to deal with and contain inflation at the same time that we cut spending, we cut taxes and we lifted the workforce participation rate—we had record lows in unemployment. We were able to manage all of those economic outcomes while at the same time keeping inflation within the bandwidth set by the Reserve Bank governor.
This debate goes to not just inflationary pressures but specifically the issue of cost pressures on Australian families. As I said in my opening remarks, at the last election the government promised that they would bring down grocery prices and petrol prices and make homes more affordable. This budget, as has been clearly demonstrated, does none of that. In relation to petrol, there is $20 million provided in this budget to prop up the failed FuelWatch scheme, a scheme which has operated in Western Australia, which is a market that has incredibly high petrol prices. The reality is—
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr Bowen interjecting—
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr DUTTON
—And I will take the interjection from the Assistant Treasurer, saying that Grant Samuel is one of us, to quote him, which is an irresponsible statement from an Assistant Treasurer.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr Bowen interjecting—
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr DUTTON
—No, you said he was one of us. We will check the Hansard, because you are a fraud. You are a fraud, my friend.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr Bowen
—Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order—
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr DUTTON
—Check the Hansard.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Dickson will withdraw.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr DUTTON
—I will acknowledge two things, Madam Deputy Speaker. I withdraw, and at the same time I will say that what I said was an exact quote of the Assistant Treasurer, and it is shameful. It is shameful because it shows the class warfare and the rubbish that goes on in the Labor Party. This is a party that has promised a failed FuelWatch scheme to get it through a political difficulty in relation to petrol. Petrol prices are at an all-time high, and the Rudd government is going to do nothing about it. They have promised $20 million to put fuel prices up on a website somewhere. It has not worked in Western Australia; it will not work for the rest of Australia. (Time expired)
2733
16:17:00
Bradbury, David, MP
HVW
Lindsay
ALP
1
0
Mr BRADBURY
—This matter of public importance moved by the member for Wentworth is further evidence that those on the other side of this chamber know no bounds when it comes to sheer hypocrisy—those who, just a short time ago, issued that great clarion call that ‘working families have never been better off’, a clarion call that was denounced by people throughout this country. Hardworking people in communities right across this country stood up to be counted at the last election. They were not going to take the fact that they were under enormous financial pressures, many of those pressures created by the profligate spending and continual pork-barrelling by those on the other side, using budgets year after year to win votes rather than invest in our nation’s long-term future. The result of that, their legacy, is the highest inflation in 16 years—the highest inflation, stripping away the living standards of working people across this country and eroding the value of the money in their pockets.
This is the great challenge, a challenge that we as a government are ready to confront head on. That is why in this budget we have reduced government spending. We have brought to an end the rapid increases in government spending that occurred consistently throughout the period of the previous government.
E0J
Keenan, Michael, MP
Mr Keenan interjecting—
HVW
Bradbury, David, MP
Mr BRADBURY
—Under a government more concerned with pork-barrelling in marginal seats than investing in their long-term future, working families across this country saw their costs, whether they were child care, fuel, education, mortgage or rental costs, spiralling out of control and leading to that 16-year high in inflation. It is a massive challenge and one that we are prepared to confront.
The opposition leader says that it is a charade. Go and talk to the working families right across this country who are seeing the money in their pocket eroded, ripped away, by the scourge of inflation. Go and tell them it is a charade.
E0J
Keenan, Michael, MP
Mr Keenan interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Stirling is warned!
HVW
Bradbury, David, MP
Mr BRADBURY
—Perhaps one or two people in the course of the opposition leader’s so-called listening tour through this country might have pointed it out. I can tell you that in my electorate they consistently point it out, because it is having a real impact. I want to address this issue by making some reference to my local community.
There have been suggestions that we should ignore inflation or that we should not confront it—and we can go back and look at the record to see the many comments that have been made by those on the other side, including the member for Wentworth, as recently as 9 February. Asked if inflation was out of the target band, Mr Turnbull on Friday said it was not. On 28 April 2008 he said:
I think the Treasurer’s got to be very careful not to be too Scrooge-like with the Federal Budget …
He said:
… I’m saying there is a lot of grief coming in from outside Australia—
well, that is a revelation!—
and this is a time for us here in economic management to be cautious. We shouldn’t be rushing in to measures be they monetary or fiscal, that could in effect, overdo the downward pressure on economic activity that is coming from the rest of the world.
It seems a far cry from what we are now hearing. Our budget, the Treasurer’s budget, this government’s budget, did not go far enough. But back then—it was not that long ago—we had to be ‘cautious’. We had to demonstrate the sort of caution that the member for Wentworth was calling for.
The very expenditure cuts that we have announced, in particular the means-testing of the baby bonus, is a case in point when it comes to the absolute failure of those on the other side in their time in office to recognise that government revenue, tax dollars, is money contributed by hardworking Australians throughout this country. To hoard it and try and funnel it back as a bribe to those who are less deserving has consequences, and one of those consequences has been that inflation has run out of control. People in my electorate who are absolutely stretched to the verge of bankruptcy in many cases now find that, because inflation is out of control, the Reserve Bank, using the only instrument available to it, is having to increase interest rates—putting more and more pressure on those people who are on the edge.
This is all occurring because those on the other side failed to act. They failed to rein in government expenditure. If this government does the same and fails to do that, it is going to impact even more on people in my community than in some others. We have expenditure cuts that are targeted. They are targeted to the people who can absorb those cuts, because if we do not do that then the people who cannot absorb further increases in interest rates are going to be the victims. That is why it is imperative that we run a tighter budget, and that is why this government has risen to that challenge. Economic commentators right across this country acknowledge that—even Goldman Sachs. Either the quality of advice that they offer has deteriorated somewhat or, some might suggest, it has improved! But, notwithstanding the credentials of a firm of that nature, even they can see the merits of the budget that we have brought down.
Let me quote Peter Anderson from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in relation to the budget:
It’s good on infrastructure, it’s good on workforce skills and it makes good progress on reducing the size of government expenditure.
Those on the other side say there are no reductions in government expenditure. Well, Peter Anderson seems to believe that there are. He has read the budget papers. He focuses on workforce skills and infrastructure, key elements of our five-point plan. You come into this place and talk about a lack of a strategy. What is your strategy? We have a five-point plan, and it is not just rhetoric; we are delivering on it. The budget delivered last night delivers on each and every one of those five points in the plan.
The first point, ensuring that we have a surplus of over 1.5 per cent of GDP, was delivered. 1.8 per cent of GDP was the surplus handed down last night. The second point is investing in skills and education. We have had over 20 warnings from the Reserve Bank—and I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition, who thinks that inflation is a charade, that he is clearly not looking at the gestures coming from the Reserve Bank, because they have been very clearly articulating their stance with over 20 warnings about infrastructure blockages, skills shortages and the risk of inflation. All of those cautions and those warnings were not acted upon. But we are delivering on the education and skills front—$2.5 billion to trades training centres in schools around this country, delivering access to the skills that our economy needs in the school. These are significant changes and measures that we are introducing, including 630,000 additional training places. That is a significant measure that will have a significant impact. Whilst those on the other side sat on their hands and ignored those warnings, we are acting decisively. The suggestion that we do not have a plan and have not implemented it decisively really does defy any credibility and raises the question: what were those people over there doing over the last 12 years?
In terms of investing in skills and training, there are a raft of other measures, including delivering relief to families through the education tax refund. This will make a real impact for hardworking families trying to give their kids the best start in life and trying to make sure that when they go to school each day they have access to the resources that they need to do their homework, to be prepared and to be able to compete with those million-dollar babies that the people on the other side are so determined to protect. At some point those on the other side need to recognise that we need to target government expenditure to areas of need and not throw it around in order to continue to curry favour with those constituencies that may happen to be their supporters.
Our third point is investing in infrastructure. Our Building Australia Fund, our investment in housing and the National Rental Affordability Scheme are real measures attacking the infrastructure problems. We are boosting workforce participation with the low-income tax offset and tax cuts targeted to middle- and low-income earners. We are boosting national savings through our first home owners saving scheme. This is the five-point plan. This is our strategy. We have acted decisively, and we will now see over the coming period results that you would never have seen if those people on the other side, who sat on their hands for 12 years, were still on this side and in control of the treasury bench.
2735
16:27:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
0
0
Mr KEENAN
—Late last year there was a change of government in this country, and I suspect that the people of Australia have been sitting around waiting to see what the nature of this new government is. Six months later, they have their answer. Quite frankly, this is all there is. The government’s first budget has been delivered under the most fortuitous circumstances for any new government in the history of this country, and this is all that we get from the new Rudd government.
The previous speaker asked what we were doing when we were in government, so I would like to take an opportunity to remind him of what we were doing, because it goes to the heart of the favourable circumstances that have faced this government since they came into office. What were we doing when we were in office? Paying off Labor’s debt, creating two million jobs, keeping inflation low and keeping interest rates low. We halved the rate of long-term unemployed. We doubled net household wealth. That is a pretty good record, and this is the economy that the Labor Party has now inherited. Wayne Swan is the luckiest incoming Treasurer in the history of Australia, and that is a fact.
What we have seen from this government—and we saw it prior to when they were elected—is claims that they were going to put grocery prices, petrol prices and our mortgages at the heart of what they do. This was going to be ‘core business’, as the Prime Minister always says. In fact, in the Australian this year the Prime Minister said that, when it comes to grocery prices and food prices, ‘The buck stops with me’. His Treasurer said very similar things. In fact, apparently the Treasurer has been conducting grocery price watches in his own electorate since 1993.
So we have a new Prime Minister, we have a new Treasurer, and at the heart of what they are going to do for the Australian people is controlling the cost of living. So in their first big policy document that they have brought down in this place for the Australian people, what do we have about easing cost-of-living pressures—this core business of the new Rudd government? We have three lines in the budget speech. What they say is that there are legitimate community concerns about the increasing price of groceries and petrol—we all know that; this Prime Minister has a habit of stating the absolute obvious. Then they say they will have the ACCC look at it and they will introduce a failed FuelWatch scheme. That is line number two. Line number three in this budget document about controlling cost-of-living pressures is that they are going to expand financial counselling services to help families better manage their finances. That is three lines from the main policy document of this new government about something that they have been telling the Australian people is core business.
What would help Australians control their budgets is for the new government to do something about rising grocery prices and rising petrol prices that works. Instead what we get is a budget that will drive up inflation. We get a budget that is increasing taxes and we get a budget that is going to be a record spend for any Australian government. They are increasing the cost of air travel in this budget. They are increasing the cost of the passenger movement charge. They are increasing the cost of passports. They are increasing the cost of alcohol. They are increasing the cost of motor vehicles. All of these will drive up inflation. Somebody obviously has not told the Treasurer that raising prices will drive up inflation. And worse, there are measures within this budget that will go to the heart of this conversation today: the core business that the government believes that it is engaged in of controlling petrol prices and controlling grocery prices. Last night they slapped an extra tax on condensates, which will feed directly into the price of petrol.
If you want to know the nature of this new government, this budget document says everything about it. What they are prepared to do about any substantial issue is to strike a pose that they care about it and then come up with some stunt about it. Then they will blithely move onto the next thing without ever achieving any results on what they have set themselves to do. A high taxing, high spending, old-fashioned Labor budget will not help—(Time expired)
2736
16:32:00
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
1
0
Ms LIVERMORE
—I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak today on the Rudd government’s first budget, delivered last night. I want to start by congratulating the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, for his magnificent work in creating a budget that delivers on each and every one of Labor’s election commitments and sets Australia on the path to meet the challenges of the future. In my electorate we have welcomed significant investments in our local sporting infrastructure and health services, just to name a few of the budget initiatives. Each of the election commitments for Capricornia has been honoured in full.
We also set out in this budget to relieve financial pressure on families, on workers and those on low incomes such as pensioners and carers. We did that because we know that many Australians are struggling with the legacy of the previous government—12 interest rate hikes in a row and the highest inflation this country has seen for 16 years. It is absolutely ironic therefore that the opposition should choose today’s topic for the MPI. Here they are accusing the government of failing to address the cost-of-living pressures on Australian families. How can they say that with a straight face? Members of the opposition have shown time and time again that they have no idea about the financial pressures Australian families are under and certainly no intention of doing anything to help alleviate those pressures. Let us not forget that until a few weeks ago the opposition’s answer to Australians’ financial pressures was Work Choices. According to them the answer to financial pressure was job insecurity and AWAs that stripped away basic entitlements and reduced take home pay.
As we have heard from previous speakers, the budget is full of measures that go directly to relieving the cost-of-living pressures on Australian families. There are the tax cuts, of course; there is increased assistance for childcare costs; there is important help with education expenses and additional measures for seniors and carers. And of course these measures will all be delivered within an overall budget framework of cuts to government spending and investment in things like education, training and infrastructure—all aimed at reducing the capacity constraints and inflationary pressures that the previous government ignored for so long.
In the time I have left I want to commend the government for one set of measures announced in last night’s budget that will address a problem of particular concern in my electorate and one which has a huge impact on household budgets. I am talking about housing affordability. This is something else that the opposition completely ignored during its time in office. Who could forget the interview on 30 July last year when the then Treasurer was asked:
Do you concede that there is a housing crisis, housing affordability crisis in Australia at the moment?
The then Treasurer and member for Higgins waffled on, but when pressed by the journalist saying, ‘So is there a crisis, Treasurer?’ the member for Higgins replied, ‘Well, no.’ Try as they did to convince the Australian people that there was not a housing crisis in Australia, in November last year the Australian people told members opposite that yes, there is a housing crisis and, in so doing, removed many of them from this House. In fact, one might say that the Liberal Party, which in 2007 denied that we had a housing crisis, was justifiably evicted from this House not only for its failure to do something about the problem but also for its failure to even acknowledge the existence of the housing problem. It was just a sign of how out of touch and arrogant the opposition had become after 12 years in office.
The cost of houses and the high cost of renting are impossible to ignore in my electorate where the coal boom has brought many opportunities but many pressures as well, particularly for those people not directly employed in the industry. The issue of access to affordable housing is especially critical in the mining towns themselves, where a three-bedroom house could cost as much as $800 to $1,000 per week to rent. But we have seen the flow-on effect in nearby cities such as Rockhampton and Mackay. Not all people are earning mining town wages, but they are all paying mining town rent. It is impossible for a postie, a baker, a nurse, a council worker in many parts of central Queensland to survive.
The previous government was happy to pocket the proceeds of the mining boom but could not care less about the living conditions of the men and women actually making the boom happen. In contrast, this government not only recognises that there is a problem, but in its budget last night, also set about tackling housing affordability and homelessness with a budget housing package investing $2.2 billion over the next four years on boosting rental stocks, helping people save for their first home and building new homes for the homeless.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—Order! The time for the discussion is now concluded.
BUSINESS
2738
Business
Consideration of Private Members’ Business
2738
Report
2738
2738
16:37:00
Price, Roger, MP
QI4
Chifley
ALP
1
0
Mr PRICE
—I present the report of the recommendations of the whips relating to the consideration of private members’ business on Monday, 26 May 2008. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Pursuant to standing order 41A, the Whips recommend the following items of private Members’ business for Monday 26 May 2008. The order of precedence and allotments of time for items in the Main Committee and Chamber are as follows:
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Notices recommended for Main Committee (6.55 to 8.30 pm)
-
1
Mr Gibbons: To move—That the House:
-
(1) notes the need for Australian businesses to be globally competitive in order to sustain economic prosperity after the current resources boom;
-
(2) notes the alarming decline in Australia’s productivity and export performance over the last five years;
-
(3) notes research findings that less than one in five Australian businesses is currently “world class”;
-
(4) notes the Government’s election commitments and subsequent policy announcements about measures to improve national productivity including public investment in education, skills training and national infrastructure;
-
(5) notes research findings that people management practices are the predominant factor affecting company productivity and performance;
-
(6) notes research findings that indicate Australian managers are paying insufficient attention to workplace practices and employee satisfaction; and
-
(7) supports the establishment of a National Commission for Workplace Innovation and Excellence that will, in conjunction with the business community, trade union movement, professional associations and education providers:
-
identify workplace factors that positively impact on workplace innovation, excellence and productivity including human resource management practices and organisational culture;
-
develop policies that promote workplace innovation, excellence and productivity including best practice models, codes of practice, awareness programs, business exchanges and awards; and
-
support research, management education and training in conjunction with higher education providers and professional associations.
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mover of motion—5 minutes.
First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
-
2
Mr Wood: To move—That the House:
-
(1) notes that:
-
microfinance has proven to be a particularly effective and sustainable means of eradicating poverty;
-
microfinance borrowers, particularly women, generate income that allows them to feed, clothe, educate and care for the health of their children;
-
in December 2006, 93 million of the poorest people had access to microfinance services, which is a 12-fold increase since 1997;
-
in support of the poverty eradication goal of the Millennium Development Goals, the Microcredit Summit Campaign, launched in 1997, is working to expand microfinance to 175 million of the poorest people by 2015;
-
the Microcredit Summit Campaign is holding an Asia-Pacific Microcredit Summit in Bali between the 29th and 30th July 2008;
-
the Asia-Pacific region contains 64 per cent of the world’s population who live in absolute poverty, and as such it has a large unmet need for credit and other financial services; and
-
the Bali Summit is a significant opportunity to examine ways to expand the use and effectiveness of microfinance in the region and to realise the Government’s policy objective of reducing poverty in the Asia-Pacific region; and
-
(2) urges the Australian Government to send the appropriate Minister and appropriate Shadow Minister as leaders of an Australian delegation to the Asia-Pacific Microcredit Summit in Bali in July 2008
Time allotted—35 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mover of motion—10 minutes.
First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins and 3 x 5 mins ]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
-
3
Ms Owens: To move—That the House notes:
-
(1) that Ovarian Cancer Awareness Week will be held from 24 February to 2 March 2008;
-
(2) that ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cause of cancer death in women, with nearly 1,200 Australian diagnoses each year and nearly 800 Australian deaths from it each year;
-
(3) that when ovarian cancer is diagnosed at an early stage, the outlook is very good—as many as 90% of women diagnosed early are cured. However, 75% of women are diagnosed at the advanced stage when it is very difficult to treat;
-
(4) that it is a devastating disease that is difficult to diagnose early and treat at an advanced stage. A woman dies every 10 hours largely because of the lack of early detection tests and poor knowledge of the disease throughout the community;
-
(5) that a recent Senate Community Affair’s inquiry into gynaecological cancer in Australia (tabled 27 February 2007) identified a need for increased awareness amongst the broader community about gynaecological cancers and symptoms and better educational support for general practitioners;
-
(6) that a survey commissioned by the National Breast Cancer Centre has revealed that half of all Australian women believe incorrectly that a pap smear will detect ovarian cancer and that 56% of women are unable to correctly name any signs or symptoms of the disease; and
-
(7) the need for greater focus on education and additional research funding to help Australian scientists to find early detection markers and more effective treatments of this insidious disease.
Time allotted—remaining private Members’ business time prior to 8.30 pm
Speech time limits —
Mover of motion—5 minutes.
First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Notices recommended for House of Representatives Chamber (8.30 to 9.30 pm)
-
1
Mr Truss: To move—That the House:
-
(1) notes that:
-
the Queensland Government will soon deliver an environmental impact assessment of its proposed Traveston Crossing Dam to the Federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Hon Peter Garrett MP, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;
-
the Traveston Crossing Dam is an expensive, inefficient, unreliable and environmentally destructive option for delivering water to Brisbane;
-
the Traveston Crossing Dam will displace hundreds of Mary Valley families, inundate some of the finest farm land in south east Queensland, and destroy at least $1 billion of infrastructure;
-
the Traveston Crossing Dam will decimate the habitat and threaten the survival of the rare or endangered Mary River turtle, the Australian lung fish, the Mary River cod and a range of other species; and
-
the Traveston Crossing Dam will significantly reduce water flows into the Great Sandy Straits Ramsar listed wetlands, threatening fish breeding, Dugong feeding areas and the waters of Hervey Bay and World Heritage listed Fraser Island; and
-
(2) calls on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Hon Peter Garrett MP to exercise his powers under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to reject the Traveston Crossing Dam absolutely.
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mover of motion—10 minutes.
First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins and 2 x 5 mins ]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
-
2
Mr Turnour: To move—That the House:
-
(1) congratulates the Government on bringing down a budget that:
-
begins tackling Australia’s 16 year high inflation rate and puts downward pressure on interest rates so as to ease the pressure on family budgets;
-
delivers on the Government’s election commitments restoring confidence in an electorate cynical about political promises; and
-
sets out a plan to tackle the long term challenges facing the nation so as to secure our prosperity into the future.
Time allotted—remaining private Members’ business time prior to 9.30 pm
Speech time limits —
Mover of motion—5 minutes.
First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Report adopted.
EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANTS AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2741
Bills
R2966
Referred to Main Committee
2741
Mr PRICE
(Chifley)
16:38:00
—I move:
That the bill be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
2741
Business
Mr SNOWDON
(Lingiari
—Minister for Defence Science and Personnel)
16:39:00
—On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 15 May 2008 and at that sitting, after the Leader of the Opposition completes his reply to the Budget speech, the House automatically stand adjourned until 12 noon on Monday, 26 May 2008, unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.
Question agreed to.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION AND ACCESS) AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2741
Bills
R2933
Consideration of Senate Message
2741
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting.
SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ONE-OFF PAYMENTS AND OTHER BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2008
2741
Bills
R2978
Second Reading
2741
Debate resumed.
2741
16:41:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
0
0
Mr ABBOTT
—I am happy to inform the House that the opposition supports the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (One-off Payments and Other Budget Measures) Bill 2008, but I should also inform the House that this is the bonus that almost never was. This legislation resulted from intense pressure brought by the opposition on the government after it was extremely credibly reported that the government was intending to scrap the bonuses which this legislation now delivers.
Back on Friday, 7 March this year, the Australian reported on its front page, as senior sources confirmed, that the payments were to be scrapped. It said:
Treasurer Wayne Swan told a business lunch the Howard government had engaged in the “old politics” of pork-barrelling, leaving the incoming government facing the need to make dramatic budget cuts to reduce the inflationary pressure that was driving up interest rates.
We now know that there were no dramatic cuts in the budget and there has been no serious fight against inflation in this budget. But we do know, because that particular report in the Australian made it very clear, there were strong forces inside the government that did want to see these carers and seniors bonuses scrapped.
Not only do we have that report, but we also had on the same day the Sydney Morning Herald reporting:
The Federal Government faces criticism from carer groups after it decided not to match a $1600 bonus payment made to carers by the Howard government in recent years.
A spokeswoman for the Minister for Families, Jenny Macklin, confirmed the decision last night saying it was part of the Government’s plan to cut spending.
And when that day the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs was specifically asked about this, she was reported by AAP as saying:
Ms Macklin refused to rule anything in or out in the budget, but said the government understood the difficulties faced by carers.
If the government had been committed all along to paying these bonuses, why were these very well-sourced reports that they were not appearing in at least two credible newspapers and why did Minister Jenny Macklin refuse to say that the government was totally committed to paying the bonus when she was given that chance?
The government faced a storm of controversy, as you would expect, over its decision at that point in time not to pay the bonuses. At that point in time the Prime Minister was off on one of his many overseas jaunts. When he was finally contacted he said that this was something that would be dealt with in due course. When he finally came back to parliament he said that the minister was investigating how the system could be improved, saying that ‘one-off payments and bonuses were an inadequate way to deal with welfare on a long-term basis’.
So let me make this absolutely clear. First of all, the government is paying these bonuses reluctantly. It is only paying these bonuses because Jenny Macklin won a guerrilla war inside the government, against the minister for finance. The second point I make is that it is only paying these bonuses temporarily. As the Prime Minister himself made clear, and let me quote it again, ‘one-off payments and bonuses are an inadequate way to deal with welfare on a long-term basis’. So the carers and the seniors of Australia need to know their bonuses are not safe under the Rudd government. They have only got the bonuses this year because of the opposition. And there is no assurance whatsoever that these bonuses are going to be paid in future years.
I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that the carers and the pensioners of this country are doing it tough. They are not doing it as tough as they might otherwise have been because of the decisions that the Howard government made and the regular payments of these bonuses over the last few years. They are not doing it as tough as they might otherwise have been because of the massive surplus that this government inherited, thanks to the good economic management of its predecessor, and thanks to the sustained pressure that the opposition brought on the government to thwart their sneak attack on these bonuses through the minister for finance. But they are still doing it tough, and I commend Carers Australia for pointing out today just how hard it is for pensioners and carers, for whom the cost of essentials is certainly going up at a faster rate than the standard CPI. It is precisely because of this that over the last four budgets the Howard government paid these bonuses; and it is precisely because of this that the Nelson opposition would not stand for any attempt by the current government to terminate these bonuses.
The opposition certainly support this legislation. We believe that we are, in a real sense, the authors of this legislation. We believe that were it not for us this legislation would not be before the House right now. We are pleased to have fought the good fight on behalf of the carers and pensioners of this country. I can assure them that we will be here to protect them against the rapacity of the Rudd government.
2743
16:48:00
Rea, Kerry, MP
HVR
Bonner
ALP
1
0
Ms REA
—I am very pleased to rise to support the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (One-off Payments and Other Budget Measures) Bill 2008 that is before the House. The Rudd government is very much a caring government, and a caring government must always acknowledge the incredible contributions and roles played by the carers, the seniors and, indeed, the veterans who also benefit from this particular piece of legislation, by ensuring that their bonuses are not only paid to them but will be paid by the end of this financial year. I listened with breathtaking incredulity to the speech from the member for Warringah. There was probably only one point that he made, which was his opening sentence, that I would agree with. He opened by saying that this was ‘the bonus that almost never was’—and he is absolutely accurate because, in fact, this bonus was never contained in the forward estimates of the Howard-Costello government. It is very clear that there was no intention by the previous government to continue paying this bonus to these most deserving members of our community.
It is interesting to note that the member for Warringah referred to the fact that these bonuses were paid over four budgets by the previous government. For four budgets they paid a one-off bonus to carers and seniors, and in the middle of preparing a fifth one they had the opportunity to give carers, seniors and veterans a much greater level of financial security in these payments by not continuing them as one-off bonuses but providing ongoing support for them in the forward estimates and future budgets. But they refused to do that. As a result, I find it amazing that the member for Warringah can stand up in this place and criticise the Rudd government for paying these bonuses, saying that we were never intending to do it, when in fact the uncertainty was created by them in the first place.
These bonuses are important because the carers and seniors of this community play an incalculable role in providing support for our overall welfare. We as a government have made it very clear through the budget delivered last night, through the election campaign that was so hard fought last year and in every piece of legislation we have introduced since last November that we are committed to improving the living standards of working families and providing economic relief from the pressures they are facing at the moment. This piece of legislation is one important plank in our commitment to working families because carers and seniors are also members of working families. In fact, if it was not for the incredible contribution that our elderly members of the community have made through the workforce over many years we would not be in the privileged position that we are in today. And if it was not for the carers who are at home looking after those people who are the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, others would not be able to participate in the workforce. So they are a fundamental part of our working families and they deserve the financial support that the government can give them.
Carers deserve financial support that also gives them some financial security. That is why I am pleased that the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in introducing this legislation, has made sure that the bonuses will be paid this financial year. The minister will also undertake a review that will look at ways in which welfare and retirement can be supported through ways that are much more certain and that will provide much more financial security than the one-off bonuses that were introduced by the previous government. It is important, when you are living on the breadline and dealing with rising costs of living, battling the increase in petrol prices and going to a supermarket every week and having to fork out more money each time, that the government gives you some level of financial support and acknowledges not only your vital contribution to the community and to the individuals you are caring for but also the needs you have as an elderly member of the community. It is also important that you have some level of financial security and that you do not have to wait with bated breath each budget night to know what your income will be the following week or the following month. That is why it is important to ensure that people receive these vital payments this year, which will give the government an opportunity over the next financial year to look at ways in which it can deliver this financial support in a more effective and a more financially secure manner. I am very pleased that the minister has introduced this legislation. I am absolutely astounded that the member for Warringah was dragged kicking and screaming to support this measure. He said not one word about the invaluable contribution of carers and seniors. He tried to develop some spurious argument that it is this government that does not support them when it was always the intention of the government that he was once a member of to get rid of this bonus.
Another aspect of this legislation which reflects this government’s attitude to carers and seniors and shows that we honour and regard them with the level of dignity that they deserve is that those holding concession cards will be allowed to go overseas for up to 13 weeks of the year without their cards being cancelled. Whilst those cards may not provide support for them while they are overseas, we all know—we talk to constituents every day—the hassle of dealing with forms and bureaucratic officers when reapplying for something that has been cancelled. I believe that this demonstrates that our pensioners are human beings and that they should enjoy many of the benefits that we all enjoy. If they are able to travel overseas for up to 13 weeks without having to relinquish their card, it is quite a significant innovation. I am very pleased that the minister has used this piece of legislation to allow it to happen.
I am pleased that the opposition is supporting this legislation and that they are, for a fifth time, prepared to support a one-off bonus. I hope, though, when it comes to the new initiatives that this government will introduce and when we implement measures that will give financial security in the long term to carers, seniors and those veterans who are entitled to them, that the opposition will also support those initiatives. Those initiatives will not only honour the contributions of carers, seniors and veterans but also give those valuable members of our community the dignity that they deserve.
2744
16:56:00
Shorten, Bill, MP
00ATG
Maribyrnong
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services
1
0
Mr SHORTEN
—The Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (One-off Payments and Other Budget Measures) Bill 2008 delivers the government’s commitment to make bonus payments to seniors and carers for 2008. As the member for Bonner said, it acknowledges the role and contribution of carers as well as the role that our senior Australians have played in creating our prosperous nation. New one-off payments will be paid generally before the end of the financial year. They will be tax free and will not count as income for the purposes of social security, veterans entitlements or family assistance purposes. A 2008 one-off payment of $500 will go to older Australians. Each person of pension age or veterans qualifying age who is receiving an income support payment on 13 May 2008, and recipients to that date of mature age allowance, partner allowance, widow allowance, wife pension or widow B pension, will also attract the one-off payment. Around $1.4 billion has been allocated for the seniors bonus payment. Self-funded retirees will also receive a bonus if they are, on that same date, qualified or notionally qualified for the seniors concession allowance. The government has provided around $428 million for the delivery of the carer bonus to eligible carers.
Despite the comments of the member for Warringah, this government is standing by carers, and carers will be paid a $1,000 one-off payment if they are receiving, as of 13 May 2008, either a social security carer payment or a veterans carer service pension. Carers receiving the non-means tested carer allowance in addition to either the wife pension or veterans partner service pension will also get the $1,000 one-off payment. Any carer receiving the carer allowance will be paid a separate $600 one-off payment for each eligible care receiver. Approximately 606,500 bonus payments will be made to 430,000 care providers as a result of this Rudd government initiative. A further measure introduces a limited non-cancellation period for social security or veterans entitlements concession cards while the cardholder is overseas, which will result in a significant improvement of concession card arrangements. There are around 600,000 temporary trips outside Australia taken by concession card holders. These new rules will allow cardholders who leave Australia for up to 13 weeks to retain their cards while overseas rather than requiring that the card be cancelled from the day of departure.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
2745
Mr SHORTEN
(Maribyrnong
—Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services)
17:00:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2007 ELECTION COMMITMENTS) BILL 2008
2745
Bills
R2950
Report from Main Committee
2745
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
2745
Mr SNOWDON
(Lingiari
—Minister for Defence Science and Personnel)
17:01:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT AMENDMENT (REMOVAL OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION WORKPLACE RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS AND NATIONAL GOVERNANCE PROTOCOLS REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2008
2745
Bills
R2919
Second Reading
2745
Debate resumed.
2745
17:02:00
Cheeseman, Darren, MP
HW7
Corangamite
ALP
1
0
Mr CHEESEMAN
—As I was saying earlier today in this debate, these laws are terrible. They resulted in the Prime Minister losing his seat, along with a dozen of his cronies. They are bad for universities, they are bad for TAFE colleges, they are bad for schools and they are bad for every Australian workplace. They are especially bad for universities. And the overwhelming majority of Australians recognised this at the 2007 election. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008 will rid us of Work Choices in another important area of Australian life. Our universities will work better for seeing the back of Work Choices laws, and this is one more step towards achieving this. University staff will not feel so constrained to speak their mind. The families of university staff will feel better knowing that they are more secure.
There is another important context to this debate, and that is the financial context of the former government’s financial threats to universities. As we all know, John Howard’s record and the record of the remnants of his former government, on the opposite side, are close to the worst in the Western world on university funding—and their tortuous use of statistics will never hide it. The record of the previous government in funding higher education was truly shameful. The former government’s reign saw a massive drop in funding for higher education, close to the biggest cut, in real funding terms, of any advanced Western country during the same period, at a time when the knowledge industry was the most important in our nation’s future. It was absolutely shameful.
I will repeat a key statistic here that has already been raised in this debate, because it certainly bears repeating. From 1994 to 2004 other OECD countries increased public investment in tertiary education by an average of 49 per cent. In the same period of the Howard-Costello government, public investment in Australia was cut by four per cent. What a shocker. That statistic is perhaps the most damning statistic of any of the records of the previous federal government, and there are many records of shame held by the last government. If we overlay the previous Howard-Nelson government’s threat to further starve universities of funding against this backdrop of ongoing funding starvation, you can see the big stick they were wielding.
Removing the requirement that universities meet the higher education workplace relations requirements as a condition of funding will remove any requirement that universities must offer AWAs to employees. It will remove the enormous mistrust that had grown between the former federal government and tertiary institutions. One of the worst manifestations of this distrust was the requirement that universities abide by the higher education workplace relations requirements, which required them to pursue the Howard government approach to workplace relations or suffer a financial penalty. The end of higher education workplace relations requirements will clear the way for the Rudd government to develop a healthy new relationship with our universities based on trust and mutual respect. Full Commonwealth grant funding will now flow to our universities. In the future, relations will be based around negotiated funding compacts reflecting the distinct missions of each university, not around ideological industrial relations agenda.
In her second reading speech, my Deputy Prime Minister spoke of ‘getting the heavy foot of the Liberal Party off the throat of our universities’. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. That is exactly what they were doing: they were choking the institutions financially. But I would go one step further than the Minister for Education: this is not just about getting the heavy foot of the Liberal Party off the throats of our universities; it is about getting the heavy foot of the so-called Liberal Party—the now very much misnamed Liberal Party—off the throat of university tutors, professors, associate professors, deans and vice-chancellors.
In conclusion, I would remind the Liberal Party that the Australian people overwhelmingly rejected Work Choices at the last election. The Liberal-National coalition of course needs to do a lot of soul-searching about this. But I would suggest to the Liberals that they also need to look even deeper, to think deeply about their own traditions as Liberals. If they do not wish to recover their lost Liberal traditions, perhaps a merger with the Nationals could be made easier. They could just drop the name ‘Liberal’ altogether and become the Australian National Party. The former government’s Work Choices legislation, and other supporting legislation, was absolutely shocking for working families. It very much hurt the core trust that had been built up in universities between staff and those institutions. I applaud this legislation.
2747
17:08:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
0
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—I congratulate the member for Corangamite on his excellent contribution to this important amending legislation. It gives me great pleasure to support the Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008. Put simply, this is part of our promise to get rid of the remnants of the Howard government’s insidious industrial relations scheme. It is part and parcel of our promise and commitment to do a number of things as a government which, I was very pleased to see last night, were fulfilled—very much so—in the budget presented by the Treasurer on behalf of the new Labor government of Australia. Importantly in terms of industrial relations, this amending legislation will remove the results of what really could only be called an arrogant government bullying of workplaces and workers, and in this case unwarranted intervention in our universities and other higher education providers.
The amendment of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 effectively repeals section 33-17. This currently requires higher education providers to meet the higher education workplace relations requirements and the national governance protocols as a condition of their Commonwealth Grants Scheme funding for student places. What are or, indeed, were the consequences of section 33-17? Failure to meet these requirements outlined in section 33-17 fundamentally results in a reduction of a provider’s Commonwealth Grants Scheme funding for student places. That is what the consequences of this section are if you fail to carry out the requirements. Labor’s bill clearly will remove this condition.
In essence, firstly the higher education workplace relations requirements require universities such as my own, the University of Tasmania to implement the Howard government’s ideologically driven workplace relations agenda. Secondly, in practice the governance protocols require adherence to what is effectively a one-size-fits-all model of how to run a university—a straightjacketing, a uniformity. Section 33-17 is demonstrative of what choice meant under the Howard government—effectively, little or no choice.
Under section 33-17 a provider would have its basic Commonwealth Grants Scheme amount reduced by approximately 7.5 per cent if it failed to satisfy the minister that it had complied with both the higher education workplace relations requirements and the national governance protocols as at 31 August each year. The higher education workplace relations requirements—I would use the acronym if I could pronounce it; I think it is HEWRRs—consist of the following five elements: so-called choice in agreement, including the requirement to offer Australian workplace agreements to all employees; direct relationships with staff which prohibit automatic third-party representation—this stuff is all very familiar; workplace flexibility—fair enough; productivity and performance—fair enough; and freedom of association. The national governance protocols, or NGPs, are a set of standards primarily covering the size and composition of governing bodies and the duties of governing body members.
The abolition of the higher education workplace relations requirements and the NGPs accords with this government’s public commitment. The government indicated in a white paper on higher education in July 2006 that ‘workplace relations and governance conditions attaching to funding will be removed’. Unlike the Howard government’s unmandated Work Choices legislation, this government made it clear, as I mentioned earlier, that we would indeed remove these conditions related to that section. No equivocation, no doubt, no ambiguity about what we have done here.
For those interested, let us be clear what Labor’s amendment bill does. First and foremost, will removing the higher education workplace reform requirements stop universities offering AWAs? Indeed it will. Removing the requirements that universities meet the higher education workplace requirements as a condition of funding will remove any requirement that universities must offer AWAs to employees. As soon as chapter 7 of the Commonwealth Grants Scheme guidelines, which contain the prescriptive elements of the higher education workplace relations requirements, as well as the national government’s protocols or NGPs, including the mandatory offering of AWAs, is removed the day after registration, universities will no longer be required to meet the requirements as a condition of funding under the CGS. So repealing section 33-17 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 will make the government’s intention to remove the requirements as a condition of funding absolutely clear. Universities will be subject to the government’s transitional workplace relations legislation.
It may be asked whether, if the proposed amendment does not pass the Senate prior to July 2008, universities will be forced to comply with the higher education workplace relations requirements as at 31 August 2008. The answer is no. As soon as chapter 7 of the Commonwealth Grants Scheme guidelines, which contain the prescriptive elements of the higher education workplace relations requirements, as well as the NGPs, including the mandatory offering of AWAs, is removed, universities will no longer be required to meet the requirements as a condition of funding under the CGS. Removing the relevant guidelines and repealing 33-17 of the act will remove the HEWRRs and NGPs as a condition of university funding.
Do these changes go far enough? The answer is yes. Removing the relevant guidelines and repealing 33-17 of the act will indeed remove the higher education workplace relations requirements and the NGPs as a condition of university funding, as mentioned.
What about these national government protocols, the NGPs? There is the question of whether these will signal that the government is not interested in university governance. That is far from the truth, far from the facts. All universities have already taken the steps necessary to comply with NGPs and all the amendments to state and territory legislation that were necessary to underpin them have been enacted. There is no need for ongoing compliance checking. The government will continue to encourage universities to adopt good governance practices. This will include pursuing options for a non-legislative focus on the governance standards in response to the forthcoming report of the review of the NGPs by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.
I note with interest that Universities Australia put out a press release in relation to this legislative amendment on Tuesday, 13 May 2008. I would like to share that with members of the House because it reinforces Labor’s intention and indeed action in moving those amendments. The statement reads:
Universities Australia supports the government’s action in this session of parliament to remove the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs) as a legislated condition of funding for universities.
Further, Universities Australia chair Richard Larkins says:
Universities Australia would welcome the removal of the HEWRRs as an indication from the government that it is happy to loosen existing prescriptive requirements and allow universities to pursue their missions as self-governing bodies.
The statement goes on to say:
‘Universities Australia looks forward to other restrictions being eased or removed across a range of Commonwealth funding and regulatory activity. Universities have been their most dynamic in areas least directed by government, such as postgraduate coursework and international student initiatives,’ Professor Larkins said.
Finally, it says:
In relation to the national governance protocols which could also be removed by this change to the Higher Education Support Act, it is the view of Universities Australia’s vice-chancellors and chancellors that members of governing bodies of universities should not be subject to more prescriptive requirements than apply to directors of bodies governed by corporation law.
The statement by Universities Australia, the rationale provided by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education and the detail of this amendment clearly indicate that this government wants to work in cooperation with the universities, but is by no means not showing interest in proper governance protocols and indeed productivity and flexibility in their workplaces. But they want to do this in negotiation and in cooperation. The former government’s quite pronounced intervention in universities, laying on the stick with very little carrot, was demonstrated in its other interventions in other areas of Australian governance, no more so than in health, particularly in my electorate. The Australian people prefer to work in a cooperative manner rather than be bullied by interventions and other big-stick approaches.
In conclusion, I would also like to place on the record—apart from my support of this amendment, of course—my support for and recognition of the work of the University of Tasmania in my state. Although it is the one university in Tassie, it provides three campuses. I am pleased to say that it gives considerable support to our campus at Burnie, very much a regional campus, which was formed in 1995. I recognise the work of Simon Crean in setting up the university campus at Burnie and also providing much-needed places for that university. I would invite anyone who is visiting my beautiful part of Tasmania to go up to the university and have a look at the campus and the services they provide. One of the great advantages is that it has smaller class sizes and more one-on-one contact with teaching staff. It is no different when people are in teaching and learning situations in schools: the smaller the class size and the more one-on-one contact people have, the better. The campus’s students have an opportunity to study closer to home. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, that you are well aware of the pressure on people to leave rural and regional Australia to study elsewhere. This campus provides the opportunity to be much closer to home, to retain their contact with and keep their skills in their local communities.
The other great thing about this university campus is that it works very closely with the communities that it represents and serves. It provides a raft of undergraduate bachelor and associate degree programs and postgraduate degree programs. They are not full courses, of course, because they have to leave after one or two years, but the University of Tasmania is working towards having full degrees provided at the campus. I do recognise the work of the University of Tasmania and I particularly recognise the work of the Burnie campus.
I am very pleased to support this bill to allow greater flexibility, fairness and cooperation with our university sector and to get this mantle of Australian workplace agreements and penalties off the back of universities so they can get on with what they do best and provide a bit of diversity rather than uniformity, which the former government tended to impose on these universities. It is with pleasure that I support the bill.
2750
17:25:00
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
1
0
Ms BURKE
—I am proud to speak in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008, which will mark a positive new beginning for the relationship between the federal government and Australian universities. This bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 by repealing section 33, subsection 17. It will remove the higher education workplace relations requirements and the National Governance Protocols requirements that dogged university administration for five years and made their jobs so much harder—all because of the Howard government’s ideological power trip to impose AWAs on university staff and get greater control of university decision-making processes.
Under section 33-17, a university would have its basic Commonwealth Grant Scheme funds reduced by 7.5 per cent if it failed to satisfy the minister that it had complied with both the HEWRRs and the protocols. This bill is also important to me because I have two fine universities in my electorate: Monash University at Clayton, one of Australia’s largest universities; and the city campus of Deakin University at Burwood. The contribution that these two universities make to the Australian economy and to the life of our nation is significant. Both have excellent reputations in teaching and research. It was an honour to have the Vice-Chancellor of Monash University, Richard Larkins, up last night listening to the budget.
A significant number of the universities’ students, staff and graduates live in my electorate. So universities are not only important to the country but they are vitally important to my local community. It is therefore of personal interest to me to see a better relationship between universities and our government. It is also greatly in the interests of Australia. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd government does not see universities as places for the elite—quite the opposite. For us, universities are places where every Australian can aspire to excellence in whatever field they choose. We acknowledge universities as the engine rooms of innovation and social and economic progress.
I was recently quite startled to read that former Prime Minister John Howard’s brother said that his family had a hatred of academics and public servants. I was quite stunned that family or you as an individual would have an active hatred of academics and public servants—people who give to our communities, people who offer their services for the betterment of our society. So I suppose what we saw in the previous government rang true to that philosophical belief.
The Rudd Labor government sees universities at the centre of our efforts to lift prosperity, enhance opportunity and wellbeing for Australians, and to increase productivity in our economy. Universities are a key part of the education revolution. This was set out yesterday in the budget through our investment in higher education. In yesterday’s budget the Treasurer announced a funding injection of more than $2 billion for higher education—and I can tell you that it is incredibly welcome within my electorate. Indeed, I am delighted to say that Monash University has received $29.6 million in extra funding for urgent capital works to renew and upgrade information and communications technology systems, laboratories, libraries and student study spaces, teaching spaces and student amenities. Deakin University received $13.8 billion for the same purposes. This will help significantly.
These funds will go a significant way towards repairing the damage done to the universities through the years of neglect of the Howard government. This funding has been welcomed by university staff and students alike. The Rudd government is investing in higher education to build stronger universities for the future benefit of us all. Not only are we investing but we are building a new and better relationship with our universities and the people who teach, research and learn within them. The new relationship is built on trust and respect and on the building of diverse, different universities, each pursuing a distinct vision and mission.
Now let me return to the matter of the bill, which will go a long way towards restoring trust and respect between the government and our universities. It will take the foot of the government off the throat of universities and let universities get on with what they do best—that is, teaching and research. Under the Howard government relationships with universities were marked by distrust. One of the worst manifestations of this trust was the requirement that universities abide by the higher education workplace relations requirements and the National Governance Protocols, which forced them to pursue the Howard government’s approach to workplace relations or suffer a penalty. Under the Higher Education Support Act 2003, enacted by the Howard government, higher education providers had to meet the higher education workplace relations requirements and the National Governance Protocols as a condition of the Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding for student places. If the universities did not meet the HEWRRs and the protocols, their Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding would be reduced.
The HEWRRs required universities to implement the Howard government’s ideologically driven workplace relations agenda. One aspect was that universities had to offer Australian workplace agreements to employees, otherwise they would lose funding. This was so-called choice in agreement making, but it was not popular with staff or students and provided no choice. Indeed, in 2005 the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, or AVCC—now known as Universities Australia—opposed the higher education workplace relations requirements, claiming that they would be inflexible and increase administrative workloads. Tellingly, the AVCC said they would be:
... very intrusive in terms of universities’ capacity to manage their internal affairs. The HEWRRs proposal constitutes a ‘one size fits all’ approach, whereas the AVCC takes the view that the focus should be on desired outcomes, rather than specific industrial processes and particular industrial instruments.
So the AVCC had effectively outed the government’s legislation as the ideological power trip that it was. After all, who should know better how to run the universities than the universities themselves? But, rather than follow the AVCC’s advice, the Howard government arrogantly went ahead and put the proposal into law. But staff did not exactly flock to take up the offer of AWAs either. By July last year, out of 150 AWAs offered only 2,000 university staff left the security of collective agreements to go onto individual contracts. Clearly AWAs were on the nose. The proof of the pudding was in the eating and the staff were not exactly lining up for a serve.
But the Howard government went even further than merely offering staff the so-called genuine choice between collective agreements and AWAs. In July last year the University of New England was threatened by the Howard government that, unless it offered jobs on an AWA-only basis, it would lose its funding altogether. How completely outrageous! We knew that the Howard government was desperate to stamp out collective bargaining in a free and fair environment and disallow staff the opportunity to be represented by a union, but this was just beyond the pale. The standover tactics and unwanted interference in the university’s industrial affairs were just breathtaking, and they did absolutely nothing to engender confidence in the university sector or to build sound relationships between the government and the universities. In fact, it did the opposite. The Howard government did not trust universities. It regarded them with suspicion. It believed that universities needed to be controlled and told what to do and how to do it—the Howard government way. Universities were told how to run workplace relations and how to manage their own governance and affairs according to the Howard government’s own mad ideological agenda.
The HEWRRs and the NGPs were the tools of control and the symbols of mistrust. Severe financial penalties imposed by the Howard government on universities for not running things the Howard-Costello way meant core funding for teaching and research—the very roles that universities are meant to perform—was reduced. The higher education workplace relations requirements and the National Governance Protocols showed that the Howard government thought it knew better than university leaders and staff how to run their institutions. It marked a trend of increasing centralisation of power over universities by the Canberra bureaucracy that would lead to more, not less, control and intervention in university operations. The governance protocols required universities to adhere to a one-size-fits-all model of how to run a university. There was a set of standards covering the size, composition and duties of university governing bodies. Again, the universities were not in favour of the protocols. The previous government said they were not interested in interfering in the affairs of business. Universities are large businesses and they certainly interfered extensively in them. While they had to accept and implement them, they opposed any further prescriptive requirements that added costs and compliance requirements that were inconsistent with potential benefits. These protocols added a costly administrative red tape burden on universities. In their submission to the review of the protocols, university chancellors and vice-chancellors stressed:
... it was not wise to apply a “one size fits all” governance model (that extends into areas of management), particularly when the stated object of the Government is to promote diversity ...
This was again the Howard government meddling in university affairs to fit its own ideological agenda.
This bill removes those tools of control. They are not needed in this new era of trust and respect between the Rudd government and our universities. The Rudd government will take the foot of government off the throats of universities. The Rudd government trusts universities to manage their own workplace relations. The end of HEWRRs will clear the way for the Rudd Labor government to develop healthy new relationships with universities, staff and the unions who are active in them. Universities will no longer be required to offer AWAs to employees to get funding. Higher education providers will be subject to the same laws as all other employers. Full government grant funding will now flow to our universities. In the future, relations will be based around negotiated funding compacts reflecting the distinct mission of each university. The Rudd Labor government’s tools will be tools of accountability and focused on results or outcomes, not on process and inputs. University funding compacts—to be first negotiated between the government and each university in 2009—will hold universities accountable for their use of public funds and for the delivery of agreed outcomes linked to each university’s distinct mission. Funding compacts will be agreed between respected and respectful parties; they will not be a standover set of requirements set on pain of financial penalty. The Group of Eight universities envisage that under a compact model of university funding:
... there will be a much reduced compliance, bidding and reporting burden placed on universities, and greater flexibility over the use of resources ...
This will free our universities from restrictive, directive requirements that have diverted time and effort away from where it is needed most: the delivery of quality teaching and research. While the protocols will be removed as a condition of funding, the Rudd government will continue to encourage universities to adopt good governance practices and increase productivity and efficiency.
In addition to these timely changes, a number of technical adjustments have been made in this bill. In relation to the approval of higher education providers, this bill amends the act so that the approval of a provider that no longer meets certain criteria may be revoked. For example, if the provider no longer has its central management and control in Australia, this bill enables its approval to be withdrawn. The bill also amends the arrangements for quality auditing of higher education providers. Currently, the only quality auditing body in this country is the Australian Universities Quality Agency. This bill amends the act to allow the Commonwealth to designate additional bodies, such as state and territory government accreditation authorities, to perform this role. This bill will set limits on the providers that can be audited. This is also an efficiency measure. By state and territory government accreditation authorities conducting audits at the same time as they conduct their normal registration and approval processes, the administrative burden on private providers will be reduced. The approach has been subject to consultation with private providers and a trial process with two state accreditation agencies, Queensland and Victoria. The approach has been well received. Importantly, the bill also includes the addition of a transitional mechanism so that existing funding commitments made to providers under the Collaboration and Structural Reform Fund can be honoured now that the new Diversity and Structural Adjustment Fund has been established.
The Rudd Labor government is committed to a strong, diverse higher education sector that makes an essential contribution to our national prosperity. We look forward to rebuilding the relationship between government and higher education providers. We want to turn around the decline in our universities that so marked the Howard government years. It presided over a massive decline in public investment in our universities. From 1995 to 2004, while other OECD countries increased public investment in tertiary education by an average of 49 per cent, on the Howard-Costello watch public investment in Australia was cut by four per cent. Their legacy has been to leave our higher education system lagging behind the rest of the world.
Over the course of the last decade the issue of human capital has risen dramatically in public policy importance globally. Policy makers now accept that investing wisely in knowledge, skills and innovation is one of the best means available to ensuring long-term prosperity, leading to both overall economic growth and to better education and work opportunities. Around the world governments have responded by increasing their policy focus in all areas of education, particularly higher education—everywhere, it seems, except here in Australia.
In Australia since the mid-1990s, higher education has been subjected to a seemingly random blend of neglect with occasional bursts of ideologically driven interference. Public funding has been cut. Too many faculties at our universities are in decline, with a huge backlog in deferred maintenance. Financing has become chaotic, compromised and unsustainable, based on ever-higher fee burdens and a dangerous over-reliance on cross-subsidisation from overseas student revenue. A bewildering array of student financing arrangements has been put in place, each change adding another layer on top of past mistakes, but none advancing the important goal of educational equity. The academic workforce has been allowed to age and the quality of campus life has been undermined. We have even seen the sad spectacle of higher education policy being driven by a sometimes highly unsustainable anti-intellectualism, with the central idea of higher education—the pursuit of knowledge as a crucial public good—dismissed as the wasteful activity of a selfish elite.
Despite the mishmash approach of the Howard government, which ranged from neglect at one moment to ideologically driven interference at the next, most of our universities struggled through remarkably well. It is a great testament to the quality and commitment of our university leaders and the academic community. Thanks to their commitment the number of those in higher education remains high, graduate employment outcomes are strong, graduate and employer satisfaction levels are generally good, provision of higher education to international students has grown to be one of our leading export sectors, and we have notable areas of world-class research.
Labor’s achievement in the eighties and nineties was to shift our higher education system to a mass system, building on record levels of secondary school attainment. Other nations adopted our approach. But, under John Howard, government slept at the wheel for more than a decade. The Rudd Labor government is now taking up the next reform challenge—to inject diversity, choice and the highest quality into our mass higher education system. Unless we resource and respect higher education institutions, we simply will not maintain our standard of living. It is clear that Australia needs a new direction in national higher education policy, one that aims to exploit fully our human capital potential in order to spread opportunity, raise economic productivity and transfer the economic gains of the resources boom into sustainable prosperity for all in the future. Our goal must be the creation of a globally competitive higher education system for a modern Australia.
The education revolution policies Labor took to the federal election and which we are now implementing have begun to address the neglect of the last 11 years—by targeting resources to areas of skill shortage, by restoring equity and by enabling university leaders to get on with the business of running their institutions without interference from politicians and public servants. But the reform process will need to go further. Taking it further will require no less than a system-wide rethink. To facilitate that, we have announced a major review of Australian higher education, which will help us shape the next steps in the education revolution for our universities. And we have announced a new long-term goal for our post-secondary education system: guaranteed access to higher education or skills training for every young Australian with the talent and willingness to give it a go.
I am a proud member of a government that understands the importance of education to our economy and to our society. The Rudd government’s rationale for improving the performance of our higher education system is that higher education leads to higher productivity, which leads to higher economic growth. This case is now well accepted by the world’s leading economists and economic bodies. Human capital economists like the University of Chicago’s James Heckman, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2000, have been telling us for some two decades that public spending on education and skills leads to higher rates of return on investment for countries. OECD analysis of human capital suggests significant positive correlations between rising levels of educational attainment on the one hand and both economic growth and improved physical and mental wellbeing on the other. The organisation has estimated that one year of average additional educational attainment for a population adds between three to six percent to long-term GDP growth.
Our competitor nations are aware of this thinking and have been acting on it. Australia, by contrast, has not. Consider this analysis. Between 1995 and 2004 public funding of tertiary education increased by an average of 49 percent across the OECD but declined by four percent in Australia. This makes Australia the only OECD country where the total level of public funding of tertiary education decreased during that time. While private investment in Australia went up by 98 percent, this actually compares poorly with the average OECD increase of 176 percent. Most nations managed to increase both public and private investment substantially. Rather than leverage more private investment through a partnership for growth, Australia shifted responsibility from the public sector to the private. Mostly this has meant a shift to individual students and their families, who have paid more through higher tuition fees. Between 1995 and 2004 total funding per tertiary student increased by an average of nine percent across the OECD but increased here by only one percent.
Australia is now starting to fall behind our competitors in graduations in crucial areas. We are now below the OECD average for the proportion of graduates in science and agriculture, and way below them in engineering, manufacturing and construction—7.2 percent compared with 12.2 percent. In Korea the figure is 27.1 percent—four times Australia’s density. Research is also being badly affected. In the last 10 years, research output has grown rapidly in countries like Singapore, Korea, Taiwan and China—which is now the second biggest investor in research and development in the world. But it has only limped along here in Australia. If you want to know why investing in research is important, ask the University of Queensland’s Professor Ian Frazer, who discovered the vaccine for a cancer that kills 250,000 women every year.
Over the last decade, Australian higher education has practically stood still in terms of numbers, quality and output, while our competitors have surged ahead. The picture is clear: we are under-investing in our human capital, and in the long run this will stall our global competitiveness. This policy failure has grave potential consequences for every single Australian. We have been led to believe in recent years that what happens to our universities does not matter to ordinary Australians. This is a dangerous fallacy. Every Australian is now feeling the consequences of the Howard government neglect of higher education in things like a shortage of Australian-trained doctors and nurses; a shortage of early childhood educators and school teachers, especially in crucial areas like maths and science; and a shortage of qualified engineers and logistics workers for our booming resources and construction sectors.
Skill shortages are driving up the cost of doing business as we all end up paying through higher inflation and higher interest rates. If you want to know why investing in higher education is important, simply look at the waiting list at your hospital or GP surgery, the lack of subject choice in your child’s school, the rising costs of items in the shop and your monthly bank balance. By boosting national productivity, increasing Australia’s investment in higher education will ultimately allow us to sustain higher economic growth with lower inflation and interest rates. The new President of the Business Council of Australia, Greg Gailey, got it right recently when he said:
More than ever, governments need to focus on fiscal policies and broader reform agendas in areas such as infrastructure, education, skills and workforce participation that collectively enhance the nation’s capacity to grow.
Australia simply cannot afford a short-sighted, ideologically driven and backward-looking approach to higher education policy any longer. The moment is now for us to start seriously investing in human capital at all levels, including higher education. For that reason, I commend the bill before the House this evening.
2756
17:45:00
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
1
0
Mr MELHAM
—As I rise today to make some comments on this bill, it occurs to me that it will not be the last bill before the parliament which seeks to undo the ideologically driven agenda of the previous government. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008 removes some of the more odious measures introduced by the coalition in relation to workplace relations. For the Labor Party, this was a threshold issue. No government should be in the position of imposing industrial relations conditions on educational funding. Yet the previous government took this step in 2003. Instead of using the available funding for the improvement of the quality of education in schools, the Howard government effectively blackmailed the universities into implementing its grossly unjust industrial relations policies. In effect, the previous government pushed to reduce conditions and allow AWAs to override existing agreements. Not one of those changes had a scrap of relevance to the universities’ core functions of teaching and research.
I recall an open letter from the National Tertiary Education Industry Union published in the Australian on 7 November 2005 which opposed the legislation. One of the comments in that letter was:
Academic freedom is part of the collegial and collaborative culture of the best Universities in the world, and is at the core of their international reputation.
The international reputation of our universities has suffered greatly in the past decade and this government is now taking steps to revise that state of affairs. This government can say, in truth, that it was elected with a mandate to dismantle the workplace relations agenda of the previous government. That government had no such mandate yet chose to impose its political and social agenda on the electorate.
In its first months, the Rudd Labor government has sought to introduce the changes it promised at the election. The budget last night showed that in a way that I have not seen in the 18 years that I have been in this place and in the 18 budgets that I have witnessed. The first budget of a new government can tell you a lot about a government. The first budget of the Howard government, with its drastic cuts, particularly those to ATSIC of $470 million, showed its mean spirit. The budget last night shows that this government is fair dinkum when it makes a promise and that it will deliver on it in full. The feedback in the electorate is of people feeling pretty happy, pleased and refreshed at a new approach after more than a decade of a different approach. This bill is another step in the government’s intended direction on promises.
When taken with the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008, this bill will take the initial steps towards dismantling the unfair workplace changes introduced by the Howard government. To tie tertiary funding to industrial relations requirements is un-Australian. Fortunately, we are now seeing the dismantling of that strategy and the replacing of it with a fair and balanced system.
To some, the introduction of workplace relations requirements on university funding was seen as the single greatest attack on the autonomy of universities. Under Section 33-17 of the act, a provider could have its basic funding under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme reduced by up to 7.5 per cent if it failed to satisfy the minister that it had complied with both the higher education workplace relations requirements and national governance protocols. It is worth taking some time to consider these requirements. There were five of them.
First there was choice in agreement making. Higher education providers were required to provide choice to employees by ‘offering AWAs to all new employees employed after 29 April 2005 and to all other employees by 31 August 2006’. I fail to see the choice offered under this condition. The requirement to do with direct relationships with employees states that there must be direct consultation between employees and the higher education provider. Involvement of third parties was only able to occur at the request of an affected employee. It is all very well to assume that the people primarily dealing with the employer are articulate academics who are regarded as able to speak up for themselves. But we should not forget the thousands of non-academic staff employed by universities, for whom dealing directly with senior management at the university could be a terrifying ordeal.
Workplace flexibility was, as we have seen, the classic contradiction in terms. The guidelines specified that working arrangements and conditions of employment should be tailored to the circumstances of the higher education provider and also to its employees. What I find incredible is the following specification:
The HEP’s [Higher Education Provider] workplace agreements should expressly displace previous workplace agreements and relevant awards.
Yet the current opposition would have us believe that the whole idea of AWAs was about choice. There seems to be absolutely no choice about the express displacement of prior agreements and awards. There was also a bit about productivity and performance. AWAs were to support organisational productivity and performance.
Finally, freedom of association was, we are to believe, at the heart of these arrangements. Contained within this requirement was the directive that the provider must neither encourage nor discourage union membership. Also specified was the fact that the provider was not to use Commonwealth Grant Scheme funds to pay union staff salaries or to fund union facilities or activities. Freedom of choice seems to be the missing element here.
It is no surprise that the universities were generally not happy with this arrangement. At the Senate inquiry into the provisions of the original bill, there were seven submissions. Of those, six opposed it, including the submission from the then Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee. Labor opposition senators in their dissenting report commented on the fact that the universities surmised that they were being singled out for special treatment in particular regulations for their industry. The dissenting report noted that the universities were joining other industries, such as the building and construction industry, to be special industrial relations targets of the then government.
As I stated earlier, times have changed and the new government has a genuine mandate to reform the industrial relations system in this country. Universities will now be subject to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008. The removal of the previous grossly unfair legislation will ensure that the government will be able to move forward and develop healthy relationships with the tertiary sector—a relationship based on mutual trust and respect. The bill will provide certainty to the higher education sector. It does not reduce a provider’s Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding. Universities should be subject to the same workplace relations laws as other employers. These amendments give effect to that position.
A second part of the bill we are debating today deals with the governance of universities. The National Governance Protocols are standards which primarily cover the size and composition of governing bodies of universities and the duties of the governing bodies’ members. These will now be removed as a condition of funding. At the same time, the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that the government will encourage universities to adopt and maintain good governance practices. In any case most of the required measures have been enacted through amendments to the various pieces of state and territory legislation that set out the governance arrangements for our universities.
However, it will be down to the university vice-chancellors and more particularly the chancellors to demonstrate their commitment to good governance, especially in managing and accounting for the use of large sums of public funding, while also engaging in very extensive commercial activities. Something of the scale of this issue was recently revealed in the Canberra Times newspaper, which reported that at one point in the stock market slide earlier this year the Australian National University had lost $100 million—approximately eight per cent of its $1.4 billion investment portfolio. There will be a joint meeting of vice-chancellors and chancellors in Sydney next month and I hope that they will use the meeting to give the government some very clear commitments about maintaining and enhancing governance within the university sector. The government has given them the opportunity to take greater responsibility for management of their own affairs. They will need to demonstrate that they are fully prepared to accept that responsibility.
The university chancellors might also take the opportunity to make a clear statement of their commitment to academic freedom—the principle that makes universities unique institutions—about which the vice-chancellors have been very quiet through the years of the Howard government. It is to be hoped that the rampant commercialism that has been encouraged in higher education institutions over the past decade has not extinguished the commitment of the sector’s leaders to this vital principle.
In conclusion I would like to return to and comment more widely on the primary issue underlying this bill—the matter of workplace relations. As I have already noted, the government has introduced the transitional bill to remove the worst excesses of the so-called Work Choices legislation introduced by the previous government. Time and again we asked the Howard government to reconsider, to play fair by all Australians and to ensure that every member of the workforce was employed under a fair, just and transparent system. We were ignored.
The Australian people have now made their judgement and those laws will be overturned. There is no doubt in my mind that the Your Rights at Work campaign, with its real world experiences portrayed on television and in print, contributed to this decision. In its ideological passion, the Howard government overlooked more than 100 years of history. The system of conciliation and arbitration that has operated in this country since Federation provided an effective base for the Australian workplace. All through our industrial history, that body was the lynch pin for workplace pay and conditions, and it worked, even in the most extreme cases. Australians always knew that they had somewhere to go when all else failed. The Australian community has now voted on Work Choices and we are now able to present to the workers of Australia a fair and transparent system of industrial arrangements, and I know that those instalments will continue under the direction of the Deputy Prime Minister.
I want to finish up with some other remarks that I think are also pertinent in relation to the sector. Last week I was invited to Glebe Books to launch a book about women and IT. The University of Western Sydney’s Bankstown campus is in my electorate. There were I think three or four other universities involved in terms of the contributors to this book. There were about 60 or 70 people present. I was invited to a meal afterwards at which there were about 20 academics and staff, who were all women. I have to say that it was fascinating listening to what they had to say about their sector and to see their enthusiasm and their reinvigoration, not only with the election of a new government—because the AWAs I have just talked about were a concern for them—but there was a refreshing view about the relationship between government and the universities. It was a change from what had happened during the previous decade, in particular in relation to the minister, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard. There was tremendous hope, expectation and enthusiasm due to her being the relevant minister for this portfolio. They accept that the government and the minister are not going to be able to deliver on all of their concerns. But they recognise that with the change of government there has been a change of attitude in the relationship between the sector and the government.
From my point of view, I think the education sector is the most important sector that we as a nation need to nurture, because it creates opportunity, not only for individuals but for industry and for our whole community. We are well placed in the region if governments nurture the sector.
I had no politics as such before I went to university in 1974. It was at the time of the 1974 election. It was the Whitlam government’s policy that allowed me to go to university and get interested in politics. It also allowed me an opportunity that I otherwise would never have had—that is, as one of 10 children, to go to university and to have all of these opportunities beyond that once I had a higher education. I would like to think that if you repeat that throughout the industry and throughout our community we will get the same result—and it does not take much; a lot of it is symbolism.
It was fascinating for me was when I was having the dinner with these women, who were quite educated—better educated than me. Their book was about why women in higher education were not using computers as much as men, and they were coming up with solutions. The minister will receive a copy of the book from me because I know it is part of what this government promised in the lead-up to the last election. These studies had taken place over a number of years, and what fascinated the researchers was that the government was in sync with their studies, which were all about improving the education base and improving opportunities for our citizens. Government is crazy not to embrace that, as against harassing it and trying to push a particular ideology.
The second area where there was great hope was that there was great affection towards the Deputy Prime Minister—there was not a person in the room who did not have a good thing to say about her. That was not tokenism; that was based on what she had actually been doing in the sector, in the way that they had received feedback and in the way the government was interacting with the sector. The symbolism meant more to them than the actual substance of dollars and cents or whatever—what was important was the fact that they could have somewhere where they could put their ideas and government could look at them, listen to them and react in a way that had not been the case, frankly, for the last decade or so. So I am pleased to speak in support of the bill and say those few extra words.
I know that those on the other side at the moment are not feeling too good about themselves. And the truth is they have good reason for that. All they have got to do is look in the mirror.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—Be humble.
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr MELHAM
—It is not about being humble. Of course I believe in being humble. I come from a humble family. I have been humble all my life.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—You’re a humble man.
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr MELHAM
—Do not tell me about being humble. I will match my record to yours any day of the week, and there is one big difference: I am a giver, not a taker—and the record speaks for itself. What I am trying to say to you is that we all suffer losses. I was on the losing side for the last 11½ years. I was one of the few who was in the former government. It is transient, and at the end of the day we will all be out of here. If you go and have a look at the turnover—
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—We’re all dead in the long run.
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr MELHAM
—We are all dead in the long term. Some of us do not necessarily have to have the positions that others occupy to actually make a contribution. I am pleased to be up here speaking on this bill. I do not get up and speak on every single bill in this place because, frankly, I do not think you have to. But, for me, with a university campus in my electorate, I can tell you the people I have mixed with for 18 years and who I know have a genuine commitment can add to our society. I get my inspiration from the academics and from those at university when I meet them in the context of science meets parliament functions and so on. That is why I am here speaking on this bill: to congratulate the minister and the government for acting on our commitment, for taking it forward. This bill will do a lot for the morale of the higher education sector. This will help them take forward the contribution they are prepared to make to our society. That is where governments can take the lead. I am not going to take any garbage from the other side in relation to this matter. I understand they are well intentioned and well motivated, but they should also grow up.
2761
18:03:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
0
Ms GILLARD
—in reply—I thank all members who have spoken on this bill and I thank the member for Banks for his very generous remarks. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008 is a clear expression of the government’s commitment to abolishing Australian workplace agreements and our clear commitment to removing unnecessary government interference with the workplace relations and administration of our universities and other higher education providers.
Earlier this year I announced the setting up of a major review of Australian higher education to be led by Emeritus Professor Denise Bradley. In announcing that review I said that the Rudd Labor government would be addressing the next reform challenge in higher education, and that is to inject diversity, choice and the highest quality into our mass higher education system.
In last night’s budget, the government began the process of addressing the Howard years and their neglect of funding to higher education. This financial year we are going to invest $500 million in higher education. We are delivering our election commitments for higher education and, of course, we are creating the Education Investment Fund with $11 billion, of which higher education will be a beneficiary.
The previous government, by contrast, not only neglected investment in the higher education sector; by its actions it thwarted the very diversity that we need to develop in higher education. Two of the worst examples of this were the higher education workplace relations requirements, the HEWRRs, and the national governance protocols. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to bring about an end to the previous government’s HEWRRs, which as speakers on this side of the parliament have forcefully reminded the House were all about requiring higher education providers to offer Australian workplace agreements to their employees. This was industrial relations by threat, by coercion and by reference to penalty—because, of course, no matter what choice they wanted to make about their own industrial relations framework, universities were at risk of losing money unless they joined the Howard government in its industrial relations extremism.
The bill also removes the national governance protocols, which impose governance conditions on higher education providers. This is a layer of interference in university management that the government has publicly committed to removing, and today we are standing by that commitment to release our higher education providers from restrictive and unnecessary bureaucratic requirements. We trust universities to manage their own workplace relations and we trust them to develop the approach to governance that best fits their circumstances. We want to see our universities forge their own distinct missions. Universities under this government will be freed from the micromanagement and red tape which characterised the approach of the previous government and freed from their ideological interventions in workplace relations. Universities will now be able to direct their attention and resources back to where they are needed most: the development and delivery of world-class higher education teaching and research.
While the national governance protocols will be removed as a condition of funding, of course the government wishes to encourage good governance practices in universities. We want to develop those high standards of governance in a collaborative way. Our universities are standing ready to meet this challenge. Today, Universities Australia announced its support for the government’s legislation. Its chair, Professor Richard Larkins, welcomed the government’s intention to:
… loosen existing prescriptive requirements and allow universities to pursue their missions as self governing bodies.
Already the government has begun discussions with Universities Australia with a view to leading the development of an agreed voluntary code or set of best practice university governance principles. These will be developed and implemented by universities; they will not be forced on them by government. I understand that this issue is on the agenda for vice-chancellors and chancellors to discuss at their forthcoming meeting in June.
Our approach is one of collaboration and trust. We trust universities to manage their workplace relations. We trust universities to deal with their governance structures in a proper way. This government will—and all governments should—require rigorous reporting and accountability in relation to the expenditure of government funds. This government will have rigorous accountabilities. But this government’s approach is about accountability being around outcomes, not about the micromanagement of inputs. We do not believe that you get the best performance by telling universities what inputs to use; we believe that you get the best performance if you define what outcomes and outputs you want from government funding and then you allow universities to use their expertise, to diversify, to experiment, to innovate, to deliver the best. We are talking by definition about some of the most highly qualified, highly educated and highly intelligent Australians in the nation.
I am aware from discussions with the shadow minister for education that the opposition will not oppose this bill at the second reading. I am also aware that the opposition intends to pursue an amendment to this legislation to keep the national governance protocols on foot. The government will oppose this amendment for a number of reasons. The first is that the government does not believe the opposition’s stated view that, in amending and possibly delaying indefinitely the passage of this legislation, it does not have a weather eye on the industrial relations consequences of that.
This, of course, is the Liberal Party that brought this country the industrial relations extremism of Work Choices, which forced it on to the higher education sector through funding threats and which still supports Work Choices today. I am suspicious that the game playing with the other part of this piece of legislation, the national governance protocols, is really a ruse to distract us from the opposition’s attraction to the higher education workplace relations requirements. That is, we know that this is an opposition that is staggering around unsure as to how frank it should be about its continued support for Work Choices. Its inconsistency in this area means that, on one day, the current Leader of the Opposition, Dr Nelson, will say, ‘Work Choices is dead,’ and then on another day he will say, ‘John Howard had it right when it comes to industrial relations,’ meaning, of course, that Work Choices was right.
So we have a Leader of the Opposition who obviously believes in Work Choices. He certainly did as a cabinet minister and he defended it every day in this House. He no longer wants to be frank about his support for it. That is true of the opposition generally but, given we know that the opposition still supports Work Choices and would reintroduce it in a flash if ever re-elected, we are deeply suspicious that game playing with this legislation is all about Work Choices and AWAs and not truly about national governance protocols at all.
Even if the opposition were to be taken at face value and we accepted, for the purposes of debate, the proposition that they are genuinely interested in national governance protocols as opposed to industrial relations extremism then we would say the following to the opposition. We do not believe that a one size fits all approach is appropriate for the higher education sector of the 21st century.
We believe that the next fundamental reform for this sector is to allow diversity and to recognise the diversity that is there in institutions today. Charles Sturt University is a very different creature from the University of Melbourne—we know that. Government, as a matter of policy, has to recognise that and government has to allow those two very different, very distinct but both very valuable institutions to forge their own way and define their own paths. A blunt instrument like national governance protocols will squash that diversity. It will hold back what should be the next fundamental reform to this sector: recognising and celebrating that diversity and recognising and celebrating that this nation can, if we properly resource and value higher education, have universities in the system of very different shapes and sizes which are world class in what they seek to do.
Secondly, we do not accept from the opposition that national governance protocols are about accountability. We of course are going to have accountability mechanisms for government expenditure. But, when one looks at the national governance protocols, they deal with procedural matters and with process matters, not with outcomes. That was the hallmark of the last government’s approach to funding right across education. They loved to fiddle and micromanage, but they lacked a strategic vision. So the national governance protocols, when studied in detail, really do not add to the debate about accountability. Before I move from that point, on the question of accountability we would also say to the opposition that we do not believe that they can stand before the higher education sector and say that they, the Liberal Party, have the reputation to preach in this area, given things like the regional rorts slush fund and the sorts of breaches of public trust and basic standards of accountability, which, if they happened in any university, would get utter condemnation from members of the opposition. The standard of accountability that they have applied to themselves is an unacceptable one. It therefore really is hypocritical to stand on that platform of poor accountability, of cynicism, of political manipulation and of money for projects that never came to fruition and to lecture others that somehow they know all about accountability and others do not.
Thirdly, in interfering in higher education institutions in this way, the opposition continues to demonstrate distrust towards the higher education sector and it continues to demonstrate its arrogance—indeed, its paranoia. We believe that higher education institutions, universities, can be trusted to get on with the business of management without a government minister purporting to sit on their shoulder ready to wield a funding penalty stick. We believe that we should be celebrating and valuing the contribution of our academics and our universities, but not through this structure that basically sends a message to all the world that somehow these people are not to be trusted. This government is prepared to trust our universities; we are prepared to trust our vice-chancellors, our chancellors and the university system. We do not believe it is appropriate for the opposition to come to this parliament and say that somehow these people are to be distrusted. If the opposition was really being honest about this, it would say that its motivation is really a sort of institutional paranoia in the Liberal Party about universities because, in the Liberal Party’s mind, the history of universities somehow stopped in the 1960s and 1970s. I suspect the shadow minister for education may not have even been born in the 1960s, but I believe he—
00APG
Smith, Anthony, MP
Mr Anthony Smith
—1967.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—1967—he is older than he looks. To look young is a good thing, so he should be pleased with that! He made it into the 1960s by a few years. I am sure that he was a very smart child, but he may not have a highly developed active recollection of those years. But of course—
00APG
Smith, Anthony, MP
Mr Anthony Smith
—Carlton won the ‘68 grand final!
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—He was obviously a very good football watcher at the age of one and has a very good recollection. So we have finally found the shadow minister for education’s strength—football. If the AFL is looking for a future participant in its governance structure, it might look to him. He might well be better at that job than he is at his current one.
Within the institutional past of the Liberal Party, within its corporate knowledge—and this runs deep in its veins—is the belief that universities are associated with radicalism, that universities are somehow associated with the Left, that universities are somehow associated with unacceptable people and, consequently, it is the job of conservative politicians to come in and to manage them. It is a long time since the Berlin Wall came down, it is a long time since the 1960s and 1970s and it is time that the Liberal Party got over it and recognised that the higher education institutions of today are managed by people who understand their job, who understand how hard it is to compete on the world stage, who do not want to play partisan politics but who do want to manage their institutions so they can forge their way in a competitive world where it is tough to be a university, it is tough to maintain your share of research, it is tough to maintain your international education market and it is tough to maintain quality for undergraduates. It requires smart, sophisticated management and governance, and that is what our institutions are doing. They do not require a politician sitting on their shoulder to do that.
If I can conclude with this: it does strike me as passing strange that here we are in the parliament of this nation and the Liberal Party, with its supposed belief system—when it had one—that was supposed to be about liberalism, supposed to be about allowing people to get on with the job and be their best and supposed to be opposed to unnecessary government regulation and big government, is arguing for the maintenance of microregulation and red tape. It does seem to me passing strange, and I think it will be recorded as another chapter, another piece of evidence, about how the Liberal Party of today has lost its way, lost its understanding of its position in Australian politics, lost its value system and lost any intuitive sense of what it ever stood for. This is one small example, but the response to the budget is a much bigger one. This is an example with significance, though, and it is what is being displayed by the opposition today. The government will oppose these amendments and will support the legislation. I suspect that we will hear more of this in the days to come as the matter goes to the Senate, but the government will oppose these amendments. We believe that we should just let universities get on with the job.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Consideration in Detail
2765
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
2765
18:22:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
0
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 3 (line 28) to page 4 (line 1), omit the item, substitute:
6 Section 33-17
Repeal the section, substitute:
33-17 Reduction in assistance for higher education providers failing to meet certain requirements
(1) A higher education provider’s *basic grant amount for a year is reduced if the Minister is satisfied that the provider does not meet the requirements known as the National Governance Protocols that were specified in the Commonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines, as in force on 27 February 2008, as at 31 August, in the year preceding the year.
(2) The reduction under subsection (1) is an amount equal to the amount that would have been the increase under repealed section 33-15 if:
(a) the provider had been entitled to an increase of 7.5% under that section as in force immediately before the commencement of Schedule 2 to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Act 2007; and
(b) the *funding clusters were the funding clusters that existed immediately before the commencement of Schedule 2 to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Act 2007; and
(c) the *Commonwealth contribution amount for each of those funding clusters was the amount that would have been the Commonwealth contribution amount for the funding cluster for the year if the amounts in the table in section 33-10 had not been amended by the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Act 2007 or any later Act.
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (lines 2 to 5), omit the item, substitute:
7 Application—section 33-17
Section 33-17 as in force immediately after the commencement of item 6 of this Schedule has no effect in relation to a higher education provider’s *basic grant amount for the grant year 2008.
In the brief time available I will describe the substance of the amendments, which I also did earlier today during the second reading debate, and address some of the issues raised by the Deputy Prime Minister. As I said earlier today, the amendments moved in my name seek to amend the bill that is now being considered to maintain funding conditionality with respect to the national governance protocols only. That has been our public position for two months. I articulated that clearly earlier today in the House. Our amendments, therefore, omit item 6 of the government’s bill and substitute a section that first repeals the whole section 33-17 of the Higher Education Support Act and then substitutes in its place funding conditionality only with respect to the national governance protocols.
The national governance protocols conditionality requirements within the opposition’s amendments have exactly the same operation and effect on universities and higher education providers that they used to. I might add that, as I said earlier today, it was confirmed in Senate estimates that all of the universities were compliant with the protocols in the preceding year. The coalition’s amendments will also reinstate the minister with exactly the same authority to withdraw the prescribed amount of funding for universities or higher education providers that are not compliant with the national governance protocols, as is currently the case. This is the very essence of the coalition’s amendments to the government’s bill—to restore the tried and tested relationship of funding conditionality with respect to the national governance protocols. The amendments also omit item 7 of the government’s bill and substitutes it as a minor consequence of amendments in item 6.
I would like to address a couple of issues that arose with respect to these amendments. Firstly, they wholly and solely deal only with conditionality of funding with respect to the national governance protocols. That is our only difference of opinion on this bill and that is all our amendments seek to do. Suspicion by the minister is no substitute for the substance of our amendments, which just deal with the national governance protocols. I have heard many speeches today talking about the HEWRRs. As I said, our amendments do not deal with funding conditionality for the HEWRRs; we are just dealing with maintaining funding conditionality was respect to the protocols.
The Minister for Education well knows that one of her first acts in the new parliament—I think in the first week—was to introduce Labor’s industrial relations changes. She said in this place that Australian workplace agreements were abolished. We did not oppose that. That has occurred. They do not exist. It is hard to offer something that does not exist. That is the substance of the law. The minister knows that. I think most of the speakers know that. AWAs as described in the HEWRRs do not exist. So the notion that somehow at the end of the day they could be offered to me is passing strange. But, in any event, the amendments deal just with the maintenance of funding conditionality with respect to the protocols. These protocols were not invented by the government; they were the result of a series of extensive reviews over many years and most recently a review, I understand, by the minister’s own department. The government did not sit down and dream up protocols. Reviews recommended them and the reason they were recommended was that university governance was failing—that is, without protocols and the funding conditionality attached to them, we had substandard governance in some campuses.
I know that Universities Australia has made a statement. I am well aware of that. I am also well aware of what chancellors tell me in private and I am well aware of the history. This is our firm view. The intention of our amendments is just to maintain these national governance protocols. That is the purpose of the amendments that have now been circulated. (Time expired)
2766
18:28:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
0
Ms GILLARD
—I indicate that the government will be opposing these amendments for the reasons I put in my summation on the second reading.
Question put:
That the amendments (Mr Anthony Smith’s) be agreed to.
18:33:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper)
62
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Broadbent, R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Downer, A.J.G.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Mirabella, S.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
77
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
Question put:
That the bill be agreed to.
18:42:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper)
77
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
62
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Broadbent, R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Downer, A.J.G.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Mirabella, S.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
2768
Ms GILLARD
(Lalor
—Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion)
18:45:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question put.
18:47:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper)
75
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
Melham, D.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
61
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Broadbent, R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Downer, A.J.G.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Mirabella, S.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
RESERVE BANK AMENDMENT (ENHANCED INDEPENDENCE) BILL 2008
2769
Bills
R2965
Second Reading
2769
Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Swan:
That this bill be now read a second time.
2769
18:54:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—This Reserve Bank Amendment (Enhanced Independence) Bill 2008 is one of the most sloppy and misconceived pieces of legislation I have ever seen. It was the result of a statement by the Treasurer in December 2007 when he said:
To enhance the independence of the Reserve Bank, the positions of Governor and Deputy Governor will be raised to the same level of statutory independence as the Commissioner of Taxation and the Australian Statistician.
What this bill seeks to do is effectively create a bizarre parliamentary farce associated with circumstances for the termination of the Reserve Bank governor’s or deputy governor’s role which, at the moment, are automatic grounds for termination. Section 25 of the Reserve Bank Act at present states:
If the Governor or the Deputy Governor:
-
becomes permanently incapable of performing his or her duties; or
-
engages in any paid employment outside the duties of his or her office; or
-
becomes bankrupt
… … …
the Treasurer shall terminate his appointment.
It is mandatory. There are positions where a statute states that a condition like that results in the automatic vacation of the office. But one can readily understand when the Reserve Bank Act was drafted in 1959 it was obvious that it was important to know the precise time at which a governor, faced with those unpleasant circumstances, ceased to be the governor and so it was better from a drafting point of view to state that the termination was mandatory, but because the Treasurer would be obliged to do it, we would know at what day and what hour the governor, whether he or she was incapable or bankrupt or had an outside job, had actually ceased to hold that office.
The 1959 Reserve Bank Act also states in section 24:
-
The Governor and the Deputy Governor:
-
are to be appointed by the Treasurer; and
-
shall be appointed for such period, not exceeding 7 years ... and
-
hold office subject to good behaviour.
Although that is a term that is not used with respect to any other public office under the Commonwealth, so I understand, that gives the Treasurer under the existing legislation the ability, almost a reserve power you could say, to remove the governor or the deputy governor if they cease to conduct themselves with what could be called ‘good behaviour’, in other words, if they misbehave.
What the government is seeking to do in the amendment bill is quite extraordinary. It takes in a new section 25 the three circumstances which currently give rise to automatic termination and makes them the only grounds upon which a governor or deputy governor may be dismissed. Furthermore, it requires that for that dismissal or termination to take place, both houses of parliament must meet, each of them resolve that the governor should be dismissed because of incapacity, perhaps, or bankruptcy, and then request the Governor-General to effect that dismissal. We can imagine the completely absurd situation where a governor or a deputy governor is, perhaps due to an unfortunate accident, physically incapable of doing their job or has become bankrupt or has an outside job. In any of those three cases there would be no question that the appointment should be terminated, and the sooner the better for the sake of the institution and the country.
What the Treasurer, this very inexperienced Treasurer, is presenting to us is a bill that would then take those three facts—which are not contentious facts: somebody is either incapable or they are not, or they are bankrupt or they are not, or they have got an outside job or they have not—and make them the subject of what could be a highly contentious and political debate before both houses of parliament, which could take some considerable time. And in the event of one house of parliament not voting to support the removal of the governor, a bankrupt governor or a governor with an outside job or a governor who is mentally or physically incapable would remain in office. It is an absurd amendment, and it is being presented as an effort to improve the independence of the Reserve Bank.
That is an unfortunate, misconceived, sloppy piece of drafting. But it actually gets worse—much worse. Where the Treasurer has a discretion in the appointment of the governor or the deputy governor, the amending bill replaces the term ‘Treasurer’ with ‘Governor-General’. That in itself is just a reversion to what the law had been some time before, and of course the Governor-General would act on the advice of the government of the day, which would no doubt be guided by the opinions of the Treasurer. So one could say it is a distinction without a very great difference. But because of the way in which the amending section 25 has been introduced, it is very arguable that the only grounds for terminating the governor or the deputy governor are those three I have mentioned—incapacity, bankruptcy, outside employment; all of which are unarguable automatic grounds for termination—and that in fact the consequence of this amending bill is that the Treasurer or, indeed, the government—the Governor-General acting on the advice of the government—has lost the right to terminate a governor or a deputy governor for bad behaviour. I refer the House to the library’s Bills Digest on the Reserve Bank Amendment (Enhanced Independence) Bill 2008 and I will read the relevant section:
New subsection 25(9) provides that the termination of the Governor or the Deputy Governor can only be terminated on a specified ground and by the means specified by new section 25. This limits termination to the grounds specified and in a manner specified by the section. As noted earlier, the Governor and Deputy Governor hold office ‘subject of good behaviour’, which is an on-going requirement and a prerequisite for holding office. The Reserve Bank Act is the only Commonwealth Act which has this particular expression. Under the changes proposed by the Bill, in the event the position holder is not of good behaviour there is no mechanism for termination as this requirement is not specified as a ground under new subsection 25(8).
So if this piece of drafting by the Treasurer were to be adopted as an act of parliament, what scenario would have been created in the event of the governor engaging in dishonest or corrupt conduct or acting in a way which undermined public confidence in the securities markets or acting in a disgraceful way? Sure, that is only a theoretical situation, but there have been incidents of this kind in other countries where central bank governors have acted in an improper way, and I can come to that in a moment. But what we would have, courtesy of this amendment bill, would be the appalling scenario that there would be no power to sack the governor. There would be no accountability. The parliament could not act, the Treasurer could not act, the Governor-General could not act—all courtesy of this shocking drafting.
The government may well take on board these observations and the observations of the library in the Bills Digest and make some appropriate amendments of its own. But, pointing to the incompetence that has been shown by the Treasurer here, honourable members will recall that I noted that back in December the Treasurer had said that he wanted to put the governor in the same position as the Commissioner of Taxation or the Australian Statistician. Well, did he know what he was talking about? The Australian Commissioner of Taxation falls under the Treasury portfolio, so one would assume that he did. Indeed, the Commissioner of Taxation and a Second Commissioner of Taxation may be removed by the Governor-General under the Taxation Administration Act 1953, section 6C, if there has been a vote of each house of parliament calling for the removal of either the commissioner or the second commissioner ‘on the ground of proved misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity’. Of course, honourable members will be familiar with that language because it has a counterpart, in relation to federal judges, in the Constitution itself, where section 72 states that they:
Shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity ...
The Taxation Administration Act section 6C provides that if the commissioner or a second commissioner of taxation becomes bankrupt or engages in paid employment outside the duties of his or her office or is absent from duty, except on leave of absence, for 14 consecutive days or 28 days in any 12 months then the Governor-General shall remove the commissioner or second commissioner. So those circumstances—dereliction of office, outside paid employment, bankruptcy—are automatic grounds for termination. Where a discretion is given to the parliament to sack the Commissioner of Taxation it is limited to physical or mental incapacity and, most importantly, proved misbehaviour. The provisions for the Australian Statistician are very similar.
The Treasurer was not able to do that which he said he would do in December—in other words, to change the Reserve Bank Act so that the ability to remove the governor or deputy governor was vested in the parliament. We have the authority of the Library’s analysis that, if these amendments are carried into law, we will have a situation where we have a Reserve Bank governor that is effectively unsackable. The governor would be unsackable on any ground other than incapacity—comatose after a car accident or some unfortunate medical incident—bankruptcy or having an outside job. All three are factual conditions which are either right or wrong, which either exist or not. They would not be contentious—it is hard to imagine them being contentious—and they would in many other circumstances be in and of themselves a ground for automatic vacation of the office.
In the event of the Reserve Bank governor acting in a way which is corrupt, dishonest or reckless or which brings the bank into disrepute or which brings our whole financial system into disrepute, there is no power under the amendments proposed to remove that governor or deputy governor, and there is certainly no power for the parliament to do so. One could well imagine that the Treasurer might have replicated substantially the provisions with respect to the Commissioner of Taxation and said, ‘We will give the parliament the power to remove the governor or the deputy governor on the grounds of misbehaviour, but the other three grounds’—the factual qualifications, if you like—’will remain where they are as mandatory grounds for termination.’ That would have been perfectly reasonable and a change that would have been consistent with other legislation and consistent with his public remarks.
There is a very pertinent international example of a difficulty with removing a governor and the resultant damage to reputation. Antonio Fazio was the Governor of the Bank of Italy when a scandal broke in July 2005 over the sale of Banca Antonveneta, which involved allegations of corruption, nepotism and very poor policy by the Bank of Italy. He was called upon to resign, but no-one could sack him except his hand-picked board. He was called on to resign by the Prime Minister, by the press and by most market economists. He ignored them and held onto his position. The affair dominated the media in Europe for months. Finally, in December 2005, he resigned after six months of highly publicised damage to the reputation of the Bank of Italy. There was at least a means of removing Governor Fazio by his board, but he had the numbers on his own board to stop that.
We would never expect that to happen, but if we were to have a governor who was in a similar situation and these amendments were passed into law there would be no means of removing that governor, not by the parliament, the board, the Treasurer or the Governor-General. I cannot believe that the Treasurer seriously intended this outcome. I can only believe that this is sloppiness and I ask him to come into the House and explain how on earth this extraordinary set of amendments could be justified. If parliament is to have a role, then it should have a role to determine whether the governor has engaged in misbehaviour. That is the precedent with High Court judges, with the Australian Statistician and with the Commissioner of Taxation. That is the model that the Treasurer said he was going to undertake, but he has done nothing of the sort.
On the other hand, if he feels that, contrary to the interpretation that the Library has proffered and other lawyers have suggested and notwithstanding the changes to section 25, there remains a discretion on the part of the Governor-General to remove the governor or the deputy governor of the bank for misbehaviour, what possible justification is there in leaving that very subjective issue in the hands of the executive government but then giving to the parliament the ability to terminate the governor or the deputy governor only in circumstances where three non-contentious factual binary circumstances have arisen? Is the governor bankrupt? Look at the order of the court. Is the governor physically incapable? Look to the medical certificate. Does the governor have an outside job? Look to the contract of employment. These are matters which quite properly in the legislation are extant at the moment and are grounds for automatic dismissal. To put them into the hands of the parliament is, frankly, absurd.
This bill is just an exercise in Labor spin. Back in 1996 when Peter Costello made the Reserve Bank truly independent, he was threatened with legal action from the then Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley. Mr Beazley thought it was appalling and harked back to those days when Paul Keating as Treasurer could say, ‘I’ve got the Reserve Bank in my pocket.’ Keating was proud of it. To his great credit, Peter Costello said, ‘No, we should have an independent Reserve Bank, an independent central bank.’ He set that up and the Reserve Bank is thoroughly independent. This bill adds nothing to the independence of the Reserve Bank but creates an extraordinary situation where, in the extreme circumstances in which one may want to be able to consider the termination of the Governor of the Reserve Bank, he is completely immune from termination.
I will foreshadow an amendment that I will move to the Reserve Bank Act 1959 in due course which speaks to what is really at the heart of independence. What we will move is an amendment that requires the Governor of the Reserve Bank to present himself or herself up to four times a year before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics. In other words, instead of attending twice a year, which is the current arrangement, they will be required to attend four times a year, which would doubtless be after the publication of the quarterly statements on monetary policy.
The most important element in the independence of public office holders is accountability. The greatest protection for the independence of the judiciary is the fact that they have to be accountable for all of their decisions. They have to publish their decisions. They are accountable for them. It is all out there in the public domain. All of the rest of the protections that we have for the judiciary are vitally important, too. But accountability and transparency are the keys to this.
The Reserve Bank publishes a great deal of material. Many people would say that it is the finest—or at least one of the finest—central banks in the world. We are very fortunate to have such a strong central bank here in Australia. But when the Governor of the Reserve Bank and his deputy governor and the rest of his senior team come before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, they are being accountable to the people of Australia. The important economic and financial issues of the day are discussed and debated and the governor and his colleagues have to take questions from the House economics committee, which is composed of members of this House, each and every one of them directly elected by the people of Australia.
We would seek to enhance the accountability of the Reserve Bank. That will genuinely improve its independence. That will enhance its already considerable independence in a way that is transparent and accountable to the people. It is not spin; it is not this sloppy, misconceived nonsense proposed by the Treasurer. It will mean that the people and the parliament of Australia will see more of the Reserve Bank and understand more about their work. The Reserve Bank will know that it is accountable four times a year. That increase in frequency will underline and emphasise the independence of that institution.
We all have to suffer from the spin of the Labor Party. It is a constant outpouring from the government benches nowadays. We heard today about this budget, which the Treasurer thinks cuts spending but which in fact increases spending. The spin is endless. But what we have here is not only the spin of Labor claiming to be interested in or seeking to enhance the independence of the Reserve Bank but a level of incompetence which is frankly breathtaking. I do not know whether the Treasurer in this context is a fool or a knave. To put this up seriously is a truly misguided, malign exercise. To seriously believe that those three factual disqualifying circumstances should be the subject of lengthy parliamentary debate but, in the event of the governor engaging in conduct such as that by Governor Fazio in the—
00ATG
Shorten, Bill, MP
Mr Shorten
—I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, under standing order 90. The member for Wentworth, I believe, imputed an improper motive to the Treasurer when he used the term ‘knave’. ‘Knave’ has a very clear meaning in the English language. I would seek your guidance, because I do not think that personal reflections are appropriate. While I understand that the member for Wentworth has been in this place longer than I have, I expect a better standard of argument from him.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr TURNBULL
—A knave is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as ‘an unprincipled or dishonest fellow’. What I am saying is that the Treasurer has behaved in an unprincipled fashion.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—The member for Wentworth has probably taken his point too far. I probably would have allowed ‘knave’ to stand, because it has on previous occasions. But, if you are going to impute that meaning, then you must withdraw.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr TURNBULL
—Madam Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw ‘knave’. Thank you for that instruction. Restating it, the question then is: is the Treasurer a fool or—in line with the dictionary—an unprincipled or misguided fellow? If he intended the consequences of this amendment, he is seeking to put this country in a position in which if the Governor of the Reserve Bank engaged in corrupt or dishonest conduct he or she would be immune from dismissal. It is difficult to believe that any responsible or competent Treasurer would seriously suggest that was an appropriate outcome. On the other hand, if that is not the case—if the Treasurer is not behaving in a deliberately unprincipled fashion—then one can only say that this is incompetence of a very high order. What it does is add nothing to the independence of the Reserve Bank. What it does is discredit the integrity of the Reserve Bank and demonstrate the extraordinary ineptitude of the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia.
2774
19:22:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—Unlike the member for Wentworth I rise today to speak in support of the Reserve Bank Amendment (Enhanced Independence) Bill 2008, which deals with the Reserve Bank and monetary policy. Monetary policy, and the goals of it, are set out in the Reserve Bank Act 1959, which requires the Reserve Bank to conduct monetary policy in a way which, in its opinion, best contributes to the stability of the currency of Australia, the maintenance of full employment in Australia and the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia.
Both the Reserve Bank and the Rudd government agree on the importance of low inflation and low inflation expectations. In pursuing the goal of medium-term price stability, both the Reserve Bank and the Rudd government agree on the objective of keeping consumer price inflation between two and three per cent on average over the cycle.
This bill is a key component of the Rudd government’s commitment to enhance the independence of the Reserve Bank of Australia, and it demonstrates the government’s commitment to putting downward pressure on inflation. The bill seeks to enhance the independence of the governor and deputy governor of the bank, and through them, the independence of the Reserve Bank of Australia. The bill will achieve this by raising the positions of governor and deputy governor to the same level of statutory independence as the Commissioner of Taxation and the Australian Statistician.
Under the existing legislation, the Treasurer has the authority to appoint and terminate the Governor and the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia. The Rudd government is committed to improving the transparency of future Reserve Bank appointments and to removing overt political considerations from appointments and terminations. The current arrangement could be said to potentially undermine the principle of an independent Reserve Bank. It is paramount to protect this principle to ensure that the Reserve Bank can be guided by what it believes is in the best interests of the operation of monetary policy.
As former US President John F Kennedy once said: ‘In politics, perception is reality.’ Changes to the legislative status quo will improve perceptions in the public arena. The existing system gives the Treasurer the power to appoint partisan political candidates or those who have serious questions hanging over their characters, if the Treasurer so wishes. This position has the potential to seriously jeopardise the standing of the Reserve Bank and reduce its effectiveness, thereby lowering Australia’s long-term economic prospects. This is not something that the Rudd government will allow to happen. That is why we are introducing this bill.
I strongly support this bill because it is only by increasing the independence of the governor and the deputy governor that the Reserve Bank’s independence will be enhanced and we will have sound monetary policy in this country. This bill has at its core reform to bring Australia’s central bank governance arrangements in line with international best practice.
The Rudd government believes monetary policy must be conducted in an open and forward-looking way. It is critical that there be transparency and accountability in arrangements in the Reserve Bank so that the bank can continue to report on how it sees current and future developments in the economy affecting expected inflation outcomes.
The reforms outlined in this bill will enhance the effectiveness of monetary policy, but the Rudd government will not leave the burden of fighting inflation and higher interest rates to the Reserve Bank alone. The Rudd government is committed to relieving the financial pressure on Australian working families and individuals, and to keeping inflation in check. We went to the election with that commitment and we intend to honour it fully. We are determined to beat inflation and give Australians a helping hand. Inflation pushes up interest rates, eats away at family budgets, affects family domestic arrangements and threatens future prosperity. That is why we intend to tackle this problem head on. This legislative change is part of that whole process.
Currently we are tackling the skills shortages and capacity constraints in the economy. We are boosting capacity to allow the economy to grow further and support jobs growth without fuelling inflation. Fighting inflation is part of monetary policy. We are taking the responsibility for modernising our economy so we can sustain growth, create jobs and get inflation back in check.
My electorate office is in a shopping centre in Brassall in Ipswich. People come in my door all the time to talk to me. I often go into the Woolworths supermarket and have a chat with people and they tell me all the time about the rising cost of living. This government is committed to easing the burden on the Australian people. Inflation erodes the value of people’s savings and incomes and creates uncertainty for business and other investors. We are determined to help working families to ease the burden.
The coalition government failed to deal with inflationary pressures in the economy before they gathered pace. Instead they just ignored the problem and failed to invest in our productive capacity and left the Reserve Bank of Australia to shoulder the entire burden. Australian families are the victims of the coalition government’s policy failures, because of their recklessness. Because of that we inherited underlying inflation at a 16-year high, and 12 interest rises on the trot have been experienced by the Australian population. Elevated inflation is the Liberal Party’s parting gift to Australian families. We will not let it go. I am pleased to be part of a government that takes the fight against inflation seriously. This legislation is part of that fight.
The five-point plan that the Treasurer revealed last night is important. It includes disciplined financial restraint. We will deliver a surplus of more than 1.5 per cent of GDP in 2008-09; we will deliver 1.8 per cent of GDP. We are encouraging private savings through initiatives like first home saver accounts, which were delivered as part of our $2.2 billion affordable housing package. We are tackling the chronic skills shortages with measures that include 450,000 new training places. In fact we have delivered more than that; there are 630,000 additional training places for tackling the skills shortage. We are showing national leadership to tackle infrastructure issues, including broadband and Infrastructure Australia. And we have created the Building Australia Fund, the Health and Hospitals Fund and the Education Investment Fund. We are encouraging workforce participation through initiatives in child care, such as the childcare rebate and tax reform. And we have the most comprehensive tax review in Australia’s history since World War II.
Inflation has taken a long time to build up in our economy, as the Australian public knows. It has not emerged overnight, but it will take a considerable amount of time to deal with it. That is why we are going about it prudently, starting from day 1 to tackle this problem, in contrast to our opponents. The Leader of the Opposition told families in this country, who are facing the highest inflation in 16 years and 12 consecutive rate rises, that the economy was first rate.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
2776
Adjournment
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Second Sydney Airport
2776
2776
19:30:00
Farmer, Patrick, MP
00AMO
Macarthur
LP
0
0
Mr FARMER
—I rise tonight to highlight an ongoing problem that has affected people in my electorate for many years. Way back in 1964 the Labor Party said that Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport would reach its capacity by 1980. Forty-four years later we are still debating whether there is a need for a second airport in the Sydney basin. Many people would know that the previous member for Lindsay, the Hon. Jackie Kelly, the previous member for Macquarie, Kerry Bartlett, the former member for Mitchell, the Hon. Alan Cadman, and I, together with many others on this side of politics—
E07
Markus, Louise, MP
Mrs Markus interjecting—
00AMO
Farmer, Patrick, MP
Mr FARMER
—and, of course, Louise Markus—have been lobbying for nearly a decade to resolve this debate. People on our side of politics believe that there should not be a second airport built at Badgerys Creek. It warmed my heart when the minister for transport, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, said on the 7 May 2008 Steve Price program on 2UE that there would not be a second airport built on the Badgerys Creek site. He mentioned that the government may be looking for another site but that that site had not been determined as yet.
Many people who live in the planning zone around the proposed airport site at Badgerys Creek have had their lives on hold for more than two generations. All the things we take for granted that we can do with our own homes—including realising the value of our homes and borrowing against them for things like holidays, motor vehicles, boats and education for our kids—these people have been denied. Local council and state planning regulations relating to airport sites have meant that they have not been able to realise the value of their homes, develop their properties or build a garage, a pergola or a granny flat—or even an outside dunny, for that matter. They have not been able to erect a water tank or even pave a driveway. They have lived in a home that is not their castle. They own it, they pay for it and they pay the rates and yet they have no rights relating to their own property, all because of the procrastination of various governments that have been in power for the past 30 years.
I simply ask that, if the transport minister, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, who happens to be the minister not only for transport but for infrastructure, regional development and local government, has stated that they are not building a second airport at Badgerys Creek, then can he please direct the local councils of Campbelltown, Liverpool, Camden and Penrith and the state government and counterpart agencies to cancel the zoning restrictions placed around property in the region so that these people can simply do the same things with their properties that you or I—or anybody else in the state of New South Wales—take for granted with our own homes.
The government needs a plan for the site and a vision for the future. In the absence of a vision from the government, I would like to outline my vision for the Commonwealth owned land at Badgerys Creek, as we now have the opportunity to change the face of Western Sydney for the future and lift the quality of housing, jobs and opportunities. Major issues in Western Sydney are housing affordability, lack of infrastructure and too few local jobs. This region is also one of the fastest growing economies: it produces $54 billion in economic output annually, it houses 30 per cent of small businesses in New South Wales and it is in close proximity to the M7, the M5, the M4 and the proposed southern Sydney freight line.
The 1,700-hectare property at Badgerys Creek presents the federal government with an ideal opportunity to provide for all of the above by developing the site into a business park and releasing land for housing. If the federal government were to sell the Badgerys Creek site for such a project, it could also fund the infrastructure around the site in order to attract business investors to the region and reverse traffic flows in Western Sydney. As the federal government owns this land, it provides a unique opportunity to realise not only the monetary value for the Australian taxpayer but the social value of producing an area—(Time expired)
Wakefield Electorate: Budget
2778
2778
19:35:00
Champion, Nick, MP
HW9
Wakefield
ALP
1
0
Mr CHAMPION
—I rise to congratulate the Treasurer on an excellent budget and comment about its effects on the electorate of Wakefield. Interestingly, the headline in the Advertiser today was ‘Working class man’ and it showed a picture of the Treasurer. So the budget has certainly been well received in South Australia. It is an important budget and meets the challenges of the future. It fights inflation and delivers to working families. It is a budget that is a true reflection of the issues and priorities that the Labor Party campaigned on during 2007. Importantly, it follows the principle of keeping faith with the Australian people—that is, we are committed to following through on what we promised in opposition. I think it is tremendously important. All politics are local, and this budget delivers on Labor’s local election commitments in Wakefield. In particular, it provides funding for a GP superclinic in the area now called Playford North, which takes in the suburbs of Smithfield Plains and Davoren Park, which is the old Elizabeth Field. This will be an important primary healthcare resource for this area, which has significant social disadvantage affecting it. I think it will complement the Playford North redevelopment project, which is about urban renewal in the area, and become an important symbol of the national government’s commitment to the local area.
I know the Peachey Belt Residents Association, one of the local groups which takes a great interest in the area, is interested in the provision of mental health facilities because that is a particularly big issue. That is held up by both statistical evidence and anecdotal evidence. Labor’s Better Regions program will also deliver on our election commitments in the area. The projects that we are committed to delivering include $100,000 for a cultural centre for the Vietnamese Farmers Association in Virginia. Most of the Vietnamese farmers in the area are veterans of the conflict in Vietnam or their descendants are. They came over here with very little and have remained a remarkably hearty and hard-working community. They have weathered all sorts of challenges, being small business people, and were also subject to floods some two years ago.
The program also provides $200,000 for playground equipment in Playford North and that is likely to be in the Stebonheath Flow Control Park, which will be one of the largest aquifer storage recharge projects in the world by the time it is finished. There is $3 million for a multi-use recreation and community facility in Angle Vale—a significant community that is growing at a very great rate with many young families moving there. At the moment, there is a very limited or non-existent sport, recreation and community facility there. That will be a tremendous project that will be done in partnership with Playford council.
We will also be funding $3 million to build the Gawler River Junction project, an important project which has huge community support and a strong and active volunteer base already in place. Finally, there is $2 million for the City of Playford’s Building Healthy Communities project, which will rebuild the Elizabeth Aquadome—a project which was promised by the previous government but that will be delivered by the Rudd Labor government.
There are community safety grants which cover the Elizabeth, Gawler and Salisbury train stations. The Australian government will make a contribution to better TV reception in the northern suburbs in areas on the Para Escarpment, which runs from Ingle Farm in the member for Makin’s electorate to Craigmore in my electorate—an area which has had very poor TV reception for a decade or more. We have an allocation of money to assist in getting better TV reception but we know we need the commercial TV stations to come on board. That is a particularly big issue because people in Craigmore often cannot get the tennis or the cricket on their free-to-air TVs. I think it is a right of every Australian family to be able to watch the tennis or the cricket.
Roads have also been an area where there has been great support in Wakefield. The Northern Expressway and the Port Wakefield roads will receive $118 million in 2008-09. I live right next door to both these projects and drive on Port Wakefield Road on most days, so that is particularly important. The Sturt Highway will get $15 million. The Bowman’s intermodal expansion out at Balaclava will receive $600,000. It is a particularly important project. (Time expired)
Bravehearts
2779
2779
19:40:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
0
0
Mrs GASH
—In the middle of March this year, I was invited to attend a ‘fundraiser with a difference’—no political bias here—in support of children who have suffered abuse. It was held at the Kembla Grange Racecourse near Wollongong. Naturally, there were horses, a great lunch and the usual raffles. The people invited were all from the Illawarra and the Shoalhaven. I was proud to note that the Shoalhaven participants outnumbered the Illawarra participants significantly.
It was there that we were introduced to an organisation by the name of Bravehearts through the showing of a heart-wrenching DVD. This DVD outlined the incidence of child sexual abuse and the possible life changes that take place for many of the victims. Victims of child abuse are often suicide victims in their later years. They suffer family breakdowns, mental illness and some even end up in jail. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, it is estimated that one in three girls and one in six boys are sexually assaulted before they reach legal adulthood at 18 years of age. Many carry those scars into later life and some never get over the experience. Others are so affected they actually go on and become perpetrators of abuse themselves.
I came across the following words that encapsulate the undercurrent of Bravehearts:
I am a small child and I have the innocence of my future that rolls out before me.
It doesn’t matter whether I am male or female, rich or poor, black or white, migrant or Australian; but there is a strong chance that I may have my innocence stolen from me.
I will feel guilty and perhaps decide that suicide is my only solution.
I may grow in the troubled belief that there is no difference between right or wrong.
Or I may lose my way and steal the innocence from my own children.
These are strong sentiments indeed. There is obviously a high social cost to the community in addition to the emotional cost to all involved. It affects not only the families, relatives and friends but also police, social workers, courts, DOCS and even casual bystanders.
Bravehearts was created as a response to the pattern of child abuse confronted in society every day. It was a creature of Mrs Hetty Johnson, who established the organisation in 1997, and I commend her highly for her courageous initiative. Bravehearts is all about helping children tell trusted adults if they are feeling compromised or abused. It is a process of information and empowerment.
There is a character that accompanies the education and counselling team called ‘Ditto’, a brave cuddly lion helping children disclose, if that is required. The aim is to help all children in the Illawarra and Shoalhaven but there is of course a cost to this approach. There is always a cost, monetary or otherwise. The estimated budget is $250,000 and this will help to educate children and reduce the incidence of child abuse. It will help fund counsellors who help those already suffering the effects of being abused.
Already a local business has donated a vehicle to help take Ditto and the team around the area to visit schools and other groups who may support the work of Bravehearts. Spreading the message is the crux of the approach. On 9 April a small group of about 20 individuals gathered at the Bomaderry Bowling Club to form a steering fundraising committee for our local Bravehearts work. This group will be functioning under the stewardship of Roger and Wendy Woodward and Chris Benning, who is recently retired from the National Australia Bank. Frenchie, our local newsreader from 2ST in Nowra, has pledged his support and a number of others already working in the area of helping victims have also joined the team.
We have a dedicated and focused executive for our local Bravehearts and I encourage as many as possible to contact them, even if it is only to give contact details for their email list in case something special comes along that interested persons would like to attend. My contribution will be to sell DVDs to other members of parliament so that they too can get fully behind the Bravehearts initiative. In this way, we can all learn from the experience and help build a more appropriate response to a social and moral curse from the dark side of humanity.
I think it is beholden on us all to contribute as a society to strategies that discourage the perpetuation of child abuse, even in the smallest of ways. By turning a blind eye, we are inadvertently giving our tacit approval to this practice. I commend all those involved in Bravehearts. It is my hope that their example will motivate the creation of chapters in other regions. If my colleagues are interested, I would be more than happy to provide all necessary details about Bravehearts.
Blair Electorate: Budget
2780
2780
19:45:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—The Rudd Labor government have delivered in spades to the people of Blair. During the election campaign we made some significant commitments to the people of Blair. We worked hard to deal with the local community and there are many aged-care and health related initiatives which I will talk about another day. We have delivered the election commitments that we made before the last election and we take seriously those promises. Among the announcements in the budget, Blair will benefit locally from $525,000 towards the George Alder Tennis Centre in Ipswich—and I look forward to working with Ipswich City Council to deliver that project—and $10 million for the Ipswich CBD redevelopment. This is about the first serious money that a federal government has delivered to Ipswich CBD since the Whitlam Labor government helped fund and create the Ipswich civic centre. I know that Mayor Paul Pisasale is delighted about the funding. This funding will go towards seed money for the Ipswich lagoon pool project, the performing arts centre and what we hope to be a Parramatta style stadium on the north side of the Ipswich River.
There will be $600,000 towards the upgrade of Ipswich Basketball Stadium, and members of this House might be a bit surprised to know that I played for Ipswich in basketball—all 175 centimetres of me—for many years. Obviously I was not a centre; I was a guard. This $600,000 will help in the refurbishment and upgrade of the Ipswich Basketball Stadium. Road infrastructure will get a boost. Ipswich City Council will get $1.368 million, the Lockyer Valley region $1.3 million and the Boonah part of the Scenic Rim Regional Council will also get funding under the Roads to Recovery program.
The Strategic Regional Program will see the Cunningham Highway to Swanbank Enterprise Park Link of $6.3 million be delivered. The McGraths Bridge on the Mulgowie School Road will also be replaced at a cost of $365,000. There is also some money for the project that is near and dear to my heart, which is the upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway. Ipswich Motorway construction will start in January-February next year, and there is money in this budget for it. The upgrade of the Dinmore to Gailes section will commence and surveying is being done at the moment, with community consultation.
We have also delivered what we said we would do when I first met with the Amberley action group. We have provided in this budget $26.83 million for a replacement to the Amberley State School. In March 2008, the Minister for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, instructed Defence to undertake a full review of all options for the future of this school, currently located near the Amberley defence base. As a result of the growth of the Amberley base, which is about the biggest base in Australia, the school could not remain there. There will be increased traffic movement and the construction of new living accommodation and mess facilities to cater for over 500 defence personnel. The current school site will just not be appropriate in the circumstances. So we have delivered what we said we would. We are giving the Queensland government $26.83 million, and the Queensland government will now decide where that school will be located. I have spoken to representatives of the local action group today and they have warmly welcomed the funding. They recognise that we have honoured what we said we would do.
There is a further $1 million for the relocation of the creche and kindergarten for the Amberley Preschool. This will be co-located with the new school on the south side of Ipswich. I welcome the money and I know my community will, and I recognise that the Treasurer has honoured what he has said in delivering this money. I will be particularly interested in taking him back to the George Alder Tennis Centre—but I must say to this House that his service is not quite as good as some of the professionals I have seen on the circuit. So thank you very much, Mr Swan. You have delivered for the people of Ipswich and Blair. I commend the budget and I warmly welcome the funding.
Ryan Electorate: Budget
2781
2781
19:50:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
0
0
Mr JOHNSON
—I am pleased to speak in the parliament today about the budget that the Treasurer delivered yesterday. As the representative of the people of Ryan, I want to put on record my great disappointment. Today, many constituents have contacted me to express their great concern as well as their great disappointment about a range of the measures that were mentioned in the budget last night. In particular, I want to draw the House’s attention to a very important aspect of the Howard government’s policies that has now been completely cancelled and which will be of deep disappointment to the parents of children living in the Ryan electorate. At the outset, let me say that the budget delivered by the Rudd Labor government really does let down the people of Ryan. It is very much a Labor budget of the old-fashioned style—of increased taxes and of massively increased spending. It really also goes to the politics of envy, which I know that the people of Ryan want to have no part of. This budget will do nothing to meet Labor’s very strong promises to keep down grocery prices, to keep down petrol prices and to tackle interest rates. Of course, we know that at the last election the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, gave a very strong inference, if not a commitment, that he would be the best placed person to make an impact on grocery prices, on petrol prices and on interest rates. Today, in May 2008, many months after the election, the opposite is happening—prices for petrol and groceries are certainly not going down; if anything, they are going up. Australians will take no comfort whatsoever from the decision by this very novel government and this very novel Treasurer to raise taxes on cars, alcohol, energy, computer software, fringe benefits, passenger movements, passports and visa applications and to increase the cost of private health insurance.
As I said at the outset, it is the parents, the mums and dads of Ryan, that I have great concern for in the context of the quality of the education their children will receive, particularly at the schools in my electorate, which will no longer have access to the wonderful initiative of the Howard government, the Investing in Our Schools Program. That was something that really earned the admiration and support of school principals, parents and students. Schools right across the country benefited from that billion-dollar investment by the previous government.
What has driven me to raise this in parliament tonight is a letter addressed to parents which came across my desk from Payne Road State School, a local school in the Ryan electorate. Vicki Richards, the acting principal, writes to parents imploring them to make a contribution of $50 additionally per child to ICT because the school does not have funds. In a letter of 3 April she says that, whilst parents will be receiving a voluntary technology contribution letter and indeed invoice for $50, it is of course not mandatory. She, as the acting principal, implores parents to contribute because the school needs to raise some $7,000 for computer related programs and projects.
Schools across Australia benefited enormously from the $1.2 billion Investing in Our Schools Program of the Howard government. In my electorate, Kenmore State School received $57,000 for new play equipment, Middle Park State School received $149,000 for the upgrade of an assembly area and Indooroopilly State High School received $128,000 for a library extension. The Investing in Our Schools Program was delivered very effectively but, most regrettably, the new government has decided that those kinds of funding projects will no longer be delivered to schools around the country. (Time expired)
Epidermolysis Bullosa
2782
2782
19:55:00
Zappia, Tony, MP
HWB
Makin
ALP
1
0
Mr ZAPPIA
—I take this opportunity to draw the House’s attention to and raise awareness of the work of the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association of Australia, otherwise known as DebRA Australia. DebRA Australia is a voluntary organisation that supports individuals with epidermolysis bullosa—otherwise known as EB—their families and health professionals. DebRA Australia was founded in 2005 and state organisations make up the membership of the national body. DebRA organisations are currently in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. No government funding is provided to any of the DebRA groups, including the national body. It is only through community awareness and support, as well as funding from corporate Australia and other charitable organisations, that DebRA can make a difference. DebRA plays a major role in providing free dressings for EB sufferers right across Australia. Last year alone over $50,000 was spent on supplying essential daily dressings to people with EB. If people had access to free dressings through the public health system, the money raised by DebRA could otherwise be spent on research to find a cure. Among other things, DebRA also supports a new EB research database at St George Hospital in Sydney, which aims to collect more extensive statistical data—a first in Australia.
EB is a rare and distressing incurable genetic skin condition that affects all parts of the body, both internally and externally. There are approximately 1,000 people in Australia with EB of some type. EB at its worst can be fatal, but even in its mildest form it causes a life of pain and physical challenges. Some people spend hours every day dealing with blisters, wounds and destructive scarring.
People with EB require a multidisciplinary team of specialists to ensure adequate ongoing care. To put these requirements into perspective, burns victims require dressings for months until they heal. People suffering from EB have similar dressing requirements for their entire life. Dressings are to EB people what insulin and needles are to diabetics. In some types of EB, for those fortunate to make it to early adulthood there is the added risk of skin cancers that can cruelly cut their life short—not to mention the years of wounds and scarring which can rob them of the use of their hands and feet, leading to permanent disabilities and reduced mobility.
In Australia, in most cases, the only carers available are the parents. Children and adults require large amounts of support to bathe and do dressing changes that can take up to four hours a day. After all this is taken into account, many families still need to buy top-of-the-line silicone dressings that are expensive and not generally available through the various health systems.
For people with this condition, dressings are an essential part of life, not an option or a luxury. However, only a minority of people with EB can access free dressings from our public health system. Adequate dressings reduce the rate of infection and subsequent use of antibiotics and lengthy hospital stays. There is no national scheme to access dressings for people with EB. Members have stated that they have to beg for dressings via the local hospital and, if unsuccessful, have to settle for less suitable, cheaper products or even go without. For those who do have access to dressings, there are different processes in each state, area and even within hospitals, which also causes confusion to the families.
I have written to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, drawing her attention to this issue. It is my view the cost of subsidised bandages would be more than offset by the savings in medical costs incurred in treating the injuries and infections caused by inappropriate bandaging. Regardless of the cost, the quality of life of sufferers and their families should be considered by us all as a caring and compassionate society.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 8 pm, the debate is interrupted.
2783
20:00:00
House adjourned at 8.00 pm
NOTICES
2783
Notices
The following notices were given:
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms Roxon
to present a bill for an act to amend the Health Care (Appropriation) Act 1998, and for related purposes.
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms Roxon
to present a bill for an act to amend the law in relation private health insurance, and for related purposes.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
to move:
That the Member for New England, Mr Windsor, be appointed to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government as a supplementary member for the Committee’s inquiry into the funding of regional programs.
83Z
Irwin, Julia, MP
Mrs Irwin
to move:
That the House:
-
notes the 60th anniversary of the Nakba or “Catastrophe” which followed the partition of Palestine in 1948, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians and the expulsion of 700,000 Palestinian refugees;
-
notes that 60 years later, more than 7 million Palestinian people suffer as a result of their dispossession, displacement, exile and occupation; and
-
recognises that the consequences of the Nakba continue to this day and must be taken into account in any peace settlement.
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr Billson
to present a bill for an act to amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001.
2008-05-14
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 9.30 am.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
2785
Statements by Members
Mitchell Electorate: Wrights Road Reserve
2785
2785
09:31:00
Hawke, Alex, MP
HWO
Mitchell
LP
0
0
Mr HAWKE
—Last Saturday, I met with Ilia Gill, Barbara Ferrero, Terry Walker, West Ward Councillor Mike Thomas and many concerned local Kellyville residents from the Wrights Road Reserve Action Group over the failure of our local council to develop the Wrights Road Reserve for the benefit of residents of Castle Hill and Kellyville. Wrights Road Reserve is a longstanding issue and highlights one of the failures of Baulkham Hills Shire Council. It also highlights failures of the state government in planning policy. Planning issues and infrastructure shortages are amongst the more important issues facing my electorate of Mitchell and the urban fringes of Sydney. In fact, planning represents perhaps the single biggest challenge for the future of the urban growth areas of metropolitan cities across Australia, leading to issues around housing affordability for young families and the availability of open spaces.
The area surrounding the reserve was first opened up to new housing development in 2001. In August 2005, Baulkham Hills Shire Council sent all residents within West Ward a letter detailing the draft master plan for the Wrights Road Reserve and community centre. The plan included sporting, community and recreational facilities designed on approximately three hectares of land bordering Wrights Road, Green Road and Harrington Avenue. The reserve’s development is designated under the council’s section 94 works contribution program. Therefore, developers’ contributions have already been collected for the purpose of building this much needed community facility. On 19 August 2005, Baulkham Hills Shire Council’s manager for human services confirmed that ‘funds have been set aside to undertake major sportsground and community centre construction works in Wrights Road Reserve’. The project was supposed to commence in early 2006 and become operational during the summer of 2006 and 2007. To this day, not one sod of dirt has been turned to develop this reserve. On 6 November 2007, Baulkham Hills Shire Council’s landscape projects officer advised:
Currently, no funds have been identified in the 2007/08 Capital Works Program for work to commence on Wrights Road Reserve.
The officer also advised that ‘due to a deficiency in the section 94 contribution plan’ the council has not provided any timeline for or update on the future development of this reserve other than allocating a deadline of 2010. On behalf of the Wrights Road Reserve Action Group and other concerned residents, I would like to ask the council and the mayor exactly where the funds that were set aside for the development of this wonderful community facility have gone. If the funds were set aside back in 2005, where else were they spent and for what reason? Why have the residents of Castle Hill, Kellyville and Beaumont Hills been ignored? Why do these residents miss out on a much needed community facility while others within Baulkham Hills Shire Council do not? Castle Hill, Kellyville and Beaumont Hills are some of the fastest growing areas of my electorate and Sydney. This really needs to be seen to be believed. They have built thousands of houses right next door to each other, with scant regard for open space and lifestyle. Thousands of families have moved in. Yet in the middle of all this housing and growth there is a huge amount of land, which was supposed to be their park, covered in waste material and fenced off so that the public cannot access it. I commend this community group on their wonderful action in fighting for this important community facility for families in my electorate. (Time expired)
Middle East
2786
2786
09:34:00
Irwin, Julia, MP
83Z
Fowler
ALP
1
0
Mrs IRWIN
—Eight years ago I visited Israel and the occupied territories. The experience changed my views of the Middle East situation, and one experience in particular had a lasting effect on me. While visiting the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza, I met an elderly man. He invited me into his small, two-room residence in the camp where he had lived since 1948, but he explained to me in broken English that this was not his home. On the wall behind the door was a large set of iron keys. He explained that they were the keys to the home he had fled from in 1948. That home was 20 kilometres away, across the border in the state of Israel. Those keys were his most treasured possession. They were a constant reminder to him, to his four children, to his 23 grandchildren and to his 28 great-grandchildren of their home—the village where countless generations of his family had lived before him. Those keys were more than just a symbol of his dispossession; they were a symbol of hope that one day he or his descendants would return to their rightful home.
Today we remember what Palestinians call al-Nakba, the catastrophe. Sixty years ago Palestinians fled from their homes to escape massacres, such as those that occurred at Deir Yassin, where over 100 people—mainly women, children and the elderly—were slaughtered. Can those of us in Western nations who have expressed congratulations to the state of Israel on its 60th anniversary not spare a moment to remember the suffering of the Palestinian people of 60 years ago and the daily consequences of their dispossession, displacement, exile and occupation? Today those 700,000 Palestinian refugees have grown to seven million. Four million live under illegal Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. Three million live as noncitizens in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and other countries. Many of those live in the 58 registered refugee camps. For each Palestinian, the al-Nakba is not just a historical event; they are reminded each day of this ongoing human tragedy. While the United Nations, which created Israel, together with major world powers continues with processes and road maps, the tragedy of al-Nakba lives on. Palestine was never a land without people, but today it is a people without a land. For seven million Palestinians, this symbol of hope is a latchkey. The destiny of nations is not written in ancient text; demography is destiny. Only by understanding the attachment of Palestinians to their land can we begin to frame a just peace in the Middle East.
Indi Electorate: Nagambie Bypass
2786
2786
09:37:00
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
00AMU
Indi
LP
0
0
Mrs MIRABELLA
—I rise to speak about a major project in my electorate which has received passing mention in the budget papers, the Nagambie Bypass. In the recent election campaign, the coalition allocated $288 million to the construction of the Nagambie Bypass. The project was of the highest priority for the coalition and work was to begin as soon as possible. Unfortunately, federal Labor have committed only $5 million to ‘progress planning and reconstruction activities’ this financial year. That is a massive disappointment to the people of Nagambie, who have waited so patiently for this project to finally get underway. That $5 million is an absolute joke and only the most blatant Labor apologist could excuse it. The importance of this project should mean it is above party divides. The Labor Party at the last election took a ‘me too’ approach to this policy, and I only hope they will come to their senses and invest more seriously in this important infrastructure project for the benefit not just of local lives but of the local and broader economies.
The Nagambie Bypass will provide the Nagambie community with the opportunity to revitalise the town, remove very dangerous hazards to the current traffic flow and open the door to future economic development of the wider Nagambie, Goulburn Valley and north-central Victorian regions. The project is ready to proceed now and does not need to be delayed because of Labor’s inaction and inability to balance the budget and allocate the funds they promised to get the Nagambie Bypass going. The Victorian Minister for Planning has approved the preferred route to the east of Nagambie. This is the outermost alignment, which would start from the end of the existing dual carriageway at Mitchellstown Road, just south of Nagambie, and rejoin the highway at Kirwans Bridge, Longwood Road, just north of Nagambie. This alignment and the project generally have strong community support. The Nagambie Bypass project is 17.4 kilometres in length and 21 per cent of traffic on this section of the highway is very heavy vehicles.
The project is the missing link in the current 60-kilometre duplicated corridor between Seymour and Shepparton. The coalition has long been committed to substantial investment in the upgrade and duplication of the Goulburn Valley Highway, delivering the Arcadia Duplication and the Murchison East deviation. The Goulburn Valley Highway is a critical connection between Melbourne and the Goulburn Valley agricultural area, known as the food bowl of our nation. The project needs to get started sooner rather than later. When the coalition announced funding for this project, the money was on the table ready to be brought forward. The Labor Party need to stop playing political games and waiting to allocate infrastructure funding in an election year. They need to allocate funding now, as they promised they would. I will ensure that the needs of the Nagambie people are heard and I will continue to pressure the government to honour its promises. (Time expired)
Pastor Rod Denton
2787
2787
09:40:00
Zappia, Tony, MP
HWB
Makin
ALP
1
0
Mr ZAPPIA
—I take this opportunity to recognise the work of Pastor Rod Denton, who for the past 15 years was the senior pastor at the Clovercrest Baptist Church in the electorate of Makin. Pastor Rod Denton completed his term at the Clovercrest Baptist Church earlier this year after serving not only his parishioners at the church but the broader Makin community. That service has indeed been extensive because today the Clovercrest Baptist Church provides a wide range of much needed services to people who are disadvantaged or are suffering family problems or general social problems. Those services include spiritual counselling, a young mothers group, food parcels, clothing and a range of community care programs. Those services are provided, in some cases, on the Clovercrest Baptist Church site. The church has had to expand its physical presence to the point where it has purchased additional property so that it can house the staff and services it currently provides. In other cases, the work of the church extends into country South Australia and overseas.
I want to mention one particular example of the work the church is doing in a remote community in South Australia. I refer to the Nepabunna community, which is located in the Gammon Ranges, some 350 kilometres north of Port Augusta. It is a community with a high Indigenous population. For some time now, a team of volunteers from the Clovercrest Baptist Church has been regularly travelling to Nepabunna and working with the locals in rebuilding the buildings of the community, including community buildings and private homes, and also building the spirit of the community. The team from the Clovercrest Baptist Church also provides food parcels to many of the families living in that remote location. It is a wonderful example of the many initiatives of Pastor Rod Denton and an example of the services that he initiated, which today reach out to people in the local area of Makin, right across South Australia and, as I said earlier, in some cases overseas.
I take this opportunity to thank Pastor Rod Denton for his personal commitment to the local community in Makin and, equally, his commitment to people outside that area, for whom his services could not in any way be seen to be for any benefit of the church he represents. I thank him especially for the services provided, through his leadership, to families and communities in South-East Asia who truly are disadvantaged. I thank him for all of that and I wish him and his family well in whatever future endeavour he pursues, because I know he will continue to serve people wherever he goes.
Vietnam
2788
2788
09:43:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
0
0
Mr KEENAN
—I have spoken in this place on a number of occasions on behalf of the Vietnamese people who have settled in Australia and call my electorate of Stirling home. The majority of these people fled the oppressive and undemocratic regime in Vietnam. In particular, today I want to speak about the plight of people who, although they are not citizens of Australia, have been held by the Vietnamese government since their arrest on 17 November 2007 and who were tried on charges of terrorism yesterday. They were arrested as they were preparing to distribute leaflets promoting democracy through non-violent means. Those arrested were American citizens Nguyen Quoc Quan and Leon Truong, French citizen Nguyen Thi Thanh Van, Thai resident Somsak Khunmi and Vietnamese citizen Nguyen The Vu. They are all supporters of the Viet Tan, which is the Vietnam Reform Party. On 20 November 2007 police arrested another supporter of the Viet Tan, Vietnamese citizen Nguyen Viet Trung.
It was not until five days after the Viet Tan released a media statement regarding the plight of their members and supporters that the Vietnamese communist authorities publicly acknowledged the arrest of these six people. In the days following the arrests there were a number of incidents, including security police allegedly finding a gun in the checked baggage of two Vietnamese American tourists at the Saigon airport and announcing that they were also supporters of the Viet Tan. At the same time, official state media accused those arrested of being terrorists.
These arrests resulted in the governments of the United States, France, Norway and Switzerland, as well as our own government in Australia, issuing strong protests to the Vietnamese government against the arrests of these pro-democracy supporters. On 11 December, after mounting international pressure not only from foreign governments but also from a number of international human rights groups, the government in Hanoi released Leon Truong and the couple who were allegedly found with a gun in their luggage. Four months after the initial arrests, on 4 April this year, one of the other detainees was also released.
This brings us to today. After six months of detention and restrictions of visits by family members and their respective consulates, the remaining three detainees will stand trial in closed-door proceedings on charges of terrorism. This morning we have found out that, not surprisingly, all of the accused were found guilty. Nguyen Quoc Quan was sentenced to six months jail but will be deported from Vietnam on the weekend as he has already served his time. The regime in Vietnam need to recognise that protesting peacefully in support of democracy is not a terrorist offence. I urge them to treat these people humanely and with respect for their human rights.
AHS Centaur
2789
2789
09:46:00
Sullivan, Jon, MP
HVS
Longman
ALP
1
0
Mr SULLIVAN
—Today marks the 65th anniversary of the torpedoing and sinking during World War II of the Australian Hospital Ship Centaur, with a terrible loss of life. At 4.10 am on 14 May 1943, Centaur was struck by a single torpedo fired by an enemy submarine. The location of the torpedo strike could not have been more calamitous. Within seconds, diesel oil bunkers had vaporised and exploded and the Centaur was doomed. She sank within three minutes—the time taken, as one commentator pointed out, to boil an egg. Two hundred and sixty people lost their lives in horrible circumstances: doctors, nurses, medical staff, civilian Red Cross representatives, field ambulance and attached personnel, and merchant marines—all of them noncombatants; all of them supposedly protected by the conventions rendering hospital ships immune from attack. Sixty-four survivors—including one nurse, Sister Ellen Savage—then endured 34 hours adrift on rafts and makeshift flotation before they were discovered and rescued and the loss of the Centaur became known to authorities.
We may never know the reasons for the attack on the Centaur. She was properly marked; her status had been acknowledged by the Axis powers; she was steaming north to Port Moresby fully lit, as was required. There was of course a great deal of speculation—reprisal for the machine-gun attacks by American forces on Japanese who had survived their ship sinking; rumours at the time that the Centaur was carrying arms and munitions in breach of the convention; an overzealous submarine commander ignoring the immunity of hospital ships; the existence of an order to Japanese submarine fleet commanders implicitly including hospital ships as fair targets; or a simple failure to properly identify the ship before firing the torpedo. Whatever the reason, the families of those whose lives were lost are owed the same considerations given to the families of those gallant men who died aboard HMAS Sydney.
When giving the Anzac Day address at Toorbul in my electorate this year, I called for the government to undertake to locate the Centaur—a task I noted would be easier than the search for the Sydney. Today I repeat that call. I know that the 2nd/3rd AHS Centaur Association Inc. has written to the Prime Minister, as I have done. I will shortly meet with Heritage Minister Garrett, whose department makes the initial assessment and recommendation to cabinet on these matters, in order to progress an official application for a search to be undertaken. It is time this chapter in our wartime history is brought to a proper conclusion.
Budget
2789
2789
09:48:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—I wish today to raise two issues which will affect constituents not just within my electorate but within all electorates in relation to the budget delivered last night. The first is the loss of community water grants. What will happen now is that sports clubs and environment groups will effectively lose their access to up to $50,000 to achieve water savings and water quality outcomes for the people within not just the electorate of Flinders but electorates all around Australia. I refer specifically to examples from Flinders. Firstly, the $32,000 for water tanks for the Crib Point Community Garden will not be repeatable elsewhere around Australia. The funding for the Dromana Country Club, the Balnarring Bowls Club and the Somerville Bowling Club to make enormous savings in terms of water quality will not be achievable and it will affect the capacity of seniors to go about recreational activities, as well as water saving. These are important issues for Flinders; they are important issues for seniors all around Australia.
In addition to that, the $47,000 which was allocated to rehabilitate the Candowie Reservoir catchment is not the sort of thing which will henceforth happen. Catchments in need of significant riparian work will lose that funding. Firstly, environment groups and sports clubs will lose their capacity to make water savings, which is important of and in itself, and, secondly, the demonstration effect for young kids who are members of football and netball clubs and for people who are a part of sports clubs will be gone for ever. I think this is a very dangerous move. Communities will suffer as a result, and, importantly, water will be lost and children will lose that inspirational example.
A second grievance is the likely death of any federal funding for a Rosebud aquatic centre and the Phillip Island aquatic centre. Both were well advanced under the Regional Partnerships program and each was enormously valuable to seniors, families and low-income earners within their respective parts of the electorate—in Rosebud, in the southern peninsula, and on Phillip Island. The Rosebud program had been approved by the area consultation committee and sent through to Canberra; it was awaiting final approval. It has been axed. That is a real loss to the peninsula. I hope these programs can proceed, but I see now that there is a cloud hanging over them. (Time expired)
Budget
2790
2790
09:51:00
Turnour, Jim, MP
HVV
Leichhardt
ALP
1
0
Mr TURNOUR
—Last night the Rudd government delivered a responsible budget that will not only help tackle inflation but also help working families—those that really need a helping hand in the present economic climate. Very importantly, the government has honoured its election commitments. I have been working for over 12 months to ensure the tropical north receives the attention and investment it requires to meet future needs and challenges. I am proud to be part of a government that does what it promises, looks past the short term and quick fixes, and plans for future generations.
In the lead-up to the election last year I campaigned strongly for new health services for the region. I am proud to say that we are delivering. Last night we delivered on all our commitments in full, but I am particularly proud of our health commitments: $45.9 million for a new dental school for James Cook University, providing 60 training places over four years and including a clinical outreach service; a GP superclinic to tackle the growing problem of chronic disease, particularly diabetes and heart disease; and $8.3 million towards radiation oncology facilities for Cairns, in the tropical north. I will continue to work with COUCH and the state government to deliver this commitment as soon as possible. We are already delivering $7.5 million for a new MRI machine for Cairns Base Hospital, which will reduce the need for patients to transfer to Townsville. These local commitments are part of a national plan to fix our health and hospital system. The community is tired of the buck-passing and the blame game on health and just wants the system fixed. These are all specific funding commitments within this budget that start to fix the health system.
Last night the Treasurer also set out a national plan, including $3.2 billion for health and hospital reform to revitalise the public health system, $600 million to cut elective surgery waiting lists, $491 million to help families meet the cost of dental check-ups for teenage children and $290 million to help state governments reduce public dental waiting lists. We need to tackle workforce issues, and we have announced new funding to bring nurses back into the workforce.
These are all specific spending commitments within the budget, but we need to plan beyond the short term. The $10 billion health and hospital fund was a very important announcement last night. This fund will allow us to look beyond this budget cycle and well into the future. I am pleased that the Queensland government recently committed $450 million to expand the Cairns Base Hospital, including cardiology and new oncology services, but we need to ensure that we have a new hospital into the future and we need to start planning for that now. This $10 billion fund will ensure that we have the funds available to invest in this sort of infrastructure into the future.
Small Business Field Officers Program
2791
2791
09:54:00
Marino, Nola, MP
HWP
Forrest
LP
0
0
Ms MARINO
—I rise to voice my concerns about the government’s announcement that the Small Business Field Officers Program will be scrapped and funding will cease on 30 June 2008. Australia’s 65 small business field officers operating out of the area consultative committees have proven to be a lifeline for many small businesses struggling to find their feet. They have helped businesses right across the country, and now regional Australia will lose this important network of experienced men and women, withdrawing yet another service from the ACCs. Small business field officers offer a crucial support network, providing free business advice, referrals and tips on how to expand and even how to export goods. They provide a vital resource for the many small businesses who want to know where and how to access relevant information and support.
Small businesses make a huge contribution to our nation’s economy. In my electorate of Forrest there are over 13,000 local small businesses. At a time when small business confidence has plummeted to a 15-year low, the government has scrapped this vital free service and advice and has, instead, pledged funding to the existing state run business enterprise centres. As it happens, Bunbury has its own Bunbury-Wellington Business Enterprise Centre. Therefore, this centre will be the only point of call for many small businesses throughout the south-west to seek advice.
The previous federal government’s Small Business Field Officers Program was a free service offered to small businesses. Now, the federal government will fund local state-run business enterprise centres. I note that its pre-election promise was to fund the Bunbury-Wellington Small Business Centre to the amount of $250,000 per annum. What commitment will there be from the state government to continue to contribute their funding and their own share of operations to assist small business in the region? Will federal Labor in fact be taking over the operations of the business enterprise centres, as it will eventually be left with funding 100 per cent of the activities once the state government withdraw their funding? Will the business enterprise centres offer free advice, which was previously available under the Small Business Field Officers Program?
The state business enterprise centres have to be self-sustaining and have to pay their own way. Therefore, there is a fee for service. Regional small business operators will be justified in their belief that federal Labor does not value their contribution. The cancellation of the Commercial Ready grants for small businesses to turn ideas into products further impacts on regional small businesses. This is a huge issue for my electorate and certainly a major issue for all small business throughout Australia.
Back to Booktown 2008
Ballarat Electorate: St Brendan’s Primary School
2792
2792
09:57:00
King, Catherine, MP
00AMR
Ballarat
ALP
1
0
Ms KING
—Last month I was lucky to attend a significant cultural event in my electorate that deserves the attention of the House. Clunes’ Back to Booktown is an event in its second year where the town of Clunes becomes a hub for booksellers and writers from all over Australia. The event attracted some 10,000-plus visitors to the very small township of Clunes. It really was a fantastic event and well worth attending.
Great Australian writers such as John Marsden, Melissa Lucaschenko, Anthony Lawrence, Alexis Wright and Nigel Krauth all made appearances at the event. There were over 50 booksellers in the town over the weekend. The event included all the delights that Clunes has to offer, including fantastic food and wine, beautiful architecture and a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. I particularly want to congratulate the new owners of the Clunes Hotel, who have done an amazing job renovating a historic building in the town. I wish them very well in their new venture. Clunes is one of Victoria’s oldest and most intact gold rush towns, with many beautiful, old, original buildings giving it great character.
I greatly enjoyed my time at the event. I hope that the initiative continues for yet another year, having been such an overwhelming success. The Clunes Tourism and Development Association, Hepburn Shire Council and the Victorian government all deserve great credit for providing the funding and organising the event, as do the people of Clunes. They deserve congratulations for the work that they did in making the event such a large success and in enabling many of the smaller community organisations within the township to raise much needed funds during a period of two days, as opposed to having to do that over the course of a year.
I would also like to take the opportunity to recognise the achievements of St Brendan’s Primary School in Dunnstown, which participated with a number of other schools around the country in a world record attempt for the Jump Rope for Heart program, coordinated by the National Heart Foundation. The attempt was coordinated around Australia in an effort to promote exercise and healthy living. At St Brendan’s, 34 children and parents participated in the event, and they were just superb. The kids of St Brendan’s held up their part of the bargain by skipping continuously for three minutes—something I could not do at the moment—along with 50,000 other kids across the country.
It was a pleasure to be an official witness at such a large and worthy event, and I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate St Brendan’s on their great efforts last Friday. Not only were they part of a successful world record team, an honour I and perhaps everyone else in this place cannot claim; they helped to get the message well and truly out there about the importance of exercise and good health habits for children right the way across the country. Congratulations, St Brendan’s, for your participation in the world record attempt for the Jump Rope for Heart program.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2007 ELECTION COMMITMENTS) BILL 2008
2793
Bills
R2950
Second Reading
2793
Debate resumed from 13 March, on motion by Mr Griffin:
That this bill be now read a second time.
2793
10:01:00
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
SE4
Mackellar
LP
0
0
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—The opposition is supporting the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008. It does so because it believes that additional benefits to veterans are always an important thing to be looking at, that veterans are people with whom this country has made a contract and that, because of their service and the sacrifice that they make for this nation, they should always be considered a special case, in the sense that they are not welfare recipients but people who receive compensation and other payments because of that contract between a grateful nation and veterans who serve the nation.
The bill, very simply, does three things. Firstly, it extends the automatic grant of certain pensions. In other words, it amends the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to extend the automatic grant of a pension payable under part II or part IV to the eligible dependant of a veteran or member, where the veteran or member immediately before his or her death was in receipt of an intermediate rate disability pension or temporary special rate disability pension. Secondly it extends the income support supplement to all war widows or war widowers and amends, again, the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to extend eligibility for the income support supplement to a person who is a war widow or war widower who is under qualifying age and has no dependent children, is not permanently incapacitated for work and is not the partner of a person receiving an income support pension, which were previously requirements to receive that supplement. Thirdly, there is the extension of disability pension bereavement payments. Schedule 3 makes amendments again to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to extend the 12-week bereavement payment to the estate of a single veteran or members in receipt of a special rate or extreme disability adjustment disability pension who die in indigent circumstances.
You can say that the extension of the automatic qualification for the war widows pension for surviving partners of intermediate rate and T&PI rate disability pensioners is a logical step. Currently, the automatic qualification for the surviving partner only applies to some intermediate rate disability pensions, where the disability involves the loss of one or more limbs. This is probably an old-fashioned way to be looking at things, and this is a good thing to be doing.
However, despite those good things which the government has decided to do and which the opposition is very pleased to support, I think in the light of the budget you can look at the government as perhaps giving with one hand and taking away with another for different sections of the veterans community. Indeed, the word ‘veteran’ did not appear in any of the budget statements. Presumably veterans, who are very largely retired and do not fit the category of ‘working family’, are left out in the cold. In fact, we are seeing much more that, if you are an aspirational family or if you are a retired person, you do not fit the mould of a working family and therefore you are going to be left out in the cold.
If we look at what the budget does for veterans—what it takes away from them—we see that, while there was an entitlement for partners of eligible service pensioners to take a pension at the age of 50 if they were women, that is now going to be pushed up to 58.5 years of age. Think about it. This is not the gradual increment that we saw when we increased eligibility for the age pension for women from 60 to 65, being the same age as for men; this is a sudden, one-off hit. If you are part of a veteran family which has been planning on that entitlement to come into place, you are suddenly going to be penalised—no warning, just sudden implementation. There has been no consideration of and no concern about how these families may have been planning—just simply a savings measure of $35 million.
We have heard a lot in the rhetoric about how this government is focusing on inflation, that this budget is all about delivering on promises, that it is a fiscally responsible budget and that they are really fiscally conservative people. The three core promises made by the current government before the election were that it would come in and it would reduce interest rates, reduce the cost of food and reduce petrol prices. There is nothing in this budget that will do anything to reduce any of those things and therefore it does not deliver at all on core promises.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—I would draw the member back to the bill before her at this time, which is in respect of veterans.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—Thank you for your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hear them, and I would point out once again that veterans are part of our community. Veterans are affected by the budget strategy. Veterans were affected by the rhetoric that was out in the debate before the election when the government, which was then in opposition, said that it was going to be for veterans and it would always have veterans in mind when it made decisions about the way in which taxpayers’ money was to be spent. I am simply pointing out that this did not happen. The bill before us, in fact, is one that does do three good things—small things; small adjustments, you can say, in the overall scheme of things—but the government has given with one hand and has taken away with the other.
If we go back and look at the background against which this bill has been introduced and the sorts of policies that the Howard government introduced to make veterans recognised in a way in which they had not been before, probably the most significant thing that the Howard government did was, in 1999, to make the gold card available to all Australian veterans over the age of 70 or with qualifying service in World War II. In 2002 this was extended to veterans over 70 with qualifying service from any conflict. In 2001 we extended the orange card, which provides access to subsidised pharmaceuticals, to British, Commonwealth and allied veterans over 70 with qualifying service from World War II.
The most important thing about the gold card is that it gave veterans the equivalent of private health insurance without having to, in fact, pay a premium. Partners of veterans who received the gold card, on the other hand, are not covered unless, when they become widows or widowers, they meet the necessary criterion and can be covered by the gold card. There are many, many carers who take out private health insurance so that they are covered for the sort of medical care that they require and regard as essential. And yet, from this budget’s changing of the criteria for those who must take out private health insurance, it is estimated that something like 800,000 people are likely to leave private health insurance, which means premiums are going to go up, which is going to affect carers of veterans in particular, and there are going to be probably 800,000 people thrust onto the public health system. So, whilst we are pleased that this legislation gives an extension of the automatic grant of pension entitlements, and whilst we are pleased to see that the income support supplement is going to be extended in the way it is paid, and whilst we are very pleased about the bereavement payments being extended, when you look at the impact of other government policy upon our veterans community—and we must look at it as a veterans community—we see that they are in fact being penalised.
A further piece of legislation came into the House today—it was introduced this morning by the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—which is going to implement the carers payment. We certainly have agreed to facilitate that bill coming through so it can be paid expeditiously. But, after all the debate we had about the impact and the importance of the carers bonus payment, in this budget there is no provision for it in the forward estimates; it is a one-off grant. We paid it for four years. The government was prepared to scrap it; after pressure from us it was reinstated. But it is a one-off payment, only for this year. Again, when you couple that with the impact of the anticipated rises in private health insurance premiums—and many of them use this bonus payment to contribute to their private health insurance premiums—there is no guarantee for anything past this year.
So, in the overall assessment of the policy being pursued with regard to veterans benefits, we see this piece of legislation, which was introduced prior to the budget coming down, as needing to be viewed in the budget context to see what its real benefit is for the veterans community. I would simply say that, whilst we are supporting the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008 without hesitation, the rest of the budget strategy is not one where veterans are being considered at all—and, indeed, it is to their detriment, as we see when we start to read the fine print in the budget. So I simply say that we welcome these initiatives but, in the overall debate, and looking at the way in which veterans are being treated in the overall picture, the government is found wanting.
2795
10:13:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—I am proud to support the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008, which will boost the allowances paid to many of our veterans. This government and the Australian community are justly proud of our veterans, our ex-service men and women, and the measures contained in this bill will go some way towards improving the wellbeing of Australia’s veterans and the wider ex-service community.
Unlike the Howard government—which over 11 years made many promises to the ex-servicemen’s community, promises which by and large were received with a great deal of cynicism out there—this government will provide a fresh approach to veterans affairs. The government considers that the provision of robust services and support for the ex-service community is a sincere way to demonstrate our genuine gratitude for and recognition of the bravery and sacrifice that many of Australia’s men and women of the armed services have made on our behalf over many years. They are people who deserve the highest respect and it is only proper that, as a consequence, that be reflected in the way we as a society treat these men and women who have served this community. This is something that should stay very much in the minds of government, particularly when we sit down and make laws affecting the lives of those who have represented this country. It is something that should always stay with us. When we make decisions, and despite all the parameters that are made in respect of decision making, we should at least be conscious of the fact that the decisions we make are being made on behalf of those who have represented this country, in many cases in very adverse circumstances.
This bill contains three measures that were part of Labor’s pre-election commitment: extension of the income support supplement to war widows and widowers who are under the qualifying age and without dependants, extension of the disability pension bereavement payment to single veterans or members who are in receipt of the special rate or extreme disablement adjustment disability pension or who died without sufficient assets to pay for their own funerals, and the automatic grant of war widows or widowers pensions to widows or widowers of veterans or members who were in receipt of the temporary special rate or the intermediate rate disability pension immediately prior to their death.
Before I talk a little more about each of these matters, which are contained in the bill, it is also appropriate to reflect that it is not just ex-military members who will be affected by this legislation. As you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, for some time in my past I represented many of the police officers in this country, and through the Police Federation of Australia efforts were made to ensure that those police officers who have served in overseas areas, particularly in respect of Cyprus and East Timor, are similarly treated, firstly with respect but also in terms of the veterans entitlements provisions. Therefore, those persons who have represented this country as law enforcement officers overseas will also be beneficiaries of the decisions which have been made as a consequence of this piece of legislation. As I say, these people were seconded police officers from various states and territories and indeed from the Commonwealth, the AFP. They will now be covered by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act in respect of these provisions. So it is not just the military but also law enforcement officers who, in exercising their duties under the command and control of their senior officers and representing the interests of Australia overseas, in hostile theatres, will be accorded the appropriate respect by this government and the Australian people.
I have had many discussions in my electorate on these issues, whether it be with the Ingleburn RSL president, Don Keefe, and its secretary, Bernard Connell—both of whom are returned servicemen—or with Max Chin, from the Dredges Cottage, Campbelltown, which does a sensational job in looking after the interests of veterans, or with Ken Foster, from the veterans affairs association. All of these people are very passionate about the issues of their colleagues, the ex-servicemen, whom they continue to represent.
I can appreciate that in some quarters these fellows might actually be seen as whingers. Let me tell you there are no finer advocates of the interests of ex-servicemen. They make sure the entitlements of ex-servicemen are not only recognised but also addressed. I very much respect their forthright attitude, their commitment and, quite frankly, the compassion that they show to their fellow colleagues. Only this week we had the opportunity to witness in the Great Hall a ceremony to commemorate Coral and Balmoral. I think it is fair to say that just about all members of parliament were there. What particularly struck me was that a number of ex-servicemen, obviously very proud of their medals, left that room in tears. It was a time to celebrate and commemorate their activities, but obviously there is continuing pain. It is worth while recognising that. Simply being a returned serviceman and being valued—and rightly so—in our community does not necessarily remove the pain and the anguish that many of these people and their families have carried for a lengthy period. Therefore, I do not see the advocates of our veterans as insatiable whingers. I think they are very much the heroes out there. They are keeping all of us focused on the real issues for ex-servicemen, on how those issues change from time to time and quite frankly on ensuring that the men and women who have served this country in difficult circumstances are treated properly and with the respect that they deserve.
I will now return to the issues of the bill. The first measure will extend income support to war widows and war widowers under the qualifying age without dependants. Under the existing legislation, a person is eligible for income support if they are a war widow or widower and have reached the qualifying age—for men, that is 60 and, for women, that is the age of 58½—or have a dependent child or are permanently incapacitated for work in accordance with the determination under section 45AA of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 or are partnered and the person’s partner is receiving a service pension income support supplement or social security pension. Labor believes that situation is unfair. Labor made a commitment in respect of that in the lead-up to the last election. As a consequence, this bill removes the requirement for war widows and widowers to be over the pension age, to have a dependent child, to be permanently incapacitated or to have a partner in receipt of income support. This measure, I am reliably informed, will extend the eligibility for income support to approximately 1,400 war widows and widowers immediately and will provide additional support to help them meet their costs of living. Payment of an income support supplement on the grounds of permanent incapacity will be retained in order for incapacitated war widows and widowers and wholly dependent partners who are under pension age to continue to access their income support supplement as a tax-free payment.
The Rudd Labor government is committed to providing care and support to ex-service families following the death of veterans. That is why the government will extend the disability pension bereavement payment in respect of a single veteran or a member in receipt of a special rate or extreme disablement adjustment disability pension who dies without sufficient funds to pay for their funeral. Currently, only the widow or widower of a veteran or member on certain rates of the disability pension receives the bereavement payment, which is 12 weeks of the disability pension upon the death of a veteran or member. Whilst this payment is effective and is designed to assist a person in the gradual adjustment of their financial situation and to defray costs at a time of bereavement, it at present only applies to the member—
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. Under the relevant standing order that operates in the second chamber, I wonder whether I could ask a question of the member opposite. My question is that—
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Is the member for Werriwa willing to give way?
ECV
Hayes, Chris, MP
Mr HAYES
—No.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—He is required to hear the question first.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—No, he is not. I have to ask first before you put the question. That is the rule.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Thank you.
ECV
Hayes, Chris, MP
Mr HAYES
—This measure will extend the bereavement payment to the estate of single veterans or to members who are in receipt of the special rate pensions. This will be of some significance, particularly where people die in indigent circumstances—that is, where they do not have sufficient moneys to cover the funeral costs. The assistance to veterans and their widows is being extended to provide sufficient financial assistance to families to properly recognise the death of veterans in that respect. This measure, as I say, is very much directed to families in helping them defray those costs at a particularly emotional time in their lives and also ensuring that a member can be farewelled with decency. This bereavement payment will be made to the estate of the deceased veteran and will be matched by those currently paid to the partners. So it will be at the same rate and, as is provided presently, it will have the tax-free status of the payment of the 12 weeks of disability pension.
Finally, Labor will extend the automatic granting of pensions to include partners of temporary totally incapacitated and intermediate rate pensioners to provide some peace of mind to those veterans and their families. This bill will extend the automatic grant of war widows or widowers pensions to widows and widowers of veterans or to members in receipt of the total special rate or intermediate rate disability pension immediately prior to the death. Currently, if a veteran is in receipt of the totally permanently incapacitated and extreme disablement adjustment pension and dies, the partner will receive an automatic grant of the war widows pension. This clearly forms an anomaly in respect of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, which treats temporary totally incapacitated and intermediate rate pensioners less equitably than other, similar pension recipients. With this bill, the Rudd Labor government will extend the automatic granting of the pension to include partners of temporary totally incapacitated and intermediate rate pensioners, to provide some relief and assurances to those veterans and their families.
Under this government, the veterans community can expect that this plan for action will be delivered. This is the first step in a concentrated effort to address a range of issues around veterans entitlements, services and wellbeing and recognition of our veterans. This government will ensure that veterans do get what they deserve—that is, a fair go. The government believes that the provision of robust service and support for the ex-service community is a sincere way to show our gratitude for and recognition of the bravery and sacrifice of those Australian men and women. As the Prime Minister said on 13 August 2007:
There is perhaps no greater duty that we as a nation and as a parliament have than to honour, remember and express our gratitude to those Australians who have served in the defence of our nation in times of war, because our security and liberty have not come without a price.
The measures in this bill clearly demonstrate that this is a government that is serious about its pre-election commitments to look after those in our defence communities and our veterans communities and their families, and this bill is the first down payment. I commend the bill to the House.
2798
10:30:00
Robert, Stuart, MP
HWT
Fadden
LP
0
0
Mr ROBERT
—I rise to support the minor changes the government is making to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. While supporting these changes, I remain disappointed that the government is simultaneously hurting veterans through the deeming arrangements from last March, in a time of global and local stock market financial turmoil. Furthermore, I am outraged at the changes to veterans entitlements from yesterday’s Labor budget. Until I saw yesterday’s Labor budget, I thought all sides of politics were committed to supporting our service men and women and their families—committed to supporting those who have served in difficult, dangerous and demanding circumstances. I now know that this is simply not the case. I now know that the Labor government is happy to sacrifice veterans on the altar of left-wing ideology, as if veterans have not sacrificed enough.
As a fellow veteran, I joined many former uniformed men and women last month as we as a nation acknowledged the contribution of our veterans, with reverence and with deep appreciation, through Anzac Day commemoration services. I applaud those who put together those services that I attended—people like Denis Trott, from the Runaway Bay RSL sub-branch; Father Len, Ann Harrop and Norm Kelly, from Oxenford-Coomera sub-branch; and Ted Hudson and Richard Muller, from the Paradise Point Bowls Club. They not only served this nation in the time of its greatest need; they continue to serve this nation by keeping the flame alive—indeed, lest we forget. These are just some of the people I am thinking about today as I speak on this bill.
The Veterans’ Entitlements Act, which impacts upon so many veterans, currently provides for the automatic grant of pension to an eligible dependant of a veteran or member where the veteran or member was in receipt of an extreme disablement adjustment disability pension, a special rate disability pension, a general rate disability pension or an intermediate rate or temporary special rate disability pension or where the veteran was a former prisoner of war.
Schedule 1 to the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008 will extend the automatic grant of pension to the eligible dependant of a veteran or member where the veteran or member was in receipt of an intermediate rate disability pension or temporary special rate disability pension. A pension will also be granted to an eligible dependant automatically where the intermediate rate or temporary special rate pension is granted after the death of a veteran or member but from a date before their death. For the purposes of this amendment bill, an eligible dependant of a veteran or member is a non-illness-separated spouse, a widow or widower or a child or children of a deceased veteran or member. This measure will apply in respect of a veteran or member whose death occurs on or after 1 July 2008.
Schedule 2 to this amendment bill will extend eligibility for the income support supplement to a person who is a war widow or war widower who is under qualifying age and has no dependent child or children, is not permanently incapacitated for work and is not the partner of a person receiving an income support pension. It is understood that this will benefit approximately 1,400 war widows and widowers who are under qualifying age and therefore currently not entitled to income support.
Schedule 3 will extend the 12-week bereavement payment to the estates of single veterans or members in receipt of special rate or extreme disability adjustment disability pensions who die in indigent circumstances. Currently this payment is only provided for partnered disability pension payments. This one-off bereavement payment, equivalent to 12 weeks of the special rate of disability pension, is designed to help families of veterans to meet the costs associated with a funeral.
All of these measures are positive. The Labor Party giveth. Yet, as day follows night and as yesterday’s budget demonstrates, the Labor Party, truly, taketh away. Two changes—insipid, underhanded changes, not read out in the main budget speech but hidden within the pages of the detail; two significant changes—have occurred to veterans entitlements. This high-taxing, high-spending, high-unemployment budget will see the service pension age for partners of veterans increase, as of 1 July, from 50 years to a staggering 58½ years—saving the Rudd government a measly $35.1 million over four years, or less than $10 million a year. This government—on the back of a boom in mining put in place because of the flexible workplace and industrial relations amendments to law under the previous government—is expecting almost $22 billion in surplus next financial year, on top of the $18 billion surplus the previous, successful Howard government left. This government is expecting this year and next to reap $40 billion, and it is looking to save less than $10 million a year by increasing the service pension age from 50 to 58.5 years for partners—$10 million it is saving as a cost, compared to the cost that is borne by the partners of veterans. I suspect that, if this Prime Minister or this Treasurer ever had the courage to put on a uniform themselves, they would appreciate how miserly and indeed how pathetic this adjustment is.
The Labor government does not seem to understand the sacrifice made by the families of veterans. When I spent five months operationally overseas, my wife, 21 years old, was given four-days notice—four days our family was given before I was deployed overseas. And what is the thanks a grateful nation would give to wives such as these? ‘We are going to increase your pension age from 50 to 58½ years.’ While one partner may be serving operationally on a battlefield or in an operational area, the partners of our service men and women are also making significant sacrifices here at home. Veterans families are asked to move regularly and begin all over again, in places they have never even visited before and certainly away from extended family, friends and all support groups. When service men and women are asked to serve overseas, they go willingly, knowing the great dangers and perils they walk into. Yet their partners allow them to serve, for the greater good of our nation. This cannot be forgotten. It cannot be taken for granted. But this change to the service pension age for partners of veterans is an absolute slap in the face and an acknowledgement by the Labor government that it does not understand nor appreciate the sacrifices of the partners of veterans—those left behind, those who keep the campfires burning.
Last week in Darwin I sat down with an army partners group to hear their concerns. Many of these wives had endured up to six months with their husbands overseas in harm’s way, and with themselves left to raise young families, many of them in a cyclone season in the north without their spouses by their sides. This is a sacrifice. And to raise the pension age for partners is not only callous; it is harsh, it is cruel and it is downright unjust.
Veteran couples would have already taken the current pension age of 50 years into account when planning their futures, thinking—but clearly, from this appalling Labor budget, doing so unjustifiably—that no side of politics would dare fiddle with or change their futures because, in the grand scheme of things, where you have a $40 billion surplus over two consecutive years, saving 10 million measly dollars would not be worth the fiddle. There are couples right now in living rooms all over Australia looking to re-evaluate their futures because this Prime Minister and this Treasurer and that frontbench, who have never put on a uniform to serve their country, think that taking away $10 million will somehow be for the greater Australian good. They should be ashamed, as I am ashamed of them.
To add to the uncertain future of veteran couples and families, access to the service pension will cease 12 months after the separation of a veteran from his or her partner, regardless of whether they are still married—again, proof that the Labor government does not understand the contribution of partners of veterans. You waited for your partner to return home. You waited for maybe six months or, in times of previous conflicts, you may have waited for five years. You waited while spouses served in dangerous and hostile parts of the world. And while you waited you were the sole head of the household. In many cases you were unsure if your partner was coming home—the current death toll on modern battlefields demonstrates that this is still the case. I am sure you as a partner hoped and prayed that your partner would return. Every few years you may have been asked to move from one location to another to serve the greater good of the country. In most cases, and I am speaking as a former fellow serving officer, you had little or zero choice as to where you were posted. And you did it all to support your partner and your country. But what you did not count on, what you did not think would happen, was that a government would take little of that into consideration, would increase the service age for pensions and would take pensions away after 12 months in the event of separation.
It is a disgraceful position and an indictment of Labor’s attitude towards those people who have contributed so much. They deserve to be supported—they deserve more support. I challenge this farcical government and its leaders to go up north to the various locations where our bases are, sit down with partners groups, look them in the eye and explain to them why this move was necessary when, over two years, there will be a $40 billion surplus. This attitude is evidence of a government that does not care about its veterans.
Compare that to the Howard government achievements. The coalition government provided funding of $21 million over four years to ensure that veterans with a gold or white repatriation healthcare card can access appropriate health care and support services on discharge, benefiting 3½ thousand veterans and war widows. In 2006 the coalition government provided more than $600 million to ensure veterans with a gold or white card could continue to enjoy access to high-quality health care. In 2006 the coalition government provided cancer related health care to all Australians who took part in the British nuclear testing program. On and on the Howard government’s achievements go. Truly, through these amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act that I rise to support, with one hand the government giveth while with the other hand they taketh away.
It is an attitude that is further evidenced by what the government has done to deeming rates, which affect veterans as well as elderly Australians. I am disappointed that the government in March sought to increase both the lower and the higher deeming rates without any adjustments to the thresholds, as this impacts upon veterans. It is no good providing benefits with one hand and simultaneously taking them away with the other. For the majority in this government, who perhaps do not quite understand deeming, the deeming rules are an essential part of the social security income test. The rules are used to assess income from financial investments for determining the amount of social security and veterans affairs pensions. This is based on the premise that the higher the personal investments of an individual, excluding assets such as a family home, super, annuities et cetera, the higher the assessable income and the lower the pension they receive.
The premise behind deeming is that financial investments held by pension holders are deemed to earn a certain rate of income regardless of the actual amount earned. If pension holders earn income above the deemed rate, the higher amount is not used to assess income. Thus deeming is generally a simple and fair way to assess income, providing an incentive to invest and earn and encouraging people to choose investments based on their merit. To calculate assessable income, deeming rates are applied to the total market value of a pensioner’s—in this case, a veteran’s—investments. The actual returns in capital growth dividends or interest are not used. Deeming thresholds are generally indexed in line with inflation and occur generally in March and September in line with pension indexation increases.
The previous deeming rate was 3½ per cent on the first $39,400 for a single pension recipient and $65,400 for a double. A deeming rate of 5½ per cent then applied to all investments above these amounts, the first $2,000 being exempt. The government has sought to increase these by 0.5 per cent, which in reality is an increase affecting veterans of the lower rate of 12.5 per cent and an increase to the higher rate of eight per cent. What this means for a veteran is as follows. A veteran on a maximum single rate of pension would earn $546.80 a fortnight, excluding a range of allowances. If they own shares worth $100,000, the deemed income amount was $4,712. With the government increase, it is now $5,212, an increase of $500. This means that a pension holder, a veteran, may lose up to $104 of their pension because of an increase to the deeming rate. If the pension holder’s investments are in shares, they may not be providing a dividend stream, and the current share performance has seen values decrease by as much as 25 per cent. Yet the pension holder may receive a drop in their pension if they hold investments in some stocks and related financial products.
Minister Macklin, in her media release of 14 March, stated:
Secure, low-risk bank accounts can currently achieve returns above six per cent.
This morning I looked at the NAB indicator rate as published on their website, and the NAB retirement account is paying six per cent for funds under deposit over $38,400. This is well short of the minister’s statement of achieving returns above six per cent. The changes to the deeming rates by increasing them by 0.5 per cent to four per cent for the lower rate and six per cent will disadvantage veterans. Considering the turbulent world financial markets, the dramatic drop in the local stock market, potentially poor super returns for the next period and continuing global concerns, the deeming rate should not have been increased. The government should have deferred the deeming increase until at least September this year, when more will be known about the global credit squeeze and particularly the state of the US economy.
Increasing the deeming rate in March has simply hit the most vulnerable citizens again—pension holders, including specifically many veterans. Whilst this is in line with the Labor government’s true nature, as shown in their original attempt to scrap carers and veterans allowances and their inability to put these into forward estimates, increasing the deeming rate in March was economically negligent. I call on the government and especially the Peter-principle Treasurer to review this decision in September. Thus, while I support the minor changes that the government are making to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, I am bitterly disappointed in the underhanded way that the government have given to veterans on one hand and then, with impunity and with callousness, have taken away with the other.
2802
10:48:00
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
1
0
Mr MELHAM
—Madam Deputy Speaker Vale, the member for Fadden might have had more credibility in his contribution if he had given a bit of the history, which you more than most would be aware of, of what happened with the former government and their dealings with veterans affairs and how you yourself had to go and defend the indefensible to your caucus and got savaged badly, which resulted in a reappraisal of the submission that your cabinet required you to put before your caucus to do with the Clarke review. Oh, yes, the former minister knows. No-one on either side can take the sanctimonious view in relation to this area. Of course veterans deserve more, and it is a hard battle getting anything out of any expenditure review committee of either political persuasion. Generally, the way we achieve it is over time, in a gradualist approach, and people do the best they can.
Do not come in here and rail against the Labor Party, which has only been in office for a short while. It would be quite easy to rail against the former minister, who did the best she could in the climate she encountered. I know the former Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel. These are not portfolios that have the luxury of other portfolios. You have to fight tooth and nail—generally to Treasury boffins. Ministers of either political persuasion deserve support—and there is a lot of bipartisanship. So do not come in here and make out as if one side is more evil than the other.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.
10000
Vale, Danna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DS Vale)—Is the member for Banks willing to give way?
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr MELHAM
—I am always prepared to take a question from the member for Mackellar. I know that it is always without notice.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Thank you. The question I would like to put to him is this: could the member opposite explain why the government, of which he is a part, is in this bill expending a total over four years of $7.5 million to extend benefits and is taking away benefits to veterans worth $35 million over the same period? Is that just and equitable in his view?
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr MELHAM
—As a former minister you know that savings have to be found within various portfolios in relation to expenditure. As a former minister you know about the dividends that have to be produced in various portfolios—
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Not with a surplus of $22 billion.
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr MELHAM
—and you know that if you want to put forward new proposals you have to find funding within your own department. It then becomes an issue of priorities. Priorities over time are examined and sometimes they are changed. But I tell you one thing I am confident about: I am confident about this Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Alan Griffin over time will prove to be one of the best ministers this portfolio has seen. He ran your policy towards the end of your government. Your policy was dictated, in effect, by the shadow minister. That is recognised within the veterans community and in relation to his achievements in this bill and in terms of the budget process. I know what happens on the email system and I know what happens in the veterans community in relation to this minister. They like him, they now he goes in to bat for them, he is across the issues, and he visits them. Senior members of the veterans community are very happy with this bloke and they have good reason to be, because they have one of the best in the pack. The former minister should know this: there will be no better defender of veterans in the Labor Party than Alan Griffin, the current Minister for Veterans’ Affairs.
He has a lot of credibility in the community. I have a large veterans community. My electorate was settled after the war, so it has housing commission and war service homes. I have been committed to veterans issues for the 18 years I have been in this parliament. The veterans kit that my office produced—
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—That means you are a veteran yourself!
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr MELHAM
—No, you do not have to be a veteran. This argument that you have to be a veteran to be able to advocate on behalf of veterans is complete garbage.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Member for Banks! Member for Mackellar, do you have a point of order?
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Yes. I asked a question, which the member opposite elected to take and then did not answer. I asked him did he think saving $35 million to spend $7.5 million was justified. He has not answered the question. Now he is deviating from the substance of the bill. I would ask him to answer my question and then return to the substance of the bill.
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr MELHAM
—What I say in relation to all these thing is that they have to be viewed on their merits. It is not just a mathematical argument as to what you are spending and what you are saving. You look at the nature and quality of the benefits that people are receiving, you make an assessment in relation to that, and sometimes you have got to make some decisions. Sometimes you take some short-term pain for long-term gain. Some of the benefits that we are offering now over time will come to be more substantial benefits to the broader veterans community.
I think the only numbers that former Minister Bishop has been worried about are leadership numbers that always evaporated when it came to her. I do not need to be lectured by her about numbers. As for this argument that you necessarily have to have a uniform—you do not. There are good people on both sides of this House that have the interests of veterans at heart, because they have listened to them and they have sat down with them. Anzac Day is a wonderful experience. We are all sympathetic.
The point I make to you is that you can take cheap shots at whatever minister you have of whatever political persuasion, but they have to go into battle in their budget process—and, yes, they do get done over, because sacrifices are made, and there are some decisions that are hard to defend, because that is how they end up at the end of the process. I am sure the former minister did not win her battles. She might have won the battles to create a few medals so she could pin some medals on some veterans, but when it comes to funding it is a harder process. I say to the chamber that the veterans entitlements legislation bill that is before the House today deserves to be supported and that for too long veterans have not been treated with the respect or, indeed, given the financial support they deserve. I do not say that what they have at the moment is sufficient; they are entitled to more. Of course they are entitled to more. Anyone who puts on a uniform in this country deserves to be looked after and so does their family.
The other day I represented the Minister for Defence in welcoming home six members of the forces who were serving in the Sudan and I listened to their stories. Before that I represented the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs in farewelling the veterans who were going to Beersheba to serve with the light-horse and I listened to their stories—and, if it were up to me, I would give them everything they asked for. But it is not my decision, nor is it the opposition member’s, nor is it the former minister’s and nor is it the former Minister for Defence Science and Personnel’s. You have to go in there and fight for a pool of money against people who basically do not want to give you money. So that is how in the end we try and come together from the back bench, with our point of view and our experiences, to drag them kicking and screaming.
I want to pay tribute to the current minister, because I know the work that he did as shadow minister and is now doing as minister. Veterans are getting benefits because he is smart, he knows how to argue his case and he does not take no for an answer. He is backed up by a deputy and by Public Service officials who are very hardworking and genuine in their commitment to the veterans community but who themselves are restrained by the policies that past governments have delivered. So you have to look at the work he has done in the short time he has been in the job. He has credibility—and that is not coming from me. Go and ask your veteran organisations. Read the emails you receive from particular veterans who love emails and send them around to the community. Forget the political stuff; you are here running a political case. If you want to run your politics, that is fine. If that is how you think you are going to get your agenda up, you have another thing coming. As someone said, I have been a veteran here for 18 years. Run the merits of the argument; do not play the man.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Before you took the chair, when the Deputy Speaker was in attendance, she did take the trouble to remind me when I was speaking that I should return to the nature of the bill, and I did. This is the second time I ask the member opposite to return to the nature of the bill. I think we all accept there is room for wide-ranging debate, but I really do think he has gone beyond the pale.
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr MELHAM
—I am happy to return to the bill, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me tell you, if the member opposite thinks that I am going to remain silent when I cop garbage interjections and interjections that are aimed at demeaning a minister and what this government is trying to do for veterans, she is kidding. I will respond to every single one of your questions and every single one of your interjections.
In relation to the bill before the chamber, what did the previous speaker, after he railed against the Labor Party, say at the end of his speech? Limp-wristed, he supported the bill, because when you come to the merits of it this bill deserves supporting. When you look at the merits of this bill and debate the matter, this is a bill that deserves support. So let us get back to the bill—I am quite happy to.
10000
Vale, Danna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DS Vale)—Thank you, Member for Banks.
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr MELHAM
—But do not use the bill as an excuse to belt up the Labor Party and then limp-wristedly say, ‘Oh, yeah, and by the way, we support the bill before the House.’ I did not hear one thing in the short time I was in the chamber against the bill itself. The bill was used as an excuse to rail and to make political diatribes. I do not want a lecture from the member opposite about my ability to respond to what I heard in this chamber. That is what got me riled up. Yes, I came here with a prepared speech, which my staff worked on. But what worked me up was the garbage I heard from the previous speaker and I was not going to allow it to go unremarked.
The minister did visit my electorate prior to the election and 80 veterans and people with an interest in veterans affairs came along. They took questions and he spent considerable time with them and the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. The thing I liked about him was that he did not mislead them. Where he would not be able to deliver, he did not mislead them. He basically said, ‘That’s going to be a hard one.’ I think part of the problem at times is that we tend not to give the honest responses to some of the questions that we are asked and people are misled into thinking there is a chance for some of the benefits they are seeking.
I have enormous confidence in the minister. Today we are debating a bill that to some extent came from those community consultations. The issues in this bill were raised in the community consultations. As I said earlier, it is not all that needs to be done; it is just a start. This is the first instalment. Labor has already delivered on its promise that resulted in the amendment of the social security law, the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, to give increased and more timely financial support to older Australians and to people with a disability, to carers and to veterans. The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs introduced this legislation on 14 February this year, and eligible pensioners will have been receiving those payments from 20 March. For the first time, veterans and their partners receiving the invalidity service pension, partner service pension or an income support supplement will also receive the allowance. In addition, an increased rate of telephone allowance from $88 a year to $132 a year will be available to around one million veterans. In increasing the annual utilities allowance from $107.20 to $500, to be paid in quarterly payments, to match the utilities bill cycle, Labor is ensuring that people will have funds to assist them in payment of those regular bills. This bill includes several measures that were part of Labor’s 2007 election commitments. Labor have always had a genuine commitment to our veterans and that will continue.
As I said, Labor is fulfilling its election promises and this bill is part of that process. There are three key measures the bill introduces, and these will make life a little easier for some of our veterans and their families. First, the bill will extend the income support supplement to war widows and widowers under qualifying age. In the past, this was available when a veteran reached qualifying age—for men it was 60 years and for women it was 58½—or if they had a dependent child or if they were permanently incapacitated and prevented from working. Under this legislation, the eligibility for the income support supplement will extend to a person who is a war widow or widower, who has not reached qualifying age and who has no dependent children. In effect, the current eligibility criteria will become redundant. The net effect of the measure will directly impact on approximately 1,400 war widows or war widowers. I repeat: 1,400. Second, the bill extends disability pension bereavement payments. Currently a widow or widower on certain disability rates receives a bereavement payment equal to 12 weeks of disability pension on the death of a veteran. The new measure will extend the 12 weeks disability pension bereavement payment to the estate of single veterans or members in receipt of a special rate disability pension or the extreme disablement adjustment disability pension if they have died in reduced circumstances. With the extension of this measure, the veteran’s estate will have time to adjust to his or her changed financial circumstances and to defray any costs associated with the death of a veteran. This payment is in addition to a funeral benefit, which is also payable to indigent veterans or members and is a contribution towards funeral costs.
The third measure contained in the bill extends the automatic grant of war widow or war widower pensions. Under the current act, this was granted under circumstances where the veteran was in receipt of specific pension entitlements. The grant of a war widow or war widower pension will now be extended to include those partners of a veteran or member who immediately before his or her death was in receipt of intermediate late disability or temporary special rate disability pension. These measures will go toward fulfilling our obligation as a government and as a community to our veterans. I know that those opposite acknowledge that these are benefits. That is what is actually before us, and that is what riled me a little bit earlier. I did not appreciate coming in and just hearing a political diatribe. Let us deal with each bill on its merits. If it is beneficial, so be it. If there is detriment then, yes, get up and have a go at the bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker Vale, you of all people would know how difficult this area is from when you were in government. It is difficult for whoever is in office, but at the end of the day what I have always been about and what my office has always been about, because of the nature of my community, is to do whatever we can for our veterans community. The veterans kit that we produced has been without peer for the last 15 to 18 years in parliament. Indeed, it was picked up by organisations and used as the model. As I said, I know that there is genuine support on the other side. It seems to me that what whoever is in government should be doing is marshalling those resources in a bipartisan fashion to try to change government policy to the benefit of our veterans. I am not standing up here trying to claim a moral superiority in this regard; I do not. But I know about advocacy and I know how to get results. As I said earlier, history will end up showing this minister to be one of the best veterans’ affairs ministers. He has not taken a backward step in the short time he has been there, nor did he as shadow minister. He has tried to work out every way he can to advance veterans causes in an honest way, in a compassionate way, and he has tried to do it in a bipartisan way. I know that the shadow minister who is his opposite is also genuine in that regard.
As indicated in the Bills Digest for this bill prepared by the library, in the past the automatic granting of the war widows pension was considered appropriate only for what was effectively a significant physical disability. This has tended to exclude those who suffer from psychiatric disability or other types of physical disabilities. The Bills Digest commented that this is an old-fashioned idea. This initiative of the Australian government means that many widows or widowers will not have to apply for the benefit in a protracted manner. In the past, the process has often been contentious and lengthy. This is a very positive move forward in recognising the care and support provided by those who were the partners of veterans with significant disabilities. In my electorate there were 3,236 net beneficiaries of Department of Veterans’ Affairs pensions and treatment cardholders as at 28 September 2007. Sadly, this number dropped over the previous three months to 3,165 total net beneficiaries as at 6 July 2007. This bill is just one in a long line of Labor legislation that will be introducing social security advances in Australia.
It is a benchmark of Labor governments that care and support is provided to those who need it. In 1901 the Constitution gave power to the Commonwealth to legislate for invalid and old age pensioners. A review was conducted during 1905 and 1906 and legislation for both was passed in 1908. Finetuning was then provided by the Fisher Labor government during 1909-10, and this ensured that the old age pension was payable to people who were aged 65 and over or who were aged 60 years and over and were permanently incapacitated for work, and it extended to women over 60 years of age. Subsequent refinements and innovations were provided to age pensions, disability pensions and carers by the Scullin, Curtin, Chifley, Whitlam, Hawke and Keating governments and, in all fairness, I should mention the updates under the Lyons, Menzies, Holt, Gorton, Fraser and Howard governments. So, in the area of veterans entitlements, Labor has a proud record since Federation and that is why I took exception to the attacks on the Labor Party from those opposite. At the end of the day—(Time expired)
2808
11:08:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—I wish to rise in support of the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008. However, I wish to do so against the background of what I believe is a unique, unparalleled and unjustifiable attack on the spouses of veterans which was brought down in last night’s budget. Let me start with this attack in last night’s budget—and there are two measures which, by all accounts and under all circumstances, are utterly unjustifiable. The first point is this: whilst this bill brings forward welcome additional support in line with the sorts of things which we brought in in government of about $20.7 million over four years rising to $7.1 million in the fourth year, all of these benefits are effectively taken away with a $35 million attack on the spouses of veterans, as was introduced in last night’s budget. This is one of those hidden measures with a practical human cost.
Who are the people who suffer that result? As of 1 July 2008, the Rudd government will launch an attack on veterans’ spouses by increasing the pension age eligibility for partners of veterans from 50 to 58½ years. In one stroke of the pen, with virtually no warning, the age of eligibility to receive the appropriate benefits for the wives of our long-serving veterans will increase 8½ years. The impact that will have on families will be real and dramatic and will be seen in the terms of a $35 million slug to veterans’ wives over the next four years. I repeat: for the wives of veterans in Rosebud, Rye, Dromana, Hastings, Kooweerup, Baxter, Cowes and San Remo this real money will come from that which they would otherwise have received. It will have a real and profound impact on their ability to operate and also on their standing and sense of worth. They will feel that they have been gypped by a government that is giving with one hand but taking away a lot more with the other, hurting spouses of veterans who have served their country with honour and dignity and had just the slightest expectation that their families would be cared for in the years to come.
The second of the measures from last night’s budget which undercuts the measures in this bill is that, as of 1 January 2009, access to the service pension will cease 12 months after separation or from the beginning of a new marriage for the former spouse of a veteran. In other words, if the spouse of a veteran is separated from the veteran but they are still married, and they are not certain whether they can reconcile—in any event, there is no recognition of that lifetime service given by a spouse—the spouse will lose that entitlement. This is a cruel measure which, I believe, utterly undervalues the support given to our service men and women by their spouses. They might have been a partner and spouse for 20 years, but if they then separate for 12 months they lose all recognition of the service they have given indirectly by supporting the men and women who are part of our armed forces. This government should be condemned for taking away the security of our veterans’ spouses now and in cases where they may face the real human challenge which is inevitable in relationships. That is what I want to say as to why this bill ultimately fatally undercuts benefits.
We think the measures are good. They recognise the magnificent service of our veterans on the Mornington Peninsula. The measures, which amount to about $20.7 million, do things entirely in line with the path set down under previous veterans’ affairs ministers such as the member for Mackellar and the member for Dunkley. What I do not accept is that these measures are completely undercut by what I think is a quite draconian, dramatic, unfair and ultimately disrespectful movement overnight in the age at which veterans’ spouses can qualify for their pensions and the disregard for a lifetime’s marriage and support of our veterans, which is now about to be made Holy Writ through legislation denying spouses of veterans benefits if they happen to separate for a period of 12 months or more. That I think is unfair, unreasonable, unjustifiable and ultimately disrespectful. So, whilst I support the bill, I utterly condemn these attacks upon veterans’ spouses, which were handed down in the budget last night. It is disrespectful to our veterans, it is disrespectful to the spouses and I believe it undercuts the magnificent work that veterans groups in areas such as the Mornington Peninsula, Westernport and the Bass Coast area give to our people.
2809
11:15:00
Neal, Belinda, MP
B36
Robertson
ALP
1
0
Ms NEAL
—It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008, because of course this government, unlike many former governments, is delivering on its commitments. The bill makes three changes to the veterans entitlements legislation and delivers on promises, as I have said, by the Labor government in last year’s election. These have been dealt with by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. Alan Griffin, and other honourable members in this House. The first change is the automatic grant of the war widows or widowers pension to the partners of deceased veterans who at that time were in receipt of totally and temporarily incapacitated disability pension. Previously, this pension was generally granted to the widow or widower on application, but this amendment makes it automatic. It removes an element of uncertainty and therefore stress at the time when that person is already facing the stress of losing a loved partner. The second amendment to the veterans entitlements legislation contained in the bill is to extend the income support supplement to all war widows without their having to satisfy a range of additional provisions. This change will benefit 1,400 war widows and widowers. The final change is the extension of the bereavement payment to the estates of single disabled veterans who pass away in poor financial circumstances.
This bill is of particular interest to me as the member for Robertson. I understand that the Central Coast, of which my electorate forms a major part, has one of the highest percentages of veterans in Australia. In Robertson, my office is a regular contact for approximately 20 ex-service organisations, and in fact we print a number of their newsletters. According to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs website, at September 2007 the Gosford local government area had approximately 5,745 DVA pensioners. My electorate office makes regular representations for our veteran community, and I have recently spoken to the Pensioners and Welfare Officers Network about the Rudd Labor government’s new suite of policy initiatives, including veterans entitlements.
A very short time ago, I was very proud to present the new Australian Defence Medal to 18 ex-service personnel at an official function at Gosford RSL club. This was certainly a wonderful occasion. I have to say that on every occasion where I meet with veterans and talk to them, both at my office and at functions outside, the veterans community is extremely happy with the direction of this government and very happy that, in a large number of areas where they had difficulties and where they had been ignored for very many years, this Labor minister has very quickly remedied those problems and has been very responsive to their needs. I feel great pride in being part of a government that acknowledges the contribution of our veteran community and is able to go out on a very personal level and meet with them and respond to their requirements.
I would like to talk a little about the recipients that I presented ADMs to at that function at the Gosford RSL, because I think they are representative of the type of person who receives these medals. It is worth while noting on the public record some of their contributions. I would particularly like to mention Bronwyn Scully, who presently lives at Woy Woy, who joined the Australian Defence Force in the 1970s, when women’s involvement in military life was fairly novel and a pioneering career choice. Brownyn Scully rose to the rank of lance corporal. By sheer chance, she joined the same unit, the Royal Australian Corps of Signals, as her father, Kenrick Scully—a journalist with the old Gosford Star, which is now obsolete but which I can still recall. He wrote a book called Every Man for Himself about the evacuation of New Guinea in the face of the Japanese invasion during World War II. In that book, Kenrick Scully says:
My time in the Corps gave me the work ethic that set me up for the rest of my life.
Bronwyn was very pleased about receiving her medal, and she said:
This medal is a nice way for the nation to say thanks.
I really think that is what is important about not only the presentation of those medals but also the policy of this government overall: our veterans policy is very much guided by the principle that we do acknowledge the contribution of our veterans and we are saying at every stage ‘thank you for that contribution’ and the sacrifices they made.
Another person presented with a medal on that occasion was 80-year-old Edwin ‘Ted’ Meyer, of Point Clare. He was a young articled clerk when he tried to enlist in the final months of World War II. He served three years in the Citizens Military Force during the Korean War, rising to the rank of lance corporal. His father was an interpreter for the French army in World War I, and he never collected his medals, so Tuesday’s ceremony had special meaning for Ted. He was wearing his father’s interpreter corps badge when he received his own medal. He was very thrilled to be there and to be acknowledged in that way. He is actively involved in the association of the 17th Battalion, and Ted values the skills he learned during his military service. He said on receiving his medal that he did not expect the honour, but that the Australian Defence Medal is a record of his service to his country and he very much appreciated it.
I am particularly pleased that the veterans’ entitlement bill proposes a number of significant changes, as I have said. It really does acknowledge the contribution of our veterans. I understand from listening in to some of the earlier contributions, particularly those from the other side, that there seems to be some complaint or a suggestion that somehow this government is not appropriately acknowledging the contribution of our veterans in the way they should be. I completely reject that assertion. I find it quite extraordinary that after 11 years the now opposition—the previous government—can come along and start complaining about what has been done in one budget and claiming that things should be done in that budget that they failed to do for 11 years. It is quite extraordinary, but not uncommon, not only in this particular portfolio but in virtually every portfolio in this government, that the opposition now claims that things they did not do for 11 years we should miraculously do in one budget. Frankly, that smacks of an incredible hypocrisy.
In the 2008-09 budget the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Alan Griffin, provide additional funding for the Australian veterans community to $11.59 billion. That is not something to sneeze at; it is not a small, paltry amount. It is a huge contribution and it acknowledges our veterans’ contributions. I am thrilled to see it and I am certain the veterans in my electorate, and I assume Australia wide, will be very excited about it as well. This includes $6.34 billion for compensation income support pensions and $4.87 billion for health and health services. Also, ex-service organisations will be able to access additional funding, namely $14.9 billion over four years, including in 2007-08, through the Building Excellence in Support and Training—known as BEST—and the Training Information Program. This includes $6.9 million over three years to restore lapsed funding. These funding arrangements introduced by the Rudd Labor government—not any previous coalition government—a total of $11.59 billion, represent record spending in the veterans’ affairs portfolio.
As I said, I am absolutely thrilled to be part of a government that is putting forward those sorts of priorities in terms of our veteran community. This is the strongest possible commitment yet to the veteran community of this nation. The contribution of carers has also been recognised, with bonuses of $600 being paid to anyone in receipt of carer allowance, $1,000 for those who receive carer payment or carer service pension and $1,600 in bonuses to those who receive both carer allowance and partner service pension or carer service pension. In addition, service pensioners and gold card holders who are over veteran pension age on 13 May 2008 will receive a $500 senior Australians bonus in recognition of the costs they face and the contribution they have made to building Australia.
I am proud to be part of this government. I congratulate the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs on a great budget and I am thrilled that this is the acknowledgement we are giving our veteran community.
2811
11:26:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
0
0
Mrs GASH
—As the once chair of the coalition government’s defence and veteran affairs committee, I am always an enthusiastic supporter of any initiative that appropriately rewards the contribution of our returned service men and women. It is important that we do so and to be seen to be doing so, because any intending recruit into our defence forces would be gauging how much their government is prepared to underwrite the risks they will be asked to take. But, before I go any further, I am tempted to make a passing comment on the title of this bill, the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008, and on the part in brackets especially. I mean, is there that much uncertainty over Labor’s defence credentials that a bill needs to have incorporated in it the words ‘2007 Election Commitments’ bill? It either demonstrates smugness or a very prickly sensitivity to past failures. I wonder whether this will be a feature of other government bills incorporated as a standard format for each bill.
That aside, I did want to raise another associated issue, and that is the government’s position on the claims of the Korean veterans who are seeking recognition for those who died on service after the armistice in Korea. I do recall that a deputation of Korean vets called on the then shadow minister last year and certain commitments were made in relation to post-armistice service. As far as I am concerned, that was an election commitment and should have been incorporated in this bill, if it is honestly titled.
On 9 October 2006 in the House, the present Minister for Veterans’ Affairs seconded a motion that called on the government to award medals for Korean post-armistice service. My question is: when will that promise be fulfilled? There is no provision anywhere in this bill, so can it be assumed that the promise made to the Korean vets by the then shadow veterans’ affairs minister was a non-core promise? The minister spoke about proper recognition, which ostensibly suggests that post-armistice service should be viewed as warlike and therefore attracting entitlements under the act. At least that is the impression the veterans gained after their meeting.
The member for Barton, who moved the motion, described the review committee’s recommendation for the awarding of an Australian general service medal and a return from active service badge as very sensible. This seems to imply that a Labor government would grant full entitlement under the act for post-armistice service. That is exactly what the Korean vets are asking for now. The member for Barton said at the time: ‘If the coalition government is serious about taking care of our soldiers, it has to put its money where its mouth is’—a fair statement. Now, will this government do the same? Will you honour the commitment you made to these vets and will you do it now?
In the minister’s second reading speech to this bill, he said in his opening remarks: ‘I am pleased to present legislation that demonstrates this government’s commitment to Australia’s veteran community.’ The Korean vets and I will also be pleased when the minister introduces legislation giving life to his government’s commitment to them. Let me quote what the Labor Party policy says. It says:
Implement Post Armistice Korean Service Review recommendations
The post-armistice Korean service review was established to examine the level of recognition that service in Korea from 1953 to 1956 should be given.
The review made six recommendations, but the Howard Government chose to ignore four of them.
Under a Rudd Labor Government, Defence will implement all of the recommendations of this review. This will fully support the efforts of the Korean War Veterans Recognition Committee to gain the recognition they deserve.
But the few provisions contained in this bill I do support, because it builds on the many initiatives introduced by the previous government—achievements such as increasing the amount of combat ready troops from the 45 per cent we inherited to the 66 per cent we left in November.
We increased funding to veterans from $6.2 billion in 1995-96 to over $11 billion in 2007-08—an increase in real terms of 25 per cent. For the first time ever, we linked service to the war widows pension by legislation to a fixed and measurable benchmark: 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. We restored the pension rights of thousands of war widows that were cancelled by Labor. We recognised the suffering of POWs with the payment of a bounty to each POW. We instigated a review of the act to ensure that needs were being properly addressed by contemporary standards. And we initiated many more reforms to ensure our veteran community were, arguably, the best looked after in the world. I applaud the fact that the government has adopted this philosophy and continued to support our veterans with these measures. I am delighted that the war widows and war widowers have their extended income support supplements, because it will certainly be of some assistance in what is shaping up to be stormy times ahead as far as the global economy is concerned.
One of the things we did for widows and widowers of veterans in 2001 was to establish a program to enable these worthy people to stay in their homes longer by providing home care. The other measures introduced by this bill are also welcomed, but there is still much to do and I welcome the minister’s undertaking to better look after those in the veteran community. The minister can rest assured that we on this side of the House will be making sure that there is no slippage of that undertaking because there is no disagreement on the fact that this country owes its veterans a very large debt that should transcend any political campaign promise. George Washington had the wisdom to recognise that you are judged by your deeds when he wrote:
The willingness of future generations to serve in our military will be directly dependent upon how we have treated those who have served in the past.
It is most laudable for a government to fully support its defence community, some of whom become veterans following war service. We did this through the Clarke review of veterans’ entitlements, and just a few weeks ago another review panel also set up by the Howard government made recommendations for valour awards for some of those who participated in the Battle of Long Tan. I hope this government recognises the wisdom of George Washington’s words and upholds the recommendation to award Major Harry Smith, Lieutenant Kendall and Lieutenant Sabben retrospective awards for gallantry in the field. Every day delayed signifies a grudging reluctance to do the right thing, and I would strongly urge the government to authorise these awards without delay.
As always, there is much to be done. If this government adopts the policies for veterans that we took into the election last year, they will have no argument from either me or the veteran community. But let us just have a quick look at what this Rudd Labor government offered veterans—or should I say did not offer veterans—in the budget that was announced last night. The Rudd government budget has left veterans out in the cold with two very significant changes which were announced. One of them was that the Rudd Labor government from July 2008 will increase the service pension age eligibility for partners to 58.5 years for women, which is up from the previous 50 years. This measure is estimated to save the Rudd government $35.1 million over four years. Veterans are one part of our community who must be exempt from budgetary cuts as we are eternally indebted to them for the sacrifices they have made for our nation. By raising the eligibility age, the Rudd government is condemning our veterans’ families to financial stress and hardship. Veterans and their families who have planned their future budgets based on this entitlement will be worse off under the Rudd government. This measure demonstrates the total disregard the Rudd government has for the contribution that our veterans have made to our country. With a surplus of $21.7 billion there is no need to punish veterans’ families.
In addition to the above measure, the Rudd Labor government has announced that it will no longer provide a service pension for partners who are separated from, but still legally married to, a veteran. And commencing on 1 January 2009, access to the service pension will cease 12 months after separation or from the beginning of a new marriage-like relationship of either the veteran or the partner, whichever comes first. They could still be married at this point in time. It is well known that veterans have problems. We should be assisting reconciliation, not penalising.
2813
11:34:00
Perrett, Graham, MP
HVP
Moreton
ALP
1
0
Mr PERRETT
—I am proud to speak in favour of the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008, which delivers on several commitments made by the Rudd government during the 2007 election campaign. This bill addresses a number of longstanding concerns of veterans that the Howard government failed to act upon. Australia’s ex-service community have given their best for our country and obviously they deserve our best in return. I think the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has said it best. As opposition leader in August last year, he said:
There is perhaps no greater duty that we as a nation and as a parliament have than to honour, remember and express our gratitude to those Australians who have served in the defence of our nation in times of war, because our security and liberty have not come without a price.
I think the Prime Minister, with a Vietnam veteran brother, would know as well as any family the impact that serving can have on a family back home in Australia.
The Rudd Labor government promised a fresh approach to veterans’ affairs and committed to work in partnership with the ex-service community on the issues that concerned them. I well remember the current Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Minister Griffin, coming to Moreton, to a pub in Moorooka, and meeting with the veterans community during the election campaign. The veterans community and the RSL representatives that were there had respect for him, because he told them straight, ‘These are the things that we can have some progress on and these are the things that are much more difficult.’ There was no political speak; it was just plain, hard truth. The best thing about that is that he has since delivered for the community, because this bill obviously delivers on that commitment and those promises and on our commitment to support veterans and their families.
One of the most significant measures contained in this bill is to extend the income support supplement to war widows and widowers under qualifying age without dependants. War widow pension recipients must currently meet a number of conditions before they can receive the additional income support supplement. To qualify they must be of qualifying age—60 or more for males and over 58½ for females—be permanently blind or permanently incapacitated and unable to work, have a dependent child or children and be the partner of a person who is receiving an income support pension from either the Department of Veterans’ Affairs or Centrelink. This bill amends the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to remove all eligibility criteria for the income support supplement if the person is a war widow or widower.
I understand the war widows pension is currently paid at $582.40 per fortnight. There are currently about 110,000 recipients, of which 83,000 receive the income and asset tested income support supplement. This bill will allow all recipients of the WWP to access the income support supplement as long as their income or assets do not exceed the limits. This will potentially help an additional 1,400 war widows and widowers. By removing the age limits, the income support supplement will now be available to help younger war widows and widowers and wholly dependent partners.
This bill also extends disability pension bereavement payments. A widow or widower of a veteran currently receives a bereavement payment of 12 weeks of disability pension upon the death of the veteran or member. This payment helps to assist the person adjust to his or her financial situation, given that the pension of the deceased person obviously will stop. This payment will be extended to the estate of single veterans or members in receipt of the special rate disability pension or extreme disablement adjustment disability pension who die in indigent circumstances. It is sad to think that we live in a society where that is the case, but obviously there are many people who come back with troubled lives and unfortunately do not necessarily kick on and become successful in business et cetera. So this payment will help cover liabilities, including funeral expenses, so that the nation does its best to honour its service people. This payment is in addition to a funeral benefit, which is also payable to indigent veterans or members and is a contribution towards funeral costs.
Finally, this bill also extends the automatic grant of war widow and war widower pensions. These are currently only granted automatically to some intermediate rate disability pensioners, where the disability involves the loss of one or more limbs. In line with the Rudd government’s election commitment, and in line with the commitments that now Minister Griffin made throughout the election campaign and in his meetings with the veterans community, this bill will ensure the automatic grant of the war widows pension to the surviving partners of certain classes of disability pensioners from 1 July 2008. This includes totally and permanently incapacitated and extreme disablement adjustment pensioners. As well as the war widows pension, surviving partners will receive the income support supplement and the gold card for treatment. This is expected to benefit more than 20 new war widows and widowers each year.
Disability is not always as obvious as an amputated limb. I think we are all aware of the other conditions that can result but that are not as obvious as amputated limbs. Other physical disabilities—for example, a heart condition—as well as psychiatric disabilities connected to war or armed service can be just as debilitating. It was interesting just this week to meet so many of the veterans from the Coral and Balmoral battles in Vietnam and to talk to some of them about how they had adjusted to war. It was a very proud night—40 years too late, in a way—and it was great that they felt that they and their contributions were being recognised. I had the honour of meeting some of those veterans at the reception organised by the Prime Minister and the opposition leader. It was great to hear how many of them had coped and adjusted but also very sad to hear of how some of their comrades and friends from the military had not adjusted and had brought home baggage. Whilst it was a wonderful evening and a great honour for me to meet many of those veterans, it brought home how this legislation will benefit people who are suffering from psychiatric disabilities and the like. This bill introduces a much fairer system. It will also provide some peace of mind to veterans and their families during a vulnerable and difficult time.
In my time as a candidate in the 2004 election and in just being a member of the Moreton community, I have met an incredible number of returned servicemen. In fact, I was fortunate enough to have a returned serviceman on my campaign team. David Forde was fantastic as a campaign person but he also gave me insights into the veteran community. I am going to mention some of the RSLs and veterans communities in my electorate to acknowledge the great work that they do. I especially mention Fred Dempsey from the Salisbury RSL Sub Branch, who runs some of the tightest Anzac Day and Remembrance Day ceremonies I have ever experienced. I do have to occasionally remind him that I am not in the military, but he ignores that and treats everyone like they are in the military and gives them orders accordingly. The Sherwood-Indooroopilly RSL Sub Branch do great work throughout the north-western part of Moreton. The Stephens RSL Sub Branch have made many representations to me, do great work in the northern part of my electorate and run a fantastic Anzac Day ceremony. The Yeronga-Dutton Park RSL Sub Branch also run some great Anzac Day ceremonies. In fact, I was fortunate enough to speak at their most recent one. It was actually in the Prime Minister’s electorate but only across the road from mine, so I felt I was justified in going into that electorate.
I would especially mention the Sunnybank RSL Sub Branch and their president, Robert Lippiatt, who leads a magnificent team that have done many significant projects in the Sunnybank area. They are particularly active in the schools, running great Anzac Day ceremonies and engaging with young people. There were about 2,500 to 3,000 people at the recent Sunnybank Anzac Day ceremony, which was just incredible, with people being bused in from everywhere. They do great work in the schools to educate the young people, but they also reach out to the veterans community. They are setting up a men’s shed. They are really a forward-thinking RSL sub-branch and a great asset to our community. I especially commend Robert Lippiatt and his team. There are also other groups that are not so much bolted to the one area such as the Defence Services Nurses RSL Sub Branch; the Diggers Association; the RSL ex-RAAF—I mention particularly Les Watts, one of my constituents, who chews my ear every single time I see him about the role of the RAF; the War Widows Guild of Australia; and, lastly, Brisbane Legacy, who do an incredible job as well.
I will mention one particular other organisation, because I have a letter in front of me from Laurie Woods, who is part of the 460 Squadron (RAAF) Association, Queensland Branch. He recently took off to Holland to present a painting of the Manna drop that they had commissioned. I will not go into the details of that—it is not appropriate whilst talking to this legislation—but it was certainly an interesting time in Australian military history. On behalf of the Australian 460 Lancaster Squadron, he presented this painting to the Dutch nation. I have seen the painting and it is a fantastic painting. It is about looking after, caring for and honouring the Australian airmen who lost their lives over Europe. Of the 3,486, approximately 2,000 are buried in Holland. So it was certainly a perilous existence and it was great that Laurie Woods was able to go there to present that painting.
This legislation is obviously all about making a much fairer system. Anything we can do that will give peace of mind to veterans and their families during a vulnerable and difficult time is to be commended. Making the grant automatically available should make the difficult time when someone passes away a little more tolerable. The legislation removes the requirements for a surviving partner to make a claim for a war widows pension and then satisfy the various requirements.
I thank Minister Alan Griffin for bringing this important legislation before the House. It continues his history of listening to the veterans community and then delivering on as many of their aspirations, wishes and needs as possible. I am proud to stand up here for the Australian ex-service community and support this bill. Although I am obviously not from the ex-service community, it is an honour to represent them and I look forward to continuing to do so for a long time. Once again, I thank Minister Alan Griffin for bringing in this legislation.
2816
11:48:00
Vale, Danna, MP
VK6
Hughes
LP
0
0
Mrs VALE
—Like all legislation relating to veterans and their families, the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008 is of particular interest to the electorate of Hughes. Like so many other electorates across the country, I have many constituents who are part of the significant ex-service community.
This bill is about looking after those in the veterans community and their families; hence, I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill and overall I do support it. The purpose of the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008 is to extend the income support supplement to war widows or widowers who are under the qualifying age. While I do support this bill, I must say that I am confused about some of the measures in last night’s budget because, strangely, the government has actually raised the age of service pension eligibility for veterans service partners from 50 years to 58 years. This is for female partners. This is a confusing initiative, given that the purpose of this particular bill is to actually be of assistance to families of veterans. But I would like to say a little more about that later.
This bill provides measures that remove the requirements for war widows and widowers under the qualifying age to have a dependent child, be permanently incapacitated or be the partner of a person receiving an income support pension, before they can receive the income support supplement. The bill will also extend to certain single disability pension recipients the disability pension bereavement payment. Under this measure, the bereavement payment will be extended to cover single recipients of the special rate and extreme disablement adjustment disability pension who die in impoverished circumstances. This bill will also extend the automatic grant of war widow or war widower or orphaned pensions to the widows, widowers and eligible children of veterans and members who immediately before the death of their veteran relative were in receipt of the temporary special rate or intermediate rate disability pension.
To make this legislation as effective as possible on a national level, I respectfully suggest that the federal government give favourable consideration to the following points. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs issued a media release in recent months describing the veterans’ entitlements legislation amendment bill as a fairer indexation system that would result in a range of additional payments delivering up to $1,045 more per year for Department of Veterans’ Affairs war widows, widowers and disability pensioners. The minister said that these payments and new indexation methods maintain and improve the value of veterans and war widows pensions and protect them from future erosion. Only in the last days had the previous government acted. They failed to recognise the erosion of veterans’ pensions until they were forced to do so. He said that the Rudd government is committed to providing increased and fairer financial support for members of the veteran community and this package delivers a key election promise. However, the general rate disability pensions will for the first time be indexed with reference to both the consumer price index and the male total average weekly earnings, which is fair enough.
Alongside the improved indexation calculations, the base rate of all pensions on the general rate will increase by five per cent. For example, 100 per cent general rate recipients will receive an extra $22 a fortnight, which will be very welcome. Extreme disability adjustment pensioners will receive an extra $15 to their base rate on top of the indexation increase, resulting in an additional $40.20 a fortnight. The war widows pension will increase by $19.70 to $582.40 a fortnight; the single service pension by $9.10 to $546.80 a fortnight; and the married couples rate by $7.70 to $456.80 per person per fortnight. The wholly dependent partners death benefit and special rate disability pension under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 have also increased in line with the latest increases under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. The new pension rates come into effect on 20 March and were first payed on 27 March 2008. These increases are in addition to the increased utilities and telephone allowances paid to eligible veterans and war widows.
The coalition during the last federal election committed to increasing the utilities allowance and seniors concessional allowance to $500 for those people receiving the age pension, mature age allowance, partner allowance, widow allowance, service pension, veterans income support supplement, carers payment, disability support pension or DVA invalidity service pension, and for holders of the Commonwealth seniors health card, through the More Support for Pensioners, Self-Funded Retirees and People with Disabilities and their Carers policy. This was announced by the coalition on 23 October 2007.
This announcement was followed by Labor announcing on 1 November 2007 their copycat policy, Making Ends Meet: Federal Labor Plans for Older Australians and People with Disabilities and Carers, which largely mirrored the coalition policy. Having said that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do acknowledge that generally speaking there has been bipartisan support for this very venerable and venerated policy area of our government. If the coalition had not announced this policy during the last election campaign, would Australian veterans be worse off? Labor would not have brought this legislation into the parliament. One must say that this is another example of Labor me-tooing coalition policy, as was often done in the last election campaign. However, this is one that I will not, and the veterans certainly would not, complain about.
What the coalition did not do was refuse to give the veterans community certainty by leaving them in limbo regarding the carers bonus. The Rudd Labor government were elected on the basis of protecting working families and Australia’s most vulnerable, yet they appear ambivalent to carers and their families. This bill continues to show ambivalence to veterans by the Labor government, as it appears that, while they have given with one hand, they actually have taken away with the other.
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs used the introduction of this bill to detract from the carers bonus and the deeming issues that were relevant to a large number of veterans. This bill is totally silent on the carers bonus. It fails to reassure the veterans community of the continuation of the bonus, which the coalition implemented.
Deeming is the other issue about which the minister continues to remain silent. The deeming rate increased on 20 March 2008 by 0.5 per cent. While this portfolio has always been marked by bipartisan support on most measures in the past, the Whitlam and the Hawke and Keating governments made insensitive cuts into the Department of Veterans’ Affairs budget. Between the years 1996 and 2007, the coalition government delivered for veterans in many and various meaningful ways. Initiatives included the gold card. The government announced on 27 April 1998 the extension of eligibility for the veterans gold card to all World War II veterans, being those who had run the risk of being exposed to danger from hostile fire and who were then aged 70 or more. The initiative commenced on 1 January 1999, 54 years after the end of World War II. The government estimated that this initiative would provide a gold card to an initial 50,000 veterans at a cost of $508 million over four years.
The veterans home care was another initiative established by the coalition government in 2001 to provide widows and widowers with low-care needs to maintain their homes and to be able to remain in their homes longer. This program provided for services, domestic assistance, personal care, safety related home and garden maintenance and respite care. Services are allocated on a needs basis to holders of the gold and the white cards.
The accreditation of aged care facilities was introduced also by the coalition in support of our veterans who had to use that particular service. The first accreditation had been undertaken and been successful by 1 January 2001. In 2007-08, the coalition government provided funding of $21 million over four years to ensure that veterans with a gold or white repatriation healthcare card could access appropriate healthcare and support services on discharge from hospital, benefiting some 3,500 veterans and war widows a year.
In 2001-02, we reinstated the war widows pension to those widows who lost their pensions prior to 1984 on remarriage. War widows and widowers now have an additional three months to claim their war widows pension after the death of a spouse. In 2007, we provided funding of $57.2 million to make ex gratia payments of $25,000 each to Australians held as prisoners of war in Europe or their surviving spouses. The coalition provided a similar payment in 2001 for those held by the Japanese and in 2003 for those held by North Korean forces.
The coalition government has in the past been and will continue in the future to be committed to putting our veterans and their families and their needs first, and committed to supporting veterans and families who have dedicated their lives to serving our nation and thus ensuring the freedoms that we enjoy today.
Yet on the eve of Anzac Day, just weeks ago, the Rudd government displayed an insensitivity to the needs of Australian diggers and their families. The announcement by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs of negotiations to place care and support needs of younger ex-service men and women with a disability into the Commonwealth state/territory disability agreement was a positive move, but it shows how out of touch and insensitive to the needs of the veteran community the government can be, because Labor do need to explain why they are moving some young veterans with a disability—ex-service men and women—to a state government system where one size fits all. The coalition recognises that individual care plans are needed for any veteran who has a clinical condition. One size does not fit all and veterans need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Our veterans have fought under our national flag and it is the nation’s responsibility to care for them, not the state. The federal Labor government needs to listen and consult widely with the veteran community before making any such decisions so relevant to their personal care. The opposition remains committed to ensuring that veterans’ needs are tailored to veterans and are delivered through the veterans’ affairs program and not delivered as part of a general social security and welfare system by state governments.
This bill, while it is a positive step in the right direction, is overshadowed by last night’s announcement that the Rudd government is increasing the age of service pension eligibility for veteran service partners from 50 to 58.5 years for women. As I have said, it seems to be in total conflict with the objectives of this particular bill in making available greater eligibility for people in that position. By suddenly raising the eligibility age, the government is condemning our veterans families to financial stress and hardship and great uncertainty. The Rudd government is giving to veterans on one hand, through the introduction of this important bill, and taking away with the other by lifting the eligibility age for veteran service partners. As I said, given the objectives of this bill, it is confusing and difficult to understand why such a measure was made and provided for in the current budget.
And when one also looks at the fact that there is a $21.7 billion surplus, one wonders why there is a need to put such an imposition upon veterans families. We can afford to care well for our veterans and we can support their partners and we must be very mindful that the partners of veterans have served and supported our country just like they have supported their veterans. Many of them have raised families while their husbands or partners have been sent overseas, sometimes on short notice, for months on end. Indeed, in previous conflicts many of those service partners were alone for years on end. They have indeed served our country. With a $21.7 billion surplus, it seems mean-spirited to me that we have taken away that kind of support. To raise the age of eligibility for veteran service partners from 50 to 58.5 years for women seems to be mean-spirited in the context of the wealth of this nation. We can do better for veterans and their families and, with these caveats, I do support the bill.
However, before I finish, I would like to acknowledge the veterans across Australia who participated recently in the 40th anniversary of the battle of Fire Support Base Coral and Balmoral, as well as acknowledge all those who took part in that very significant battle in the Vietnam War. I particularly acknowledge 1RAR and 3RAR. The 3rd Royal Australian Regiment are in my electorate, at Holsworthy. They are a known as ‘Old Faithful’, which is a wonderful name they have gained due to their reputation for delivering the impossible. I am very proud to have met many of them at the function that was held by the government in the main hall on Monday evening. I wish to commend and thank them all for the service they have given to their country. Even while we have a very significant and generous budget that provides for veterans and their families, I think the very best that we can do for them is to try to be the very best Australian citizens we can be in their honour and in reflection of their personal sacrifice. I commend this bill to the House.
2820
12:04:00
Ellis, Annette, MP
5K6
Canberra
ALP
1
0
Ms ANNETTE ELLIS
—It is my pleasure to rise in this place today to speak to the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008. The bill contains three measures, which were key policy initiatives in the area of veterans’ affairs for the Labor Party at the election late last year. Among other things, the bill will extend the income support supplement to war widows and widowers under the qualifying age without dependants, extend disability pension bereavement payments in respect of single veterans or members in receipt of special rate or extreme disablement adjustment disability pension who die without sufficient assets to pay for a funeral and automatically grant a war widows or widowers pension to widows or widowers of veterans or members in receipt of temporary special rate or intermediate rate disability pension immediately before their death.
Extending the income support supplement to all war widows and widowers will effectively remove the qualifying age for the income support supplement for war widows or widowers without dependants. Currently the qualifying age is 60 years for men and 58.5 for women. This change will result in existing and future war widows and widowers under these qualifying ages becoming eligible for the income support supplement on and from 1 July 2008. I understand this change will assist approximately 1,400 war widows or widowers and wholly dependent partners who are under pension age and not currently entitled to income support. This measure is particularly relevant given that we have brave men and women from Australia’s defence forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and in recent times have sadly seen the loss of life of members of the defence forces. The partners of defence personnel killed in action should not have to wait until pension age to receive this payment, and now I am very proud to say they will not have to wait.
Payment of the income support supplement on the grounds of permanent incapacity will be retained so that incapacitated war widows or widowers and wholly dependent partners who are under the pension age continue to receive their income support supplement as a tax-free payment. The current maximum rate for the income support supplement is $163.20 per fortnight, and I am sure that the extension of this benefit will be welcomed by war widows and widowers and the veterans community as a whole.
The extension of the disability pension bereavement payments to the estates of single veterans who have died in indigent circumstances is a great step forward, providing dignity for deceased veterans. Our veterans have served their country with honour and dignity in life, and this measure will ensure that we treat them accordingly after their passing. This measure will apply to the estate of single recipients of the special rate and extreme disablement adjustment rate of disability pension. A person will be considered to have died in indigent circumstances if the value of the person’s estate is not sufficient to cover all liabilities, including funeral costs. This one-off payment will provide 12 weeks disability pension payment to the estate of the deceased veteran or Defence Force member. This payment is in addition to a funeral benefit, which is also payable to indigent veterans or members and is a contribution towards funeral costs and will be payable in respect of deaths that occur on or after 1 July 2008. As well as assisting the families of veterans, this measure will also take some financial pressure off ex-service organisations and their members, who often put their hands in their pockets to ensure that one of their members has a dignified burial. Currently this payment is only available to the widow or widower of the deceased veteran or defence member.
The extension of the automatic grant of war widow or war widower pension is another initiative that we took to the last election. This measure will automatically grant the war widow or widower pension to the partner of a veteran or member where that veteran or member was in receipt of the intermediate rate or temporary special rate disability pension. This measure will commence on 1 July 2008.
All of these measures were fully funded in last night’s budget. It is another example of the Rudd government delivering on every single one of its election commitments. Unlike those opposite, we do not have ‘non-core promises’ as part of our language—things to be quickly forgotten after the writs have been returned, as has been the case in the past. The veterans affairs budget from the Rudd government provides a record $11.59 billion spend on veterans and their families. This record spend is occurring against a quite rapidly declining population in the veteran community. For veterans and their families, as well as the rest of the Australian community, this budget provides certainty in relation to the range of payments to older veterans and particularly those with caring responsibilities.
These changes are long overdue. Our veterans community deserves the very best service and care government can offer. These fine men and women have served our nation in times of war and in times of peace, putting their bodies and their lives on the line in the name of service to their country. As a Labor member of this place, I am very proud of the policies that we took to the last election, particularly in relation to our veterans. There is no-one more deserving of our support and the support of government generally.
No matter where they have served, in war or in peace, our veterans have made great sacrifices to build and protect the nation that we have today. Veterans’ families have also had to make sacrifices: having a member of their family away for long periods of time, and helping that family member readjust to life after deployment and, often, later to civilian life. The families of our veterans are unsung heroes and they give support and care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is correct for me to reflect on words that the Prime Minister used in the House of Representatives yesterday. He said, ‘Sadly, sometimes it is the families that are actually making the greatest contribution when there is a loss of life.’
It is quite appropriate and long overdue, in my opinion, that we extend better entitlements to veterans and their families, as this bill does. Labor promised these improved benefits during the election campaign and here we are delivering on our promise early in the term of this new parliament. We could reflect on the 12 years that we have had in the past to move the sorts of actions contained in this bill; I am just glad that we have them in hand and are doing them. The Rudd Labor government have acted quickly to implement these much needed initiatives to improve the support that we provide to our veterans, our ADF members and their families. It is indeed a pleasure to commend the bill to the House.
2822
12:11:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—At the outset of my contribution to this debate, I would like to acknowledge the contribution that veterans have made to our community, to our country and to our nation over the years. Without their contribution Australia would not be the country it is today and we would not enjoy the quality of life or the lifestyle that we do in this country. Each and every member on this side of the House acknowledges that contribution and the sacrifices that veterans have made for our nation over the years.
It is because we are so aware of the contribution that veterans have made to Australia over such a very, very long time that this government has provided a record amount of spending on veterans in this year’s budget. In fact that record amount of spending is $11.5 billion. I know it makes all members of the Rudd government proud to stand up in this place and say: ‘We have delivered to the veterans. We have delivered to the veterans community. We haven’t ignored them because they are old and frail. We’ve acknowledged the fact that their contribution is worthy of our recognition by financially supporting them.’
This bill contains three measures that were part of our 2007 election commitments. Once again I would like to emphasise to the House that the Rudd government is about delivering on our election commitments. We do not make a commitment and then turn our back on it. We deliver. We said that we would deliver to veterans and that is exactly what we are doing. This bill extends the income support supplement to war widows and widowers under the qualifying age without dependants. It extends the disability pension bereavement payments with respect to single veterans or members in receipt of the special rate or extreme disablement adjustment pension who die without sufficient assets to pay for a funeral. There is an automatic grant of war widows or widowers pensions to widows or widowers of veterans or members in receipt of the temporary special rate or intermediate rate disability pension immediately before their death. As I have said, these were commitments to the veteran community, and they are commitments we have delivered on.
The extension of the income support supplement to war widows and war widowers under the qualifying age without dependants is very important. It will benefit approximately 1,400 widows or widowers under the VEA and wholly dependent partners under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 who are under that pension age and currently are not entitled to income support. We recognise that this is a vital change, something that will really help those widows and widowers. The measure removes the requirement for war widows or widowers to be over the pension age, have a dependent child, be permanently incapacitated or be the partner of a person receiving an income support pension. Payment of the income support supplement on the grounds of permanent incapacity will be retained in order for incapacitated war widows or widowers and wholly dependent partners who are under the pension age to continue to access their income support supplement as a tax-free payment. This provides additional support for younger war widows or widowers and wholly dependent partners during that postbereavement period. Members of this parliament would be very aware of just how hard it is for a younger widow or widower to come to terms with the loss of their partner, and we are recognising this in this legislation.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.
10000
Georganas, Steve (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr S Georganas)—Is the honourable member seeking to ask a question?
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—I am indeed.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Will the Government Whip accept the question?
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms HALL
—Most definitely; I welcome it.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—In the light of the member’s concerns about younger spouses of veterans, does she support the proposal which will extract $35 million in payments to veterans’ spouses by increasing the qualifying age announced last night from 50 to 58.5 years of age?
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms HALL
—The member asks a very good question. In answering this, I would have to point out to the member that this is a responsible budget. This is a budget that is attacking the problems that have been created by the Howard government. It is making some hard decisions. The Howard government did not deliver in any shape or form to veterans, and this is a financially responsible budget. In this budget, as the member identified, there is a reduction in eligibility for the partner service pension, and the change will take effect in July 2008. This change was made in response to broader community expectations that people should be participating in paid employment. That is something that the previous Howard government championed, to the extent that I had coming to my office on a regular basis women with disabled children who had to jump through hoops in order to get a Newstart payment. It was something that the Howard government pursued mercilessly during their time in government. That proposal is only expected to affect around 400 people; the legislation we are debating here today will benefit 1,400 people.
It is interesting that the member jumps up and becomes a champion for these people now, when the Howard government constantly attacked the most vulnerable people in the community on a regular basis. I must say I have not seen the member championing disadvantaged people in this parliament; rather, I saw him and his colleagues standing up in the House when they were in government and introducing and speaking to the most draconian legislation, which had the most enormous impact on vulnerable people in our community.
I would say to the member, in answer to his question, that I find it the height of hypocrisy that he would stand up here today and try to fault a budget that provides record spending on veterans of $11.59 billion. I thought that the member would be celebrating the increase in money to the veterans community rather than picking up on one small area where there has been a reduction, which is in line with the overall community expectation that people participate in the paid workforce wherever possible rather than call on taxpayer funded income support. This is a member who has time and time again voted for legislation that has attacked the most vulnerable people in our community. I think he should hang his head in shame.
Whilst I am talking about this budget, I would like, for the benefit of the member opposite, to go through a little bit of what is in it. I feel he needs to be enlightened. He needs to learn about the enormous respect for and contribution to the veteran community of the Rudd government. At the same time as we are delivering to the veterans community we are dealing with the inflation and the problems that have been created by the previous government, so we have had a pretty hard job to do. We have had to look after those people in the community that look to government for support but at the same time to clean up the mess that was left behind. This $11.5 billion budget for veterans’ affairs includes $6.34 billion in compensation for income support pensions and $4.87 billion in funding for health and health services. That is very important when you have an ageing population, and our veteran population is an ageing population. It is particularly vulnerable and needs to be able to rely on health and health services. Under the previous government there were enormous problems with accessing health services for veterans. At one stage, because of the underfunding by the previous government, many doctors refused to accept the gold card because the government of the day had eroded the value of it. I am sure that the member opposite welcomes that $4.87 billion in funding for health and health services.
The Rudd government is also delivering on its election promise to restore the value of veterans compensation. It is very important for veterans that are relying on that compensation. It is very important for the member opposite and for all of us to remember that the bulk of veterans and war widows live on fixed incomes and therefore have a greater appreciation of the need to manage Australia’s inflation. As members would know, when you are on a fixed income and you have to pay more for food and more for fuel, it gets harder and harder each day. The challenges are enormous. You have to make decisions about whether to put petrol in the car to drive to the doctor or to put food on the table or about whether or not you can afford to pay for medicines, to visit your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren or to buy any luxuries at all. We understand how vitally important it is to our veteran community to get rid of the inflationary pressures that are a legacy of the previous government.
This budget includes $3 million over three years to help ensure all veterans have access to the support available through Operation Life regardless of where they live in Australia. The budget also includes $20.2 million to carry through the government’s commitment to secure the future of the historic Graythwaite estate in North Sydney and for the provision of aged care services through New South Wales RSL. The provision of aged care services and the commitments made in the budget in relation to aged care services are vital for our veterans community. I am sure all members, particularly those on this side of the House, recognise just how important they are to the veterans community. Ex-service organisations across Australia will now have access to additional financial assistance for their work supporting the veterans community. Without that support by those RSL welfare officers, those working in the RSL assisting veterans—and I thank them enormously for the work they do—the veterans community would be a lot poorer and would be gravely disadvantaged. Those organisations will also be able to access additional funds through the BEST and TIP programs.
These are vital programs. Total additional funding of $14.9 million is being made available over four years, and that includes in 2007-08. There is $6.9 million over three years. That is for those programs. The Rudd government has recognised the role that many veterans play in caring for sick and elderly partners. That is why we have allocated the carers payment, the carers budget bonus, for people on carers allowance and people who are carers who receive a service pension. Some of those people will be receiving up to $1,600. That is in recognition of their contribution. There has also been the change to the utility allowance earlier this year. I think what all this really demonstrates is the commitment of the Rudd government to veterans.
This legislation also provides for an extension of the disability pension bereavement payments. The bereavement payment will be extended under the VEA to the estate of a single recipient—that is, a person who is single; who is in receipt of a special rate, an extreme disability adjustment rate of the disability pension; who dies in indigent circumstances. What that really means is that, if you are a veteran in receipt of one of those benefits and the value of your estate is not sufficient to cover all your liabilities, including your funeral expenses, then that will be taken care of. I think that is very important. These measures are intended to support families of veterans towards meeting the cost of funerals where the deceased dies without sufficient assets to pay for the funeral. I do not think there would be a person in this place who would like to see one of our veterans unable to be buried and put to rest in the manner in which they deserve. Those veterans have been out there, have fought for our country and have contributed to our nation. As I said at the commencement of my contribution to this debate, their contribution has been enormous. The least that we can do is give them a good send-off.
The payment will be made to the estate of the deceased veteran. This measure is expected to commence on 1 July 2008. The bereavement payment consists of a one-off payment of 12 weeks worth of the special rate of the EDA rate of disability pension. It is estimated that the measure will benefit around eight special rate and 15 EDA single pension families per year. That, I think, is worth while.
The legislation also extends the automatic grant of war widow or war widower pensions. The VEA provides for the automatic granting of war widow or widower pensions to the widows or widowers of certain classes of disability pensioners, such as those receiving the TPI or the EDA. The measure extends the automatic grant to partners of deceased veterans or members who were receiving the temporary special rate or the disability pension under the VEA. The aim of this measure is to provide some peace of mind to these veterans and their families. The measure will commence on 1 July. These measures provide war widows and widowers access to the support supplement and the gold card for treatment. It is expected to benefit approximately 23 war widows or widowers per year. Once again, it is something that is going to improve circumstances for our veterans.
In conclusion, I would like to suggest to the member opposite that he should really think carefully before he raises issues about the Rudd government’s treatment of our veterans. The Rudd government has increased the commitment to our veterans enormously. He should hang his head in shame when he thinks about the way the government he was part of attacked the most vulnerable people in our community. (Time expired)
2825
12:31:00
Marles, Richard, MP
HWQ
Corio
ALP
1
0
Mr MARLES
—I rise to support the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008. This bill is about extending three entitlements which currently exist for the veterans community. First and foremost, this is a bill which is about honouring the commitments that Rudd Labor made in the lead-up to the 2007 election. This represents the mantra of this government: what we took to the election, the promises we made in that election, will be what we ultimately do when we are in government—and what we are doing in government. There is no distinction on this side of the House between a promise which is described as a core promise, and a non-core promise. If it is a promise that has been taken to the election, if it is a promise upon which people voted at that election, then that forms part of the mandate of the government and that mandate will be fulfilled.
This stands in stark contrast to the manner in which the previous government operated in the implementation of the Work Choices legislation. It was the single biggest piece of legislation in the last term of that government and yet not a word about it was breathed in the 2004 election, which gave rise to that term of government. What we now see with the Rudd government is a very different way of operating. It will act upon the promises it takes to an election and make sure that they form the heart of the program the government then implements.
In this bill we have two entitlements that it is estimated will apply to only about 23 families each. Despite that, it was a promise that we took to the election and it is a promise that we now fulfil. One of the extensions to the entitlements contained in this bill is estimated to cost only about $100,000. But it was a promise we took to the last election and it is a promise that we will fulfil in government.
Turning to the bill, there are three extensions to the entitlements which currently exist in the veterans community. The most significant of those in terms of the number of people that will be affected is contained in schedule 2 of the bill. This represents an extension of the income support supplement which is paid to war widows and war widowers. Right now, war widows and war widowers receive the income support supplement if they have attained the qualifying age of 60 for men or 58½ for women and if they have a dependent child, if they are permanently incapacitated as defined under section 45AA of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 or if they are the partner of a person in receipt of certain pensions.
This list of criteria, which is the basis for receiving the income support supplement at the moment, is both outdated and unfair. It is creating a level of injustice within the veterans community. This bill and this particular extension to the existing entitlement will extend the income support supplement to those widows and widowers who are under the current entitlement age and who have no dependants. Effectively what that does is remove these outdated and unfair criteria which exist at present. This will therefore have the effect of making all war widows and all war widowers eligible for the income support supplement. This will particularly help younger war widows and widowers, and it will obviously help them deal with their bereavement as a result of the death of their loved one and adjust to what will then become a very different life. It is estimated that this extension to the entitlement will apply to 1,400 new families in the veterans community—1,400 families who are currently not receiving that income support supplement. It is a fairer way of applying that entitlement and it is a far more modern way of applying that entitlement.
There are two other extensions to existing entitlements which are smaller in the number of people that will be affected but which are just as significant in terms of the impact that they will have upon those people. The first is contained in schedule 3 of the bill and it involves extending the current bereavement payment. At present there is currently a bereavement payment paid to widows and widowers of veterans which is equivalent to 12 weeks of the disability pension. This is obviously paid with a view to helping defray the costs of funeral expenses and, indeed, with the immediate adjustment to life after the death of their partner. What this extension will do is provide the bereavement payment to the estates of veterans who die in indigent circumstances—that is, veterans who die in circumstances where their estate is unable to cover their costs. In such circumstances at the moment, often the funeral expenses for such veterans are being covered by extended family. By extending this entitlement to veterans who die in indigent circumstances, it will provide significant relief to the extended families of those veterans. It is important to note that that will be a tax-free payment.
The final extension of an entitlement which currently exists is the extension of the automatic grant of the war widow and war widower pension. At present, war widows and war widowers whose partner was in receipt of certain pensions immediately prior to their death are automatically granted the war widow or war widower pension. What this extension will do is add to that list of pensions—which is the basis of that criteria—two additional pensions, which therefore extends the criteria. We will then have a situation under this bill where war widows or war widowers will automatically be granted that pension if their partner was a veteran who, immediately prior to their death, was in receipt of the temporary special rate disability pension and the intermediate rate disability pension—again, an important extension for those families. Each of these entitlements will become available from 1 July 2008—that is, this year. Taken as a whole, this represents a package which will significantly improve the amount that is paid to the veteran community. It represents the high esteem in which the veteran community is held by the Rudd Labor government.
There is no place where that esteem is held higher than in my electorate in the city of Geelong. There is a resurgent interest in Geelong, as indeed there is I think around Australia, in Australia’s military history, in those who have served in Australia’s military and in honouring our veteran community. Geelong’s military history is perhaps best exemplified in the person of Albert Jacka. Albert Jacka, of course, is famous for being Australia’s first Victoria Cross winner in the First World War. Albert Jacka was born in Winchelsea in the Geelong region and was raised there. He was born in 1893. He enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force, the AIF, on 8 September 1914 and was then assigned to the 14th Battalion 4th Brigade of the 1st Division of the AIF.
He arrived in Egypt on 31 January 1915, along with thousands of other Australians who for the first time were seeing a much wider world and who were engaging in what they thought was to be their great life adventure—and, of course, for many, that is what occurred. Albert Jacka went on to fight at Gallipoli and, in an extraordinary confrontation with two of his comrades, he was involved in an engagement with the enemy in open ground where he reclaimed a position which is known as Courtney’s Post. For that he won the Victoria Cross—as I said, the first Victoria Cross that was won by an Australian in the great war. His citation read:
On 19/20 May 1915, at “Courtney’s Post”, Gallipoli, Turkey, Lance Corporal Jacka, while holding a portion of our trench with four other men, was heavily attacked. When all except himself were killed or wounded, and the trench was rushed and occupied by seven Turks, Lance Corporal Jacka most gallantly attacked them single handed, killing the whole party, five by rifle and two with the bayonet.
It is said that when Albert Jacka’s commanding officer came to the trench shortly after that engagement he found Albert Jacka sitting there calmly amongst the dead with a cigarette in his mouth and he simply said, ‘I managed to get the beggars, Sir,’ which, in a sense, is a very laconic statement of the Australian character—an Australian character which has very much been defined by the actions of our servicemen in conflict.
From there, Albert Jacka went on to serve in Europe throughout the First World War. In May 1918 he was injured. He suffered a gassing and an injury to his trachea. It was felt at the time that he would not survive but he did, and he returned to Australia in September 1919. Albert Jacka went on to become the mayor of St Kilda. He died in 1931 because, it is thought, of his war wounds, and he was buried in the St Kilda Cemetery.
I take you through that story partly because it is the description of Geelong’s greatest military hero, but it is also worth remembering that in the person of Albert Jacka, a person who died very prematurely, really, at the age of 38, of war wounds, we had somebody who, even with such a short life, spent most of his life as a veteran. Albert Jacka won his Victoria Cross at the age of 22. He came back to Australia at the age of 26, but he spent most of his adult life as a veteran—a veteran suffering a wound that he had incurred in the service of his nation. It speaks volumes about the life that those who have served our country experience and how important it is that we provide for veterans in our community and honour their legacy and the service they have given. Of course, this bill is very much aimed at doing that.
In Geelong we have a significant veterans community. It was my great privilege earlier this year, on 4 March, to participate in a local flag-raising ceremony. The flag that previously existed at this particular place had become tatty and they wanted a new Australian flag, so it was a great honour for me to participate in a flag-raising ceremony with Rodney Meeke, the President of the Geelong RSL, at the RSL Village Geelong in Bell Park. It was a wonderful occasion. The RSL Village Geelong in Bell Park is a very significant institution for providing support to veterans. There are veterans who live there who have fought in a number of conflicts in Australia’s history dating back to World War II. At the RSL Village Geelong in Bell Park I had the real honour of meeting Ed Patterson, a veteran of the Kokoda campaign. As I stood in his kitchen, I listened enthralled as he told stories of the conflict that occurred on the Kokoda Track and his experiences there, and I felt incredibly honoured that a person of his service—a person who had participated in such an important moment in our country’s history, at such an important moment in defining both the identity and the independence of our country—was living amongst us. I think that the sense of honour that I felt in being in the presence of Ed Patterson is reflected, I believe, in the renewed sense that we see across Australia in commemorating the service that our veterans have given but also celebrating them within our community now.
I think we have seen that in the resurgence in the number of people who have participated in Anzac Day ceremonies, and that of course occurred in Geelong last Anzac Day. Lots of veterans—and not only veterans but people from the whole community in Geelong—participated in the various Anzac Day ceremonies that occurred last month. In the pre-dawn service at Johnson Park, which is the main park in the centre of Geelong, it was estimated that the attendance was up by 25 per cent on the previous year, and indeed that previous year had had a record attendance. At the mid-morning service at 11.30 am in Johnson Park, which is the service that attracts the largest number of people in Geelong, there were 7½ thousand people participating in that event, an incredible number really. I had the honour of being at that event and sitting on the stage and being able to see that whole crowd in front of us. Again it was estimated that that represented a 15 per cent increase on the previous best turnout.
There is a really significant phenomenon that is going on in Geelong, and of course going on across Australia, in terms of the people who are participating in these events. I think what it says is that people are searching for an identity in the events that have occurred in our military history, and that is rightly so because our military history has gone a long way to defining the character of our country. It is therefore very important to understand the role that our veterans have played in contributing to the character and the identity of our nation. Of course, that is a character and an identity which we in the Rudd Labor government, and I am sure those on the other side, are very much keen to celebrate and honour. What this bill represents is an attempt at doing that—at making sure that the package of this suite of entitlements is improved for veterans—and in doing that we honour the legacy of their service and we place the veterans in an appropriate position of respect within our community.
2829
12:47:00
Raguse, Brett, MP
HVQ
Forde
ALP
1
0
Mr RAGUSE
—Today I would like to talk about the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008 but more about those within our community who do a lot of work and support veterans and others. Just as a little bit of a run-through of the bill itself, this is an election promise that has been delivered, providing more money for veterans and their families. In addition to the $6.34 billion this government will spend on compensation and income support pensions, this record veterans affairs budget provides $4 million for veteran mental health, focusing on the vital area of suicide prevention; $14.9 million over four years to ex-service organisations to boost their capacity to support the veteran community; and $20 million to secure the future of the historic Graythwaite estate in North Sydney and the provision of aged services provided by the RSL. This is in contrast to the previous government, who never funded their promises. Veterans did not have to wait for this budget to benefit from the change of government. Effective from 20 March, the veteran community received increased pensions for war widows, widowers and disability pensioners via fairer indexation—indexation of up to $1,045 each per year—increased carers payments of between $600 and $1,600 per carer and increased telephone and utilities allowance. The federal budget overall is a financially responsible budget. The bulk of veterans and war widows live on fixed incomes and therefore have a greater appreciation of the need to manage Australia’s inflationary pressures.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—I have a question for the member, if that would be acceptable.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Will the member allow a question?
HVQ
Raguse, Brett, MP
Mr RAGUSE
—I am happy to take a question.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—In light of the member’s concerns about price rises and impacts on veterans’ families, does the member for Forde support the increase in the age for the receipt of pensions for veterans’ partners from 50 years to 58½, an 8½-year increase overnight in the complying age?
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member’s question must be brief. Thank you.
HVQ
Raguse, Brett, MP
Mr RAGUSE
—Madam Deputy Speaker, I would prefer to take that on notice and maybe provide more information. I am happy to have a discussion outside this session, and I will certainly take that on notice. I am happy to respond. I would certainly talk about some of your colleagues in opposition who were not in attendance at particular important events. I am going to talk about that a little bit and then we can talk about some of the financial concerns that you may have.
This is a Rudd government initiative and we have delivered on our election commitment as we promised, and detail has been provided by the other speakers. I really want to pay tribute today to those who have supported the veterans—not only their spouses, who finally have received some benefit for their sacrifices, but many of the community groups like the RSL and other veterans associations who have worked in the background. Without their support and representation, we would not have been able to direct the best benefits to those veterans and their families.
In the electorate of Forde—and that is probably my major concern—we have a large number of returned service men and women. Of course, the measures in our record budget—currently the measures benefit only 400 people—will provide a benefit to 1,400 veterans of campaigns and their families. The electorate of Forde, as I have said, has a large number of people and a large number of community organisations that support those veterans. I was privileged to represent the Prime Minister at a function on the Gold Coast on the weekend to commemorate the Battle of the Coral Sea. It was well attended. The American consul general was there representing the American President and he spoke on behalf of the President. I delivered the Prime Minister’s address and we also had a response from the captain of the USS Cleveland, which is currently in Brisbane. Interestingly enough, while I am not the member for that area, the members of the three Gold Coast seats were invited but none of them saw fit to actually attend the ceremony. Yes, they may have had other pressing engagements, but it was a little bit obvious and concerning to those who had organised the event and who have had a very good relationship with both sides of government that, as a representative of the government, I was the only one there, when the function was not in my electorate.
Putting that aside, I would like to comment on those in the community of Forde who have supported veterans for a long time. A lot of these changes have been made not simply because we understood overnight that there was concern but because of those within the community organisations—the RSL and veterans groups. I particularly mention a number of people: from the Beenleigh RSL, Tom Childs and Richard Hetherington; Joe Mulders from the Tambourine RSL; and from another community organisation, RSL veterans’ affairs, Bill Meiers and Gaven Thurlow, who work with the Vietnam vets. These are people who have shown a lot of concern and have been frustrated for many years that government was not listening to them. During the election campaign we found, as our election commitments have proved, that there was a huge need. As I said earlier, as early as March this year we provided changes that led into this budget round.
I would also like to reflect on my own personal experiences. My grandfather, who died in the early seventies, was a Gallipoli veteran. Of course, the government of the day did not see fit to provide the sorts of benefits that we are providing now. I know that it was very, very difficult for my family. My grandfather was highly decorated, but that came at a huge personal sacrifice to his family and he was never given any recognition. Likewise, my other grandfather, who was a veteran of the Somme, was tragically killed in the 1960s in a motor car accident that left my grandmother quite devastated financially and otherwise.
It is clear that we can send people off to war—and the other side of government seems to have more of a penchant for that than we do—but on their return it is about looking after our veterans and their families. As the Prime Minister said in parliament yesterday, it is the families that make a lot of the sacrifices. Not only do they lose a family member to a campaign but also on their return they confront other issues. As I said, I have been involved with members of our local RSLs for some time and it is quite terrible to see people who have served their countries not getting the sort of support that we are now providing in our budget.
To hark back to the commemoration of the Battle of the Coral Sea that I attended on the weekend, that battle has a particular interest for me. I grew up in a family in which, while I had no military service myself, both my mother and my father had served in the Second World War. My mother in fact was in the Women’s Air Force and was stationed in Townsville. She was actually landside when the Battle of the Coral Sea was occurring. She was a spotter and a plotter of enemy aircraft.
Up until about five years ago, the government would not recognise her service or the service of other females who served landside in those battles. They had to declare, finally, that Townsville was a battle zone. She is now 87 and doing very well, but in her early 80s she was told that she could not have benefits that other veterans may have had. It was the RSL that came on board and supported the changes that we have made in this legislation, which will certainly go a long way to resolving those issues.
In terms of the advocacy that the RSL and other organisations provide, I would certainly like to pay special tribute to Noel Payne, who works in my electorate. Noel Payne served in the Royal Navy from 1965 to 1975. With all that previous service, Noel has been an advocate for people who have issues with government pensions and entitlements. I suspect that, after our legislative changes, Noel may not have as much work to do in that advocacy process because a lot of the issues he was fighting for are now looked at and considered in our bill. Noel was awarded an OAM for his services because, as I said, he has given a lot of time and commitment to this. Being a returned service person himself, and with legal training, he understands the issues and is able to advocate for people who have not been considered within previous legislation and payments.
As I said, my family were involved in the military for a number of generations. So it is good for me to be part of this government and the consideration of this bill and its changes in the House. I would like to close by saying that it is an issue that we have considered long and hard. Community organisations within the seat of Forde will be applauding this particular change. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Dr Kelly) adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 12.58 pm to 3.59 pm
VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2007 ELECTION COMMITMENTS) BILL 2008
2831
Bills
R2950
Second Reading
2831
Debate resumed.
2831
15:59:00
KELLY, Mike, MP
HRI
Eden-Monaro
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support
1
0
Dr KELLY
—It is a great pleasure to rise in support of the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008. I flagged in my first speech that I would be an advocate for our veteran community during my time in parliament, and it is inspiring to see that we are delivering on one of our fundamental election commitments. It will be reassuring to the community that this is the case, as it sends a clear signal and is proof that the Rudd Labor government will deliver on its election commitments.
While we often talk of the need to ensure the welfare of our veterans, as a society we have waxed and waned in meeting this obligation in the past. There is one side to the veterans’ story in particular that has not been well appreciated or adequately addressed. That story is the hidden toll upon and sacrifice made by the families of veterans. It is important that this story be told and that we take the necessary action that awareness must bring. It is certainly important because of what we owe to the veterans and their families. It is also important for the peace of mind and the effectiveness of our current service men and women and their families. We cannot expect that the ADF will function at its best unless its members engage in service and in operations in the knowledge that their families will be looked after. Abraham Lincoln understood this only too well when he spoke the immortal words of his second inaugural speech in 1865, only a few months before he himself was to become a casualty of the long civil war that was coming to a close at that time. He finished that speech by exhorting the nation to care for those who had borne the battle and their widows and orphans as the first among tasks in the healing that must follow conflict. It is my view that keeping faith with this sacred obligation is one of the measures by which we judge the worth of our society.
In my own electorate of Eden Monaro, I am privileged to represent many thousands of veterans and their families. Altogether there are 3,336 Department of Veterans’ Affairs beneficiaries, including 838 war widow pensioners. It was one of the factors that weighed with me in making the decision to stand for the seat. As I travelled around during the campaign, I was to encounter many of these special members of our community and to hear their concerns. Among them were veterans of the Kokoda Track, the air war over Germany and service on the perilous seas of the Indian and Pacific oceans during World War II. There were proud veterans of Vietnam and other post World War II conflicts and peace operations to which we have sent soldiers, sailors and airmen. They talked to me in particular about the situation regarding the indexation mechanism for their superannuation pensions and their struggles to keep pace with the real cost of living. They spoke of some improvements they would like to see in the medical support they are provided and of their hopes that the Rudd Labor government will maintain the security of this country and properly support the new generation of veterans. In this respect, we have tragically experienced recent additions to those who have lost loved ones in action. The funeral of Lance Corporal Jason Marks was a poignant reminder of this, and my heart goes out to his family. I was pleased to pass the concerns and views of my veteran community on to our team, and they have been and are being taken seriously.
Beyond these issues, though, I also came across the stories of the families of veterans. I understood these stories, as I had witnessed aspects of them in my own experiences and family history. My grandfather Ben Kelly was a sergeant in the 2nd/3rd Machine Gun Battalion in World War II and saw service in the Middle East and Java before being captured by the Japanese, along with the rest of his unit, and being sent to work on the Burma-Thai railway. The experiences he endured were only fully revealed to me on reading the diaries of ‘Weary’ Dunlop, whose movements and locations mirrored my grandfather’s. There were only a handful of searing events that my grandfather was prepared to recount, such as having to watch the beheading of his best friend. The sheer brutality and sadistic cruelty that he and his comrades endured can never be fully comprehended, but we should never cease to appreciate what we were spared by their fight against fascism. To this day, pride of place in my possessions is reserved for the loin cloth he wore and his PW badge from that time.
When he was evacuated from Thailand to Australia, he was taken to the hospital at Heidelberg, in Victoria, where he slowly recovered, and he eventually rejoined the family after many months. I have a wonderful photo from April 1946 which celebrates this reunion. I was able to trace the information flow that came back to Australia through his service record. It is difficult to appreciate the mental anguish that his wife must have endured through the war. At first the only information she had was that he was missing. This was followed by advice that he was missing, believed a PW. Finally confirmation came through that he was alive and a PW. By this time, though, there were already reports of the brutality with which captives were treated, and this must have weighed heavily on my grandmother’s mind.
In looking at my grandfather’s service record, the other thing that strikes you is the fact that he, along with so many others of the first wave of volunteers in the 2nd AIF, was on active service for 2,043 days and most of this time was spent overseas. It is hard to imagine today the special endurance of a spouse and a relationship under the strain of almost six years of absence, wondering whether or in what condition a loved one would return. What feelings and sensations would my grandmother have had when she first saw her emaciated and traumatised husband on his return from captivity? It was a great privilege for me to march on this year’s Anzac Day in Bega, my first since leaving the Regular Army, wearing his medals—as he was a proud born and bred Bega boy. Coincidentally, I found myself marching next to a World War II veteran who was also a survivor of the railway, which made the day all the more poignant.
Of course, during those post World War II years it was a given that to give any indication of mental anguish from the war was a shameful sign of weakness in an Australian male and it was considered bad form to talk about your experiences to your loved ones and regale them with the horror you had endured. Added to this for the PW was the perception that somehow they had let the side down by being captured. There were no real outlets for these veterans, so they internalised and suffered with no help. This in turn led to the development of severe pathologies. The manifestation of this would often be nightmares, alcohol abuse and domestic violence. This was often compounded by the inevitable physical ailments and disabilities that resulted from the sadistic brutality and deprivation they suffered. It was the families that also bore the brunt of this. What special courage and endurance did it require to live through many years of this experience with no recognition or acknowledgement and little help?
One such woman, a constituent from Queanbeyan, Thelma Walters, came to me for help. Her story represents those of so many in my electorate and across the land. Thelma dearly loved her husband, Carl, and there is no doubt that Carl felt the same about her and their children. On his return to Australia, and due to his experience in World War II as a prisoner of war of the Japanese, he was not the same man she married or farewelled to the war. For 20 years she lived through all I have described and so much more. Often was the night when Thelma would wake in shock and fright with her husband’s hands wrapped around her throat in a struggle with his demons. He suffered from constant blackouts and spent long months in Concord Repatriation General Hospital. He sought solace in the bottle, which in turn would lead to violence towards Thelma. Often he would disappear for periods of time. This culminated in Thelma surviving an attempted murder, for which her husband in his deteriorating state of mind was unfortunately charged. Finally, for her own self-preservation, Thelma had no other choice but to succumb to the urgings of all who cared about her to separate from her husband. This solution, while removing the immediate physical threat, led to its own burdens of guilt, mental anguish and loss after so many long years of marriage with someone she had never stopped loving. It also meant that Thelma suffered financially, as her divorce led to the loss of war widow entitlements when Carl passed away. I had been pursuing an ex gratia payment on Thelma’s behalf, as I believed that was the least we could do for someone whose private war went on for 20 long years.
Thelma’s own health had suffered over the years, and she recently went into hospital for a hip replacement. In her vulnerable state, however, complications subsequently set in and Thelma passed away on 7 May without returning home from hospital. She was laid to rest yesterday. For Thelma, now all the pain and struggle is over and she is finally at peace. Her passing for those who loved her is eased by knowing that this is so and that in accordance with her deep faith she has gone to something better. The world has been a better place for her having been among us, as despite her own problems Thelma was always there for countless others in her family and community—as was evidenced by the more than 100 people who attended her funeral. She lives on in her wonderful children, Barry, Narelle and Jackie, her grandchildren and her great-grandchildren, in the contribution she made to our community and in our thoughts. Thelma Walters is a tribute to the great generation to whom we owe so much. When I think of this legislation, I will think of Thelma and of the sacrifice of all the families of veterans.
As the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs stated when introducing this measure, it is a significant step towards fulfilling our commitment to deliver better services to our veterans and their dependants. It will extend the income support supplement to war widows and war widowers who are under qualifying age and remove a number of other impediments to this support, immediately benefiting around 1,400 people. The bill retains payment of income support so that incapacitated war widows or widowers who are under age pension age will continue to receive their income support supplement as a tax-free payment. There will also be additional support for war widows and widowers to help them meet the cost of living. The bill will extend entitlements to disability pension bereavement payments to help the families of veterans to meet funeral costs. The bill will also extend the automatic grant of war widow, widower or orphan pensions to the widows, widowers and eligible children of veterans and members who immediately before their death were in receipt of a temporary special rate or immediate rate disability pension.
As I have said, this is a significant step, and the other measures announced in the budget demonstrate our commitment to veterans and their families. This budget represents record spending for veterans’ affairs—$11.59 billion—not just because of inflation but in real terms. In addition to the $6.34 billion this government will spend on compensation and income support pensions, this record veterans affairs budget provides $4 million for veteran mental health, focusing on the vital area of suicide prevention; $14.9 million over four years to ex-service organisations to boost their capacity to support the veteran community; and $20 million to secure the future of the historic Graythwaite Estate in North Sydney and for the provision of aged-care services provided by the RSL.
This is in contrast to the previous government, which never funded their promises. Veterans did not have to wait for this budget to benefit from the change of government. Effective from 20 March, the veteran community received increased pensions for war widows, widowers and disability pensioners via fairer indexation—up to $1,045 each per year; increased carer payments of between $600 and $1,600 per carer; and increased telephone and utilities allowances. The federal budget overall is a financially responsible budget. The bulk of veterans and war widows live on fixed incomes and therefore have a greater appreciation of the need to contain and manage Australia’s inflationary pressures.
The member for Gilmore in her contribution drew to the chamber’s attention the issue of the Korean post-armistice review. I thank the member for her interest in the issue and the plight of the Korean veterans, of which we are fully apprised. The Rudd Labor government has committed to implementing the review. Defence and DVA will shortly be providing advice on the implementation of the review, and the government will then move to fulfil its commitment. Notwithstanding all of these measures and what I have said, I fully acknowledge that we have more miles to travel before we rest on veterans issues.
2835
16:12:00
Griffin, Alan, MP
VU5
Bruce
ALP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs
1
0
Mr GRIFFIN
—in reply—I would like to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008. Later on I will say a bit more on what was said by a number of speakers. This bill delivers a number of election commitments to the ex-service community and is a significant step in meeting this government’s undertaking to deliver better services to Australia’s veterans and their dependants. Firstly, the bill extends the automatic grant of war widow, widower or orphan pension to the widows, widowers and eligible children of veterans and members who, immediately before their death, were in receipt of the temporary special rate or intermediate rate disability pension. This measure also extends gold card eligibility to the dependants of these veterans and members. The dependants will become entitled to free health care for all conditions.
Secondly, the bill extends eligibility for the income support supplement to all war widows and widowers. The measure removes the previous requirements that a war widow or widower be over qualifying age and have a dependent child, be permanently incapacitated or be the partner of a person receiving an income support pension. From 1 July 2008 all war widows and widowers will, subject to the means test, have access to additional income support in the form of the income support supplement. To ensure that no war widow or widower is disadvantaged by this change, the payment of the income support supplement on the grounds of permanent incapacity will be retained. This will mean that, for those war widows or widowers who are incapacitated and who are under the age pension age, the income support supplement will continue to be a tax-free payment.
Finally, the bill extends in respect of certain single disability pension recipients the disability pension bereavement payment. Currently this payment is only payable in respect of partnered disability pension recipients. Under this measure, disability pension bereavement payments will be payable in respect of single recipients of the special rate and extreme disablement adjustment rate of disability pensions who die in indigent circumstances. The bereavement payment is a one-off payment equivalent to 12 weeks of the special rate or extreme disablement adjustment rate of the disability pension. The bereavement payment will help the families of veterans and members to meet the cost of the funeral. The measures in this bill clearly demonstrate that the government is serious about its pre-election commitments to better look after the veteran community and their families.
I note that this bill has been supported by all speakers. It is interesting, though, to note that, while the bill has been supported by each member of the opposition who has spoken, the opposition had nearly 12 years in government to act on these particular issues and they chose not to. That is interesting. I applaud and welcome the fact that now, when they are no longer in government, they have actually agreed to, and support the fact that we are taking, these actions. But I would add that these are not matters which were raised during the death knell before the last election. They were matters which were on the public record as a matter of public concern for years beforehand, and the previous government at that time chose to do nothing about it.
It is also interesting to note the member for Gilmore’s comments regarding the report with respect to post-armistice Korean veterans. As the member for Eden Monaro has said, we are currently in the process of dealing between departments to ensure that the recommendations from that review are supported. But the member for Gilmore was part of a government which rejected most of the recommendations of that review. She was part of a government that had the opportunity to act on these matters and actually refused to do so. I want to assure her that we are in discussions with the post-armistice Korean veterans. We have met with them since the election, we are in the process of working through these issues and we will act with respect to this matter—unlike the government of which she was part.
Many members took the opportunity as part of this debate, as is not unusual with amending legislation, to raise a number of issues with respect to the budget or various aspects of what they believe to be the impact of the budget. I will not spend much time on those issues now because I know there will be other occasions in this place where we will have the opportunity to debate them in more detail. I will welcome those opportunities to discuss some of the measures in the budget and any concerns people might have with respect to their operation and impact on members of the veterans community. But what I will say very briefly is this: this is a record budget with respect to expenditure on veterans affairs. The principal reason for that is, frankly, the implementation of changes which were passed by the previous government, with the support of the then opposition, but came about as a result of pressure put by the ex-service community and by the opposition in the period leading up to the last election.
There are many members here—and I note the member for Fadden is not one of them—who know that before the last election the then opposition, the Labor Party, campaigned long and hard on the issue of indexation, particularly in relation to special rate pensioners. And there were many members—and, I might add, a number of them are not here anymore—who were very belated in terms of their support for that position and who went out publicly and opposed it over quite a period of time. The previous government, who had had this issue raised with them over a 10-year period, did on numerous occasions take a position to not support those calls for a fairer indexation system. I give credit where credit is due: to the previous Minister for Veterans’ Affairs for being able to convince his government to finally act on this issue late last year. I give him credit for doing that. But I note once again that it took 10 years for the government of the day to move, and then only in the context of an election being called and only in a situation where they were fully aware of the fact that they were in grave danger of defeat. And, as we know, that is exactly what the Australian people meted out to them.
The bottom line for members of the opposition is that it is all very well to come along here and be critical of this government implementing its election commitments, as it has done with this legislation or with respect to the budget, when in fact they are glossing over what their record was in this area when they were in government. There was 10 years of basic neglect, only acted upon in the last 18 months. And, in those circumstances, the veterans community of this country were aware of that, understood it and many of them, at the ballot box, acted accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH
2837
Governor-General's Speech
Address-in-Reply
2837
Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Hale:
That the Address be agreed to.
2837
16:20:00
Laming, Andrew, MP
E0H
Bowman
LP
0
0
Mr LAMING
—I would like to take this opportunity in the debate on the address-in-reply to the Governor-General’s speech on the legislative agenda for this term to highlight a unique part of Australian political history—in fact, the nexus of two very important events, one well known in Queensland and one completely unknown, I think, until my address today. Of course, with all fascinating stories about political history there is a plot, a character and a context. In this context, it is Cape York, one of the most remote parts of this country, a place of extraordinary natural beauty but also isolation, colourful characters and a fascinating potential for ecotourism and, in the areas around Cape Tribulation, the home of the Kuku Yalanji people. The context is that I was visiting a new establishment, the finest restaurant between Cairns and Hong Kong, some have argued—apologies to Port Douglas: Whet Restaurant, which is run by two young and extraordinary individuals, Michelle and Matt Wenden, at 1 Cape Tribulation Road, Cape Tribulation.
It was there that I had a chance meeting with Mr Patrick Shears, a man who many in Queensland will know was part of the foxtail palm controversy back in 1994. It was the topic of a Four Corners episode in April of that year. He was the lead character, an unwitting parks ranger for the Cape York region who stumbled upon four-wheel drives and armed individuals allegedly harvesting foxtail palm seeds worth between $5 and $6 each on the black market. Very cleverly, as a former Vietnam veteran, he waited until they were away from their cars and actually drove away with their four-wheel drives, leaving them completely stranded with their foxtail palms and no way of getting out. Later, when asked how exactly he stole their cars, he said, ‘The keys were in the ignition’—so little did they expect to find a Vietnam vet and barefooted park ranger who would manage to leave them completely stranded.
Of course, Pat’s fate from that event was sealed and the subject of a documentary. What is lesser known from that Cape Melville affair is that Pat Shears to this day remains in Cape Tribulation helping out tourists, offering hospitality and looking after stations and other areas when requested or required by locals who need a break in some of the most remote parts of Australia. Typically, when Mr Shears is there, he will say: ‘What else can I check out for you? What’s going on? Is there anything suspicious or unusual?’
Among his stories is that one of the caves has the remnants of Portuguese explorers from the 17th century, including body armour—remnants deep in a cave which have been found and to this date remain in a secret location known only to a few Indigenous elders. There is hope that this important part of Australian history can one day be revealed.
But the other fascinating part of history that I would like to elaborate upon today is known as Communist Cave. This is like some sort of mystery novel—a place out the back of Townsville, the other side of Hidden Valley. The story begins in 1939, when there was a non-aggression pact signed between then Nazi Germany and Russia. That neutrality treaty resulted in the federal minister for information in Australia in 1940 announcing a total ban on a range of communist publications—the Tribune, the Communist Review, the Militant and the Red Star, among others. On 5 June 1940, after the fall of Paris, the Communist Party of Australia was declared illegal under the National Security (Subversive Associations) Regulations. As a consequence of this, clandestine printing operations were set up all around Australia. One of these was outside Townsville—no easy matter to do in those days. Printing presses were large and cumbersome items and these were carried on donkey right up deep into ravines, with them often having to backtrack to conceal their location. Sure enough, in 1940 a printing press was in operation in Thunderbolt Creek, just to the west of Mount Zero Station. It was used to print communist propaganda that was distributed around Townsville and to the tin miners, who numbered many hundreds in those days. There was a community of 200 Communist Party members in Hidden Valley at the time. The newspaper was actually titled the Spark, and of course it was a two-hour horse ride to bring these hand-printed newsletter and newspapers back to Townsville and secretly distribute them.
History, as it often does, turned again and, with the invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany in 1941 and Stalin turning to the West for help, the relationship with the communists changed somewhat and the ban on the Australian Communist Party was lifted; hence all printing ceased. All that activity stopped for nearly nine years until again, under Prime Minister Menzies, the communist dissolution bill was introduced. Again the printing started and, once again, when the referendum was defeated, printing stopped again.
Far be it from me to suggest that Communist Cave could be a great place for the Labor Party to do some branch building. If you do go back there you will be greeted not so much by hospitality or even a printing press, which appears to have disappeared, but by a hammer and sickle painted on the roof of the cave, as well as beds, mattresses, personal possessions, lamps, cooking utensils and rusting cans and bottles. It really is a faded reminder of turbulent years past and of Australia’s just as turbulent relationship with the Communist Party. This cave was found by Mr Patrick Shears after the recommendations of locals. It probably would have remained nothing more than rumour had it not been for his extraordinary determination to locate it. He even had—which he had hoped to keep secret—the locations written out by hand, and I have that here. I will be giving that to the Australian Museum.
There is a lesson. We have some extraordinary Australians who are doing incredible things. Parts of history just like this—and there are rumours around Cape York of many other fabulous and fantastic things yet to be uncovered—deserve to be remembered, recalled and recorded, as should the great work of Patrick Shears in that part of the world.
2839
16:26:00
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
1
0
Mr BEVIS
—The debate on the address-in-reply is normally one we have in the weeks immediately after the parliament opens. It seems somewhat strange to have the debate during the budget session, but I guess that is a product of the sitting pattern and the legislative program. I do want to go back to the first days of the parliament after the election, to the Governor-General’s speech and to the circumstances that we all observed and participated in in that first week. In doing so, I want to again comment upon the very worthwhile welcome to country that Indigenous Australians provided for the opening of the parliament and upon the historic day that followed, when the parliament and the nation said sorry to the Indigenous peoples of Australia. One of my constituents and an active person within the Aboriginal community and Reconciliation Australia, Jackie Huggins, was there that day. I am happy to say that, on my parliamentary office wall, in the entry, is a wonderful photo of Jackie and my wife, Cathy, and me celebrating the events of that day. I truly believe it was a significant moment in the history of our nation. I was surprised that evening when I watched the news to discover that so many people around the country had stopped what they were doing—whether it was at work or at school—and turned on the television set to listen to the debates here. In the weeks that followed, when we were back in our electorates, I was surprised at the number of people who had done just that and who spoke to me about it and at the number of schools who wanted to share their thoughts and their support and to be part of that sentiment. It was a historic event and a very important occasion for all of us.
The Governor-General’s address set out the broadbrush plans of the new Rudd Labor government. It is normal in these things to reflect on the events of the election, on what transpired and on the plans that the government and, I guess, the opposition may have for the years ahead. I have no doubt—thinking back over the last two or three years—that the issue more than any other that affected the people of Brisbane was their concern about their livelihoods, about their conditions of employment and about what Work Choices was doing to all of that. There was no doubt at all that, more than any other issue, that was in the minds of people. I have to say that that was not because in my electorate the trade unions conducted a high-profile campaign. They did not. I would have been more than happy for them to do so if they wished. It certainly was an issue that I campaigned on. It was something that touched virtually every family.
I will mention just two examples. I can remember conducting Saturday mobile offices, as we all do. We had a petition there against Work Choices. Most of us who have been in politics for a while have been out on the stump trying to get people to sign petitions for all manner of things. Usually you accost folk walking past and if you are lucky they are polite, but normally they do not want to stop. I had people literally queuing to sign this petition. I do not think I have ever before, in the years of my active political life, seen that sort of response.
The other example I want to mention was when I was conducting an activity focused on returned service men and women. I was welcoming people to a function and as a gentleman came through the door he sort of grabbed me and said, ‘What are you people doing to stop those terrible industrial relations laws? What are you doing about Work Choices?’ The gathering had absolutely nothing to do with Work Choices. This fellow chewed my ear for a while and I said, ‘Well, we’re actually trying to do what we can to get rid of the laws. They are going to be a big issue at the election.’ At the end of the night, he came up to me and apologised for abusing me and tackling me about it. He then said he was a serving naval officer. He said, ‘This doesn’t affect me, but I’m worried about my kids.’ That drove home very strongly to me just how deeply on the minds of ordinary Australian men and women the issues surrounding Work Choices had become. I am pleased that in the early days of this parliament the new government has already put in place legislation to remove some of the more offensive aspects of that legislation—or at least aspects which were offensive in my eyes and in the eyes of a goodly number of my constituents.
One of the issues that is growing in significance across the country and in my inner-city electorate—with a higher socioeconomic level than many others in the country—is that of climate change. Again unlike most occasions when there are elections, there were local community groups organising public meetings and organising meet-the-candidate days. They were not organised by me or my party apparatus; they were not organised by any of the candidates. They were organised by people who were concerned about climate change and wanted to take the opportunity of a federal election to ask all of those people standing to come along and say what they thought about it. Predictably, most of the crowd had a pretty clear view themselves of what they thought about it. I am not too sure that anyone changed their mind as a result of any of those gatherings. But it was an indication of a genuine concern in the minds of many.
There is no doubt that the question of climate change is one of the greatest challenges confronting not just our parliament but also parliaments of the world—and not just governments of the world but also industries and individuals. This is an issue that we need to take action on sooner rather than later. We have already wasted far too much time. This is not the occasion to have a debate about the ins and outs of climate change, but all of the serious projections indicate that, even if we were to do all of the things that scientists would want us to do tomorrow, we would still confront a worsening situation for somewhere between the next 30 and 50 years. That is a real worry. For many of us in this parliament, it probably will not worry us too much in 50 years time; but it will worry our children and it will worry our grandchildren, and that should worry us even more.
I was very pleased that the first formal act of the new government and of the Prime Minister after becoming Prime Minister was to ratify the Kyoto protocol. There is much that needs to be done. I would like to think on an issue like this, frankly, that we can work more closely together across the political divide. It is desirable that this issue be addressed in the broad interests of all of us. There are economic consequences; there are economic consequences of doing nothing. But we need to confront that issue head-on.
I do not think it was an accident that, when I look at the final results in the last election in the seat of Brisbane, the Labor Party primary vote went up about 2½ to three per cent. The only other party to really increase their vote were the Greens, who also went up by about 2½ per cent. I do not think that was an accident. I think that was very much the will of the people saying: ‘We are concerned about climate change. We actually do think that ratifying Kyoto is an important thing to do and we want our government to take a lead on this not just here at home but around the world.’ I have certainly listened to that concern of the people of Brisbane. Indeed, I have campaigned on it quite extensively for some years.
The third issue which is particularly important to me, and I know to many people in Brisbane, is the educational opportunities that are made available for people in the electorate of Brisbane and across the country. Education and health care are two of the policy areas that first caused me to get involved in politics at all. I do think it is incumbent on the government to ensure that all people in this country have access to high-quality education so that they can reach their full potential irrespective of where they might live or how big their parents’ bank account is. We failed, I think, in the last decade to properly address that, and it was a concern that people raised with me in local schools. Labor’s commitment, which we saw pursued in the budget just last night, to invest heavily in trades training facilities in all secondary schools across Australia was warmly received. The commitment to provide funds to ensure that all year 9, 10, 11 and 12 students are able to get access to computers was also warmly received in the electorate. Before the election I had schools contacting me about it; I can tell you that since the election I have had plenty of schools asking me to come along and talk to them about what they presently have available, what they currently do and what they hope this new Labor government program may be able to provide for them in their community. It is an exciting opportunity.
Over the years, Commonwealth governments on both sides, Labor and Liberal, have instituted major investments in our schools. Indeed, those Commonwealth injections have been critical at different points in our history. It was Commonwealth funds that established the science laboratories in most secondary schools in this country. It was a Commonwealth investment in libraries that saw many secondary schools get decent library and resource centres. I think these projects that Labor is embarking upon now will in time be seen in the same light. They will be a new plateau from which I hope all secondary schools will benefit.
Health care is important in every election. In an electorate like Brisbane, which is going through a major rejuvenation—the demographics of inner-city suburbs not just in Brisbane but in other capital cities are changing—you have the full range of healthcare requirements. So you have those people like my parents’ generation who built their homes after World War II in the late forties and brought their children up and now need specialist care as aged citizens. Overwhelmingly they want to stay in the home they built, where they raised their family. They need support and assistance to do that. They need the health care and the opportunity to get ready access to doctors and medical procedures. But, as that generation moves on, I am now seeing those old schools, like the school I attended as a young lad in my electorate, now growing again as young families move into that suburb. They have a different set of health needs, but all of them are important.
Health care is not cheap; we all know that—it is an expensive business—but it is one of the most vital services we have, if not the most vital. The old story that, if you do not have good health, the rest does not matter is only too true. I think our commitment to end the blame game and to substantially increase the funding of public health and hospitals will be well received by the people. It was certainly an issue in the minds of those in Brisbane during the last election.
I want to make special mention in the health debate of one subgroup: diabetes sufferers and, in particular, type 1 diabetes sufferers. I have made quite a number of speeches in this parliament about type 1 diabetes. Most of us were involved when the children suffering from type 1 diabetes came to the House. I do not know about any other member, but, as I have said on a few occasions, the most powerful lobbying I have ever had to endure was those young kids telling me their story.
One of those young kids who came to see me about 10 years ago is now a young man, Gareth Eldershaw. I am very pleased to say we have kept in regular contact. Just the other day he wrote to me. He is now a youth ambassador for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and he wrote:
May is a special month for JDRF as we try to make the community more aware of Type 1. As you know the jelly baby is a sort of motto that represents a vital aid to help us recover from a “hypo” when our glucose levels are too low. There’s a little blue guy in the envelope that I’d like to give you and ask you to wear in May and especially on Budget night.
I can tell Gareth that I am wearing his little blue guy on my lapel, as I did last night during the budget. Gareth went on:
We talked about the grant to fund the reimbursement of insulin pumps for kids under the age of 18. 3000 pumps for all these kids (over a 5-year period) would cost $35m. It’s a lot of money I know, but you know how much it will save the government in the future? Of course it will make life a bit more bearable (and safe too) if kids can use insulin pumps.
I was very pleased to have been able to ring Gareth up today and say that in last night’s budget we made a step in that direction. I do not pretend that we have gone as far as we need to. I want to see the opportunity to benefit from an insulin pump—and not everybody with diabetes is suited to an insulin pump—be made available to all. But I do applaud the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, for her efforts in recent times in ensuring that the budget includes a provision that will see about 700 young Australians gain access to an insulin pump. I look forward to continuing to work inside government now rather than from the opposition benches to try to have that program extended.
The other issue that I want to mention is broadband. When I have raised this in the past, people have said: ‘Hang on, you’ve got the inner city electorate in Brisbane—10 or 12 kilometres from the GPO is about the boundary of your electorate. What’s the problem?’ Even in inner city Brisbane there are pockets where broadband is not available, and that is a foolish and unacceptable position for a country to place itself in in the 21st century. I will continue to pursue the rollout of broadband particularly to suburbs in my electorate like Upper Kedron and Ferny Grove on a regular basis. Ensuring that high-quality, ultra-fast broadband is available for all Australians is something that we need to pursue as a major investment in the future of our people and the industries of the future. This is not just some social welfare activity, this is the income-generating tool of the future and the present, and we are behind many other countries that we would compare ourselves with in the OECD. It is time we caught up.
In the couple of minutes remaining to me, I want to make a few comments and thank yous. This is actually—I had to sit down and count it up—the seventh election that I have contested for the federal seat of Brisbane on behalf of the Labor Party and it is for all of us—
HM5
Georgiou, Petro, MP
Mr Georgiou
—And you survived.
ET4
Bevis, Arch, MP
Mr BEVIS
—And I survived. The miraculous one I survived was the 1996 election. After seven elections, it is a humbling experience every time, I have to say. It does not matter how often you confront the people, it is a humbling experience to know that they place their trust in you to do the right thing and to represent them, and it is an enormous honour that we all have the privilege of shouldering here. I am sure none of us in this room at the moment forgets that. Sometimes you wonder when you see some of the goings-on in parliament, but the truth is that, for all of us, it is a great honour.
I want to thank my campaign team. For those of us who are incumbents, sitting members, I think first and foremost you should acknowledge your staff. For those of us who are incumbents, this is not an election campaign you conduct in the last three or four weeks; it is a three-year activity. The people are judging you on what you do every day. As federal members, we spend half of our lives in Canberra and another four or five weeks roaming the country with committees or as ministers or as shadow ministers, and we rely very heavily on our staff. I have been blessed with high-quality staff. Rod Kendall has been the glue that has held things together in my campaigns and in my office and is a good friend. Shirley Fallows has worked with me now for 17 years of the 18 years I have been a member of parliament. I also thank Lynda Fraser and Alison Donohue. I pay special thanks to my campaign director, Terry Evans, an old mate of mine from teaching days, who continues to give many, many hours of his free time to a cause that he believes in fervently, which is the Labor Party and the trade union movement. Whatever our politics, we are all blessed with individuals like Terry, without whom we would find it extraordinarily difficult to get elected in the first place. Above all, though, I want to thank my family. They end up suffering more than anybody else. It is always hard on the family, and if you have a partner and you have children then the partner has that added burden of trying to do all of the things that both parents would normally be doing in a conventional setting.
I do not know about anyone else, but when I am 1,000 kilometres away trying over the phone to discipline kids or get them to do homework I have found it a fairly daunting task. I owe my wife, Cathy, more than I can ever say or repay. She has put up with far more than I would have in her shoes. My three kids who are now adults and our young teenage son have had to deal with a lot of ups and downs in having a politician for a father. There are the good days when they think their dad is a good bloke and the other days when they want to have a go at him. It is not all jam and biscuits for them. We owe a great debt to our families, and I want to take this opportunity to thank my family in that context.
2843
16:46:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
0
0
Mr NEVILLE
—I heartily endorse the comments of the member for Brisbane. In many respects, parts of my speech follow his. I am sure Cathy is a saint, and you can tell her I said that.
It gives me a tremendous amount of gratification to stand in the chamber today, symbolically at the start of my sixth term—because we have been going for six months—and give this address-in-reply to the Governor General’s speech. Like those of many members, my electorate underwent a radical change of electoral boundaries in the recent redistribution in Queensland. Hinkler shed the industrial city of Gladstone and many of its outlying rural communities, and I was allocated the busy city of Hervey Bay to the south as well as the satellite townships to its west. This represented a 44 per cent change to my old electorate—that is almost a new electorate. Fortunately, I was under the same TV umbrella, so people knew who I was. That was to some extent helpful. But it was a big alteration to the electorate of Hinkler and probably the most significant since its inception in 1983-84.
I was sad to lose Gladstone. That might sound strange—I suppose the member for Brisbane would say it sounds a bit strange—and I am not afraid to say I was a little apprehensive when I first took on Gladstone. It had a reputation as a robust industrial town, but I found quite a different dynamic when I got there: well-trained young technocrats and highly focused process workers who were not going to be pushed around by union officials and shop stewards. They had minds of their own, as was demonstrated in one of the very early EBAs—I do not think we even called them that in those days—when they had a referendum in the plant and, as I remember it, the workers voted 83 per cent to 17 per cent in favour of going into the EBA. That was significant, and obviously they were thinking of their futures when they did that.
Most workers were prepared to give me a go, and local families appreciated the stability and security afforded by the coalition government. Over time, I built my vote in Gladstone to 48.6 per cent because the region was getting what it needed from the coalition government in infrastructure and social programs. The coalition funded the Port Access Road to the tune of $7½ million, Calliope River Road and Landing Road to $4.1 million, Callemondah Overpass to $3 million and Kirkwood Road to $12.7 million. The coalition recognised the special needs of young, working Gladstone families and invested $3 million in developing an early childhood project for Gladstone under the Communities for Children program. It was significant there because it is a young community and it is also a transient community. The coalition delivered economic security to all Gladstone families by investing in major industries and companies like Comalco. At one plant alone, even after the construction phase, 600 jobs were created.
These investments in turn created other jobs that kept the boom going in Gladstone, and it is still going today. As well as Gladstone and Calliope, the coastal communities of Agnes Water and the town of Seventeen Seventy, along with the hinterland towns of Miriam Vale and Rosedale, moved out of my electorate and into Flynn. Again the rapid population growth in these areas gave them special needs in terms of infrastructure and I was proud to have helped deliver millions for safer roads, mobile coverage for the region and a healthcare centre. They had absolutely no healthcare facilities there at all.
The environment is particularly important to local residents because of the region’s natural scenic beauty and emerging tourism industry, so various programs like Green Corps, Envirofund and Regional Partnerships were put to good use in maintaining the region’s pristine environment. The Hinkler electorate also lost the thriving rural towns of Monto, Eidsvold, Gayndah, Mundubbera, Mount Perry, Gin Gin, which also moved into the new seat of Flynn. These smaller centres were the true blue heartland of the old Hinkler—some would say true National Party country—relying primarily on agriculture and small business for the health of their local economies, with tourism becoming a more prominent feature. It was difficult to say goodbye to each of these communities and I urge the new member for Flynn to do everything in his power to keep delivering for them, because a small project in one of those towns has quite a significant effect on the whole community.
Turning from the old Hinkler to the new, the seat remains one of the most diverse electorates in the country, incorporating the sugar and small crop city of Bundaberg in the north, the growing city of Hervey Bay in the south—with its emerging tourist industry—and the coastal communities and rural centres in between, as well as Biggenden and Woocoo. Each community has its own distinct character. They have pressing needs and unique challenges—the City of Hervey Bay, particularly so.
A generation ago, Hervey Bay was a group of small coastal communities with a total population of about 7,000 or 8,000. It was a little bit like the Gold Coast. In the past 30 years, those villages have grown together and today the city has a population of upwards of 50,000 people, many of them young families and, at the other end, many retirees. Its natural growth pattern, a long and narrow corridor hugging the coastline, has created unique transport problems. It is a bit like the Gold Coast except that it goes east-west, and that means you have these long thin corridors. I think the urbanised part is about 14 to 15 kilometres wide, which means you have long thin corridors, and we do not have enough of them. There is an urgent need for big-ticket road projects to ease traffic congestion and cut down on travelling time from one end of the town to the other. And there is an equivalent need for social and civic infrastructure. Because the town has expanded so quickly, councils have not been able to keep up with the demands of infrastructure, and there is a need for government intervention.
The coalition recognised and responded to that clear need, pledging $9.3 million for three separate road projects: $5.6 million to realign Urraween Road, $2.8 million to complete River Heads Road and $900,000 to complete Old Toogoom Road. These were three of the arterial roads I was describing before. I cannot say how disappointed I was that the Labor candidate neglected to commit to these urgent projects. These projects are vital for the future development of the Hervey Bay region, given the increasing popularity of the area with families, retirees and tourists.
The city also badly needs a new community centre. It does not have anything like a community centre. It has a neighbourhood centre, which was a home that was donated some 20 or more years ago and its capacity to provide services such as limited hours of childcare, counselling, youth mentoring programs and quasi-medical activities is being outstripped by the area’s growth rate. The coalition was prepared to back the construction of a new centre with $1½ million of a $5 million anticipated outlay. Again, the Labor government has left this project high and dry.
I cannot say what a huge disappointment this is for the families of Hervey Bay. I promise you, I will keep fighting for this funding even from the opposition benches. It really has to be done. To leave 30 community groups and quasi-medical organisations without a home is unacceptable.
The people of Hervey Bay gave me their strong endorsement on 24 November 2007 and for that I thank them profusely. Hinkler resisted Queensland’s ALP swing of 8.5 per cent, especially Wide Bay, but my margin was stripped to 1.7 per cent. Hinkler has always been a tough seat, although I did not expect it would be quite so tough in the recent election. In three close elections, my margins have been as little as 0.4 per cent and 0.3 per cent, and on one occasion was less than 0.1 per cent. Other than the Keating election, 1996, I have never had the luxury of a ‘safe’ seat. Hinkler has always come down to the wire. This was perhaps the sweetest victory of all—to paraphrase Paul Keating.
HM5
Georgiou, Petro, MP
Mr Georgiou interjecting—
KV5
Neville, Paul, MP
Mr NEVILLE
—Yes. Many people played a role in helping me to hold Hinkler. First and foremost was my wife Margaret, who has been my strongest supporter throughout my political career. She is politically alert. She listens to things, to radio bulletins, she types letters and doorknocks with me. She is a very keen political observer. My campaign director, Rod Wilson, has now seen me through six elections and his guidance and counsel have always been the mainstay of our Hinkler campaigns. He worked closely with my deputy campaign directors, Dick Bitcon, Alf Bonanno and Lin Powell, who were dedicated in their duties in the three areas of the electorate, and also Betty Reddacliffe, who was a wonderful campaign treasurer. She watched every cent and the campaign came in on the positive side. I have—as the member for Brisbane said of his staff—been singularly blessed with excellent and experienced staff. Led by Lesley Smith, my staff of Heather Hawkins, Leanne Ruge, Kate Barwick, Rosina Johnson and Janelle Geddes worked tirelessly on the campaign, doing everything behind the scenes to make sure we got the right result on the day. As the member for Brisbane said, it is really a three-year campaign.
Sadly, both Lesley and Leanne have left my employ—Lesley because of the new government staffing outcomes which have deprived the National Party of a whip’s clerk, and Leanne because, due to the redistribution, I am not entitled to a second office in the new seat. Lesley has been my office manager and sounding board ever since I first won the seat in 1993. She is a lady of great humour, great patience and great skill. I cannot speak highly enough of her contribution to my political and constituent successes. Our entire office misses her greatly.
The same can be said of Leanne Ruge, who single-handedly ran my Gladstone office and gave quality contact to the entire Gladstone region. There are many other people to thank—too numerous to mention by name. I thank each and every one of those who assisted me, especially those who spent countless hours putting up the corflutes when they were knocked over, and the like, planning functions and especially manning the polling booths. ‘Team Hinkler’ put in a tireless effort for the months before the campaign proper commenced and continued to work nonstop up to the victory.
I must admit that my Labor opponent’s campaign never recovered from an early gaffe in Hervey Bay, calling the Australian-resident mother of a British soldier serving in Afghanistan a ‘Pommy warmonger’. That was an unforgivable statement that quite understandably upset Rosemary Arthurs and her husband Tom. I do not care what your view is on these particular issues or policies; there is never any excuse for name-calling or personal insult, much less to those whose children serve our country or its allies.
I would like now to talk about what lies ahead for the people of Hinkler. Last night’s budget was a huge disappointment for my electorate. Not one significant road project received funding and no helping hand was extended to local communities. Surf clubs will receive a water tank while the partly completed Elliot Heads Surf Life Saving Club, which needs more money for completion, rusts away. In fact, much-needed funding for two community building projects under Regional Partnerships is at risk. Bear in mind that both the projects I am about to talk about are not flash in the pan ones that were confected for the election campaign; they are longstanding campaigns that have been well assessed but have been under a cloud of indecision for some time.
The first Bundaberg project in the firing line is the expansion of the excellent Austchilli operation. This is the biggest chilli operation in Australia both in terms of fresh product and processed product. It is a tribute to the hard work of David de Paoli, his general manager, Ian Gaffel, and their staff. Austchilli was to receive $650,000 to help stage 2 of its development of an innovative food processing activity. This was a high-pressure sterilising method. What it does is add considerable shelf life to products. That particular process would have been the first in Australia. It was the first time that the technology was available to us and it would have opened up opportunities for small crop growers, technical service providers, job seekers and so on. In fact, it would have created 26 full-time equivalent jobs in the Bundaberg area.
A full six months after the funding had been approved, Austchilli’s hopes sank—they sank last night in fact—when it appeared that this was one of the projects to be axed. Uncertainty has caused the company to shed six staff positions and it has missed out on lucrative contracts, including one which would have seen the company provide avocado product to all the restaurants in the Subway chain.
A more insidious effect, which has just been brought to my attention, is the fact that Australia now will have to import this avocado product from Mexico. Interestingly, Queensland’s Minister for Tourism, Regional Development and Industry, a Labor minister I might add, implored her federal colleague to resolve the situation in Austchilli’s favour. In a letter, state minister Desley Boyle says, ‘This project has significant commercial outcomes for the region, both for domestic retail and food service growth and the export advantages this project would have for the region. I am keen to have this matter resolved as quickly as possible.’
The second Bundaberg based project is different in nature but no less important. The Lake Ellen heritage hub is a playground, bicycle safety training course, bicycle skills course and a heritage hub. It brings the community together in a multitude of playground and learning experiences. It celebrates multicultural diversity in Bundaberg and is quite significant to the sugar industry. It had a grant of $236,500 approved under Regional Partnerships program to help purchase playground equipment but has been left in limbo again because of last night’s decision. In fact, it has the Commonwealth’s badging on the fence—actually on the fence. So the Commonwealth does not mind taking credit for it, but is not going to come up with the dough.
Bundaberg City Council committed $150,000 for the project, the Queensland government $215,000 and local community organisations $125,000. But the Commonwealth’s component—as I said, $236,500—is up in the air. The biggest concern for the local community is that the playground equipment has already been purchased and most of it installed. What happens now if the approved Commonwealth funding—I use ‘approved’ in inverted commas—disappears? The project has already received strong corporate in-kind support and the local community will now be put in a position where the same benefactors may have to pick up some of the government’s slack. There is an enormous amount of anxiety about these two projects in the Bundaberg area. The local media has rallied to the cause and many families are pinning their hopes on the new Labor government living up to its mantra about caring for working families.
Not so long ago, on 16 November last year, the then Labor spokesman for regional services, Simon Crean, said on the 2 pm news on radio 4BC: ‘If they’—meaning the Regional Partnerships projects—‘have merit, if they have been approved, we will tick them off.’ Six months on, for heaven’s sake, when will the government confirm its promises? We already know of one project in Hervey Bay which has been axed—the fishermen’s hall of fame, which would have incorporated the Fraser Coast heritage centre and the Hervey Bay Experience. The centre would have been an iconic attraction for the Fraser Coast and its environment, with links to migrating whales, Fraser Island and the Great Sandy Strait. It is ironic that the state Labor government has forced the Traveston dam on these people while the federal Labor government has taken an iconic attraction away. These are important projects to the people in my community and I implore the government to reconsider its position.
2847
17:06:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
1
0
Mr DANBY
—It has been said by those in the know that if you change the government you change the country. I think the events of the last few months show that to be an incontrovertible fact. Since the people of Australia entrusted Kevin Rudd and his team with government, totemic changes have taken place, not least in this place.
From the first essential step on the road to recovering Australia’s environmental credibility—ratification of the Kyoto protocol—to the apology to the stolen generations, the first 100 days of this government, chalked up during the previous sitting period, were remarkably significant. We have just had the budget announcements, including two matters that are very dear to my heart and very dear to my electorate: the increase to the childcare tax rebate and the 38 childcare centres that are to be built with federal government support. These measures address the rational economic need to get highly skilled women back into the workforce and the needs of children and families in our area. These are two wonderful developments as far as the people of Melbourne Ports are concerned. It is wonderful to show that with a democratic system we can change the country when we change the government.
It is now up to us on this side of the House to implement the policies we fought so long and hard for—to simply be in the position to give effect to policies for ordinary Australians which were emphatically endorsed on 24 November. I want to thank all of the people who worked on my campaign in Melbourne Ports: my campaign director, Garth Head; the campaign office manager, Rami Stiglic; my staff—Tony Williams, Tonya Stevens, Sima Kotliar, Donna Walsh, Andrew Porter, Desmond Ko, Constantina Dertimanis, Jonathan Curtis, Sylvia Freeman, Morry Ross—and all of the other wonderful people who helped me achieve a seven per cent margin, which is the highest margin Melbourne Ports has had for the Labor Party since it was redistributed on the current boundaries in 1990. Given the fact that Melbourne Ports is now one of the wealthiest by per capita income seats in the country, that is a remarkable demographic and psephological achievement.
B36
Neal, Belinda, MP
Ms Neal
—It must be the member.
WF6
Danby, Michael, MP
Mr DANBY
—Whatever it is, I am pleased. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, this job has its ups and downs. We are all privileged to represent the areas we know and love. It warms my heart to see new colleagues from far and wide sitting in this chamber with me, including the member for Dobell, who has returned to this place. I am particularly honoured to be joined by the new members for Eden-Monaro, Corio, Maribyrnong and Isaacs. Equally, I welcome other new members to this place, and I welcome the return of my good friend Senator Jacinta Collins to the Senate yesterday and the imminent addition of my longstanding friend David Feeney, who won the third place in the Victorian Senate vote.
Mike Kelly, the new member for Eden-Monaro, is a former head of army legal and a full colonel and holds a PhD in international law. As he has already demonstrated, he will be an adornment to this place as parliamentary secretary to the honourable member for Hunter. Richard Marles, the former assistant secretary of the ACTU—an institution that has campaigned tirelessly against laws that until so recently those opposite seemed to be doing an hourly volte-face on—is as bright and decent a person as you will meet and the people of Geelong are very lucky to have him as their representative. I am sure he will go on to great things in this place.
Bill Shorten, the President of the Victorian Branch of the ALP and formerly state and national secretary of this country’s oldest union, the AWU, is known by many not just for his years of standing up for workers all over Australia but particularly for his role and that of his union amidst the Beaconsfield mining disaster. Bill’s incredible role during that disaster was a surprise to some people. It was no surprise to me as someone who has known him since he was at university. He is currently in the role of Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services and I am sure that great future roles await him.
Mark Dreyfus not only is a brilliant Queen’s Counsel but a more capable person I do not think you could meet, particularly to chair the House Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. He will also have an extremely bright future in this place.
Senator Jacinta Collins, who served in the Senate from 1995 to 2005, has returned once more to ably serve the people of Victoria. Jacinta is the former national industrial officer of the union whose members I proudly serve, the great Shop, Distributive and Allied Employee’s Union, or SDA for short, and was most recently in her Senate term the shadow minister for children and youth.
David Feeney, the Assistant National Secretary of the ALP and former Victorian state secretary, enters the Senate on 1 July also as a senator for Victoria. David is a tremendously talented individual and will no doubt contribute to debate in the other place with his trademark wit and encyclopaedic knowledge. Like all of those I have mentioned, David is a measure of the wealth of talent we have in the Labor Party, not least in Victoria. We were blessed at the election with a wonderful team of people contesting seats in both the House and the Senate.
Just as this house is enriched by the addition of such talented and passionate parliamentarians, it is poorer for the loss of my good friend the member for Swan, Kim Wilkie. A tireless servant of the people of Swan, Kim could be seen most mornings here after a bike ride effortlessly carting his bike around the corridors of this house. He was one of the finest and hardest working individuals I have known in this place and he served with distinction on parliamentary committees, including the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. I wish him well for the future. It is the nature of politics, particularly with respect to legislative elections, that someone wins them and unfortunately someone does not. Many good people from all sides of politics are no longer in this place or will soon leave. I thank them, whatever their affiliation, for their contributions to this great institution and service to this country.
On an unambiguously happy note, I have recently notched up my own special achievement, which coincidentally took place in the first 100 days of the government. I married my partner of more than a decade, the delightful Amanda Mendes Da Costa, several hundred metres from where I stand, on Sunday, 24 February. This gave Amanda and me the tremendous joy of not just formally recognising our union but doing so in a traditional Jewish ceremony in the hallowed halls of our parliament. This happy event served as a powerful reminder, if I ever needed one, that this nation has given me and my forebears so much. Think of the immeasurably stark contrast between a state that actively persecutes you because of your family and because of who you are and what you believe in, and a state that welcomes and encourages diversity, a state whose parliament you proudly serve and where the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, colleagues, friends and family can celebrate your union and identity in parliament. This is one of the many reasons why I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I will never be short of reasons why I am proud to be an Australian.
I was first elected to this place a decade ago. The expression is, ‘Time flies when you are having fun.’ I can only say that I have relished the challenges and opportunities of representing such a diverse, rewarding and engaging electorate over this period. In my maiden speech, I spoke of Melbourne Ports being an electorate where some people struggled to find their next meal while others almost next door struggled to make their next million. It remains much the same today, with probably even stronger contrasts.
I, for one, welcomed the Prime Minister’s injunction, incumbent upon Labor MPs upon the election of this government, that they should visit the less fortunate in their communities, particularly homeless centres. Around the corner from my office, in Grey Street, is the Sacred Heart Mission, an organisation that I have had a great deal of involvement with during my time as the member for Melbourne Ports. The mission and its saintly staff—I would describe them that way—tirelessly cater for an ever-increasing number of needy locals while a street away you will find cavernous, beautiful Victorian mansions reflective of this disparity. The mission itself caters, on Boxing Day, for some 600 people in their dining room so that people who are in less fortunate circumstances eat something healthy—in fact, have something to eat at all—on that day.
Most of us have thankfully moved on from the old era of class warfare; however, I firmly believe that we should not allow entire sections of the community to fall by the wayside in a time of ever-increasing, visible prosperity. We should not punish those amongst us who have been blessed with opportunity and those of us who have worked hard to attain a lifestyle of our choosing. We should, however, ensure that this remains an egalitarian society—a land of opportunity whose shores have become renowned for that egalitarianism. I commend the Prime Minister for his timely focus on this issue, after many years of coalition indifference.
It is not always the case that there are opportunities in our society, with a growing gap between rich and poor. Housing affordability is a growing concern to millions of Australians, whether they are in a nuclear family or not. Anyone who is working hard to pay off their own home and own their slice of the increasingly expensive Australian dream knows full well that the ‘she’ll be right’ mentality of the Howard government—they were the greatest friends of inflation, as the Treasurer said today—which derided inflation and the growing pressure on interest rates as a mere fantasy, affects most of us in one way or another. Most of us in this place—indeed, many people of the average age of most parliamentarians—have been hit less hard than some. But all of us know someone who has been affected by the dramatic increases in the average price of houses, not to mention the Peter Pan-like Never-Never Land low interest rate promises of the former Prime Minister. I do not need to be told of the political value of flying the flag on this issue; I have two children who will be faced with this issue in the not-too-distant future, as will countless young Australians. Many of the things that we do in this place have little impact on the world at large, but thankfully many do. I hope in this 42nd Parliament we will be able to do our best to improve the affordability of housing. I am confident that the first budget of the Rudd government brought down yesterday will help achieve that aim.
To be able to continue in government in this role of advancing the interests of all your constituents is of particular satisfaction, especially for those of us who have only known opposition during our elected lives. In the long years of opposition we adhered to the core values of our party and protected the interests of working families, something we will strive to do in government. The coalition, by contrast, seem determined to eat their young and their middle-aged. If the member for Wentworth succeeds in his preparation of his Nelson hors d’oeuvres—accompanied by a fine glass of Henschke, no doubt—it will be a doubly auspicious 2008. Let them continue to abandon their policies that they claim to be essential to this nation. Not only did they spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ hard-earned money on their own misguided social experiments, they disowned a core belief the moment it was tested, re-embraced it and then disowned it once more.
One wonders what other conservative fixtures will become non-core—not least the Leader of the Opposition, particularly after the member for Wentworth recently repeatedly ruled out ruling out a leadership challenge—quite a mouthful! While those opposite continue to bicker, and the figures who used to ridicule the Labor Party for its own soul searching at times treat the parliament with contempt, it is time that we wondered about the future of the member for Higgins. It is a shame that his genuine desire to lead did not lead him, first, to have the guts to challenge for the leadership of his own party, then face an election and put his cards on the table—something both the member for Bennelong and the member for Griffith had the character and determination to do. Instead, as he and his colleagues busy themselves with anything from reading job ads to playing golf, we will get on with the business of delivering better and greater opportunities for ordinary Australians.
On the issue of the most expensive and short-lived social experiment in the history of the Commonwealth, the Frankenstein-like Work Choices legislation: anecdotes about this legislation are too familiar for any fan of Yes, Prime Minister to make use of. We could do a lot of point-scoring on this issue but, despite the views of the current Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I am sure the plans for such legislation will not rise from the dead. Those opposite failed in their scare campaign targeting unions and many of my parliamentary colleagues as something akin to ‘Reds under the beds’. It is very funny to think of Richard Marles and Bill Shorten in that context.
The Liberal Party spent obscene amounts of this nation’s treasure on advertising, pushed by their national secretariat and road-tested by Crosby Textor. They did this, in itself a repugnant thing. The money that all of us gave to government as part of the social contract to which we all subscribe they spent on flogging a dead horse—plainly scandalous. The Work Choices legislation tore fairness and flexibility from workers, ensured bargaining power was not remotely even but was vested predominantly in employers and, strangely for an item on a Tory to-do list, created an army of bureaucrats, agencies and regulators. This was the towering Everest of legislative farce. Had it been more farcical, it would have deserved a place in Monty Python’s repertoire alongside the dead parrot sketch. As we move forward with fairness and consign AWAs to the dustbin of history, we take great satisfaction knowing that ordinary people will be all the more secure in planning their working futures.
One of the enduring challenges of this country and indeed of all countries in the years ahead is the threat of climate change. In his first official act as Prime Minister, the member for Griffith demonstrated the commitment of this government to take decisive action and show leadership in combating climate change. Ratification of the Kyoto protocol was an essential first step in bringing Australia into line with the scientific consensus, as well as that of the broader international community, that this is something that needs to be seriously combated. Australia may well have been meeting its Kyoto commitments, but these were uniquely generous targets negotiated by the previous government as a kind of sovereign equivalent of a get-out-of-jail card—apologies to Parker Brothers, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that is the way it was. Yes, we got a good deal, but at what price? We obtained a short-term benefit by squandering the opportunity to use our resources and our good offices to deal with this problem at the earliest opportunity, making it all the harder for our children to tackle the problem. There must be no more environmental window-dressing in place of real action to tackle climate change.
I have no doubt that it will be difficult for us to do our part—this time, to genuinely carry our weight in reducing emissions. President Kennedy said, speaking of the space program, ‘We do these things not because they are easy; we do these things because they are hard.’ Essentially, things which are easy to do would have been done, and many things which are tough are all the more worth while for being so. There would be no debate if there had always been a broad consensus in the political and diplomatic arenas on the clear problems in this area and a clear solution.
This has also forced Australia to show leadership in this area. Australia enjoys close ties with nations which, like the Howard government, eschewed the Kyoto framework, as well as with developing countries who understandably have qualms over the impact that dramatic cuts in emissions would have on their expanding, energy-hungry economies. The former have concerns over the cost of emission cuts and insist that the latter, not least in consideration of the current size of emissions and projected increases thereof, should not be exempt. The latter type of countries maintain, understandably, that it is unfair that they should forgo the essential elixirs of the Industrial Revolution and fossil fuels, and they look askance at agreements that do not include several of the world’s richest and most polluting countries. This is understandable but, at the same time, is a potential catch 22 that affects us all.
Agreement must be reached and soon. It is simply not feasible to continue along an exponentially increasing emissions path. Whatever gratitude we have to the inventor of the internal combustion engine, we cannot continue down this path. There needs to be a balance struck between the environment and economic enfranchisement of the billions of the world’s poor. If you live in the Ganges Delta and have been lifted out of poverty, no amount of money is going to be of any use to you if you and several millions of your neighbours find yourselves up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
Climate change and the issues that surround it are the most common issues that my constituents express concerns over. I receive emails and letters on a daily basis demonstrating the degree of concern within the community. I have spoken on this issue of climate change repeatedly during my parliamentary career, including before it was fashionable to do so. If I am ever fashionable, it is usually fashionably late. We will continue to show leadership at home on this issue and we will continue to work at building a consensus abroad. Again in my view it is a no-brainer. We can stick our heads in the sand, hope the issue will go away and pretend it will not affect us. We will probably be long gone by the time the 2050 emission targets are realised, but my children will be around, as will many of our younger constituents and the children and grandchildren of others. We have no choice other than to confront this issue head on if we want our country and our planet to remain as livable as we would have them be. It is a moral, political and economic imperative and one the Australian Labor Party is fully seized of.
I commend this government to the House and I am especially proud of some of the challenges that I outlined at the beginning of my remarks that were outlined in the budget, particularly as they affect the good citizens of Melbourne Ports.
2853
17:26:00
Kerr, Duncan, MP
RH4
Denison
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs
1
0
Mr KERR
—This gives me an opportunity in this free-ranging debate to reflect on the good fortune I have had to be appointed by the Prime Minister to the position of Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs. In our long period of opposition, the former Howard government did not follow the practice of its predecessor of having a designated minister or parliamentary secretary responsible for Pacific island relationships. In that, they cut themselves aside from the practice that had been put into place when Gareth Evans was foreign minister and who worked with his counterpart, the minister for Pacific island affairs, Gordon Bilney. As events happen and coincidence permits, I have just come from a discussion with Gordon Bilney, who is attending the parliament as one of the former members returning to take part in the ceremonial events that are occurring this evening.
But it did give me an opportunity to reflect on the 11 years where we rather lost track of our best interests in terms of our relationships with the Pacific. Indeed, by the time the Rudd government took office, we had difficult relationships not only with Fiji, where that is quite understandable, given that there has been a coup and Fiji is governed by an interim regime with a military characteristic, which we are seeking to encourage in its commitment to return to civilian rule by March 2009. I think all members of the House and the parliament as a whole and the community would wish well all those of goodwill who would come together towards that objective and to assist in facilitating the good health of the people of Fiji under a form of government that can be sustained, that removes itself from the cycle of coups that has benighted that country and where we can resume the full measure of goodwill and enthusiasm in terms of our relationship that many Australians would undoubtedly wish to see. Many Australians have good experiences of travelling to Fiji, they have experienced the hospitality of the Fijian people and they would share the concern and regret of the Australian government that, as matters currently stand, it is difficult for us to return to circumstances where the people of Fiji could have the same changed opportunities that will flow to the rest of the Pacific as a result of the approach of the Rudd government, so exemplified by the Port Moresby Declaration announced early in the term of this government by the Prime Minister.
Not only were our relationships with Fiji difficult when we came to government but also we had very strained relationships with the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and a number of other Pacific island neighbours. It was obvious that quite a deal of work needed to be undertaken to reconcile our strategic interests, and our regional interests as a good neighbour, with our election commitment to improve Australia’s standing and to increase our commitment to good governance across the whole of the Pacific. A very good start could be made because of two circumstances: firstly, the early initiative of our Prime Minister to take aside Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare on the edge of the Bali negotiations on climate change and to re-establish respectful and serious discussion with Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare about the need to restore effective relationships between our two countries; and, secondly, a change of government in the Solomon Islands, which we responded to very promptly when the new Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands visited Australia, determined to turn a new leaf in that relationship and make a fresh start.
Those events were followed by a visit to Papua New Guinea by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. He took the occasion to announce—with the full agreement and, I think, enthusiastic support of the government of Papua New Guinea—our new approach to the Pacific, which is exemplified in the partnership arrangements that we are proposing to enter into. For those who are interested in more detail, the announcement and the terms of the Port Moresby Declaration are publicly available, and they are a very useful summary of the way in which the new government intends to approach its relationships with the Pacific.
Those initiatives, and the visit of the Prime Minister to the Solomon Islands following them, have been complemented by visits by my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance, Bob McMullan, in travels with me throughout the region and to a number of Pacific island countries and, of course, by the very important delegations which have been led by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, most significantly, led two Australian delegations: one to a meeting of Pacific Islands Forum foreign ministers in Auckland about Fiji and one to the groundbreaking Madang ministerial forum, where Australian and Papua New Guinean ministers sat down together to re-establish what had been effectively a broken relationship after a long period of difficulty.
This budget, which was announced just yesterday, gives us the opportunity to consolidate the steps forward that have been made. There is no doubt that, right throughout the Pacific, people are really reflecting on the changed approach of Australia. They are seeing Australia in a different light. They have welcomed the initiative of the Prime Minister in the Port Moresby Declaration, and we are already moving to serious discussions and negotiations on the first of what we hope will be partnership agreements with each of the Pacific island countries, beginning with two: Papua New Guinea and Samoa. Of course, simple resources do not permit parallel negotiations with each of the Pacific island countries at the same time, but we would like to move as promptly as possible to complete a schedule of negotiations across the whole of the Pacific, because what we would wish to do is to engage with our Pacific neighbours in a respectful dialogue which enables them and us to identify issues of common interest, to work through any areas where we have difficulty and then to agree to a framework which has mutual responsibilities and obligations—where we will provide substantially increased funding over the course of the coming years—and to support initiatives that are agreed by the countries that we are entering into partnership relationships with.
The aim of the exercise, of course, is to move closer to the Millennium Development Goals that all countries have signed up to and, where countries have the capacity to achieve those goals or to exceed them, to move them further in directions that enhance their development opportunities. But, as most members of this House would know, many countries of the Pacific have been falling behind rather than going ahead in their attempts to achieve the MDGs and there is a lot of work to be done. It is no easy thing to suggest that we will be able to reach the MDGs in the time frames required, but we will certainly be doing all we can to move as effectively as we can towards that objective.
The budget this year lays the foundation for implementing the government’s long-term commitments to increase Australia’s official development assistance to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2015-16. Australia will provide an estimated $3.7 billion in ODA in 2008-09, increasing our ratio from 0.30 per cent in 2007-08 to 0.32 per cent in 2008-09. We expect to increase Australia’s ODA levels equivalent to 0.35 per cent of GNI in 2009-10, 0.37 per cent of GNI in 2010-11 and 0.38 per cent of GNI in 2011-12—and, of course, on to the 0.5 target that we have set.
These figures represent very substantial increases in our opportunity to provide practical assistance. If we look just at the budget in PNG and the Pacific, the 2008-09 budget substantially increases funding as a first step in implementing the new partnerships for development, which I have referred to. Estimated Australian official development assistance to Papua New Guinea and the Pacific will total just under $1 billion in 2008-09, an increase of $123.4 million or 14 per cent over the 2007-08 expected outcome. That will enable increased assistance with key development challenges in the region, including basic health, education and improved governance.
I will return to three specific measures that are focused on Papua New Guinea and the Pacific but mention before I do so three other funding areas that will be increased in our overseas direct assistance which will also have direct consequences in benefits to the Pacific. There is a program designed to address clean water and sanitation. This program is not unique to the Pacific but of course can be drawn down within the Pacific. It will include an urban water and sanitation component, a rural water and sanitation component and a water security component which will extend successful partnerships in Asia and the Pacific region to better protect and manage freshwater resources. It is a crucial issue and it links of course to the climate change issue that the member for Melbourne Ports mentioned. We are acutely aware of the concerns in our region about the impacts that it will face as a result of the most recent projections of sea level change and ocean acidification and the consequences that may flow from that.
There is also a broader program to fight avoidable blindness in the region. Australia of course, through the work and leadership of Fred Hollows, has a properly deserved reputation as being willing to give generous support for dealing with avoidable blindness. In line with its pre-election commitments, the government will be investing $45 million over two years to eliminate avoidable blindness in the region.
The third area that I might mention by way of general commitments is adaptation to climate change. We will be investing $150 million over three years, with $35 million in 2008-09, to meet the high-priority climate adaptation needs of vulnerable countries in our region.
So these are very big initiatives, with substantial dollars behind them, which can link into the discussions we are having on partnerships. They will certainly be extremely welcome.
I will turn briefly to three areas specific to the Pacific region that all of my colleagues, from the Prime Minister to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance, have been extremely concerned about. There will be an infrastructure facility fund. A new Pacific regional infrastructure facility will invest $127 million over four years, with $5.5 million in 2008-09, which will enable improvements in basic infrastructure services in the Pacific. The facility is intended to provide performance-linked support for basic infrastructure services in Pacific island countries, in combination with multilateral development banks and potentially other donor partners.
We are aware from our discussions at Madang that countries of the region identify infrastructure weaknesses as one of the key areas that they wish to put on the table as part of any partnership agreement. Of course, the elements that each country might advance for our consideration under a partnership arrangement will differ from country to country. One of the clear indications we have given in negotiations and discussions with the region is that we are not seeking to impose a one-size-fits-all partnership. The nature of a partnership means dialogue; it means listening to and respecting the views of the country when we are discussing their future with them and it means shaping our partnerships to respect, deal with and integrate the aspirations of those countries. But it does seem very clear, at least in the case of Papua New Guinea—and I would be very surprised if it were not the case in many of the other Pacific islands; certainly, it is true for the Solomon Islands and a number of other Pacific countries, from the preliminary discussions that I have had with them—that infrastructure is seen as one of the keys to economic development. That infrastructure fund and its capacity to integrate other donors and multilateral lending institutions seems to be a very important initiative which could build very strong outcomes.
Secondly, in relation to specific commitments, I might mention the Pacific public sector capacity program. There will be $107 million invested as part of a four-year initiative, Investing in Pacific Public Sector Capacity, with $6 million in 2008-09 to strengthen public sector administration in the Pacific. That will address a key impediment to poverty reduction by helping to improve service delivery and enable growth. The Australian government have become very aware that we need to have partners with an effective capacity to deliver—that means effective governance—and that improving public sector performance will require long-term coordinated responses to tackle institutional causes of poor performance while also providing immediate assistance to improve individual and institutional capacity in priority areas.
Working alongside partner governments, the initiative will establish strong and enduring partnerships between Australia and the region, particularly between governments and tertiary institutions. It will also systematically address public workforce development needs across the region, providing workforce development assistance to address priority organisational and individual capacity needs, especially in leadership and core skills such as administrative competencies, planning, budgetary and financial management. It will provide support for the planning and implementation of public sector reforms. I very much welcome the commitment of the government of Papua New Guinea at Madang and under the re-badged Strong in Government program a commitment to working closely with the Australian government in some arrangements at the highest level where Australian assistance will continue to be provided in strengthening government institutions’ governance in PNG.
Finally, I mention the Pacific Land Mobilisation Program which would involve $54 million invested over four years with $6.5 million in the coming year to protect customary land rights, promote economic and social development, and reduce potential for instability from land related conflicts. Everybody knows land title issues are complex and we would hope to assist in finding some effective solution that allows economic development with the least detriment and disruption possible, and that program is designed in that regard. (Time expired)
2856
17:46:00
Bird, Sharon, MP
DZP
Cunningham
ALP
1
0
Ms BIRD
—It is a great pleasure to finally be able to deliver the comments that I wanted to make on the address-in-reply to the Governor-General’s speech. The last time I stood in this Main Committee it was to provide my own comments on the extension of the apology to the stolen generations and so it seems quite a while since I gave consideration to the Governor-General’s speech. Reviewing the notes that I had prepared at the time, I must say that given last night’s budget it is probably even more pleasurable to deliver my local perspective on the election results in my seat and the expectations of the local community on the new government forming the 42nd Parliament.
In light of that, I would like to take the opportunity to place on the record my appreciation to the electors in the division of Cunningham for re-electing me to be their representative in this place for another three years. As members would appreciate, the Labor Party lost the seat of Cunningham in a by-election to the Greens and I took it very seriously that we had to rebuild faith with the local population. So, for me, being re-elected by them and with a significantly increased margin is a great privilege, and I appreciate the faith that they have exhibited in me to continue doing that job in this place.
It was very strong support across the Illawarra region. I and my colleague Jennie George had swings in double-digit figures on our primary votes and I think that it reflected the fact that we took a suite of policies to the election that people felt were addressing the issues that were a concern for them and their families. We very much appreciate that they are putting a lot of trust in us to deliver on those for them.
There is indeed no greater honour than to be able to represent your local community and region in this place. At the last election I made the observation—and I repeat it here—that it is quite astounding when you look at the number of people who seek to sit in this place as a representative of the community. I think that something like 10 for every one of us that get elected have actually stood at the election. I still get that little thrill of anticipation when I come back after an election and realise that I have been given that great responsibility and I think that we should never forget as we come into this place that it is not only an enormous privilege but an enormous responsibility.
I have listened to many of the first speeches that were delivered over the initial sitting weeks by colleagues on both our side of the House and on the opposition side. I would like to put on record my congratulations to all of the new members. I thought that their speeches were quite inspiring. They were extremely varied. These are people from a wide variety of walks of life and experiences with all sorts of local perspectives and challenges that they were here to take up. I thought it was a particularly impressive group of new people coming into the parliament and I am sure they will make outstanding contributions over future years. I look forward to working with all of them.
The Governor-General’s speech at the opening of the 42nd Parliament outlined the new agenda for Australia’s future, and that agenda has already seen the passage through this place of a more balanced and fair industrial relations bill. In addressing that bill when it was before the parliament, I said that Australians know the differences very clearly between the industrial relations policies of the former government and this Labor government. There was certainly no mistake in my electorate, in the Illawarra region, about what that choice was. People were very profoundly committed to putting the fairness back into the industrial relations system. I have no doubt—and I am sure many of my colleagues on this side of the House would agree—that that was one of the most significant factors for them in deciding how they were going to place their vote. Many people in areas like ours have large mortgages. We are a very popular, wonderful part of the world. If nobody has been there, I would encourage you to come down to the Illawarra. Despite recent media commentary, it is a beautiful and wonderful place to be. Many people who live in the area had certainly been struggling with increasing mortgage payments and costs of living and quite clearly they were very fearful that their capacity to earn income was going to be affected. Additional incomes like overtime and penalty rates in particular were very important to them. So they gave us a very strong message that that was an important part of their decision on how to vote at the election.
There was also no mistake that Labor offered a better way forward on education policy. It is an issue that is very close to my own heart, having spent three years teaching high school and seven years in TAFE. A digital revolution was needed in our secondary schools. I have two sons who went through high school carrying those ubiquitous backpacks full of massive textbooks. I was very conscious of the fact that that experience was unlikely to be repeated at any point in their future life, because so much of what we do in the work world is now computer based. To be carrying a textbook, for example, that was supposed to be the holder and font of all knowledge that they would need on science was just outdated and was no longer a relevant approach to their education and their future. So the promise to provide computers for secondary students from years 9 to 12 I think was a really important commitment. I know it has its challenges, as any significant change like this does, but there is no doubt in my mind that it is a critical part of revolutionising our secondary education.
We also place an emphasis on skills and training. Over recent weeks, the government have already encouraged Australia’s secondary schools to apply for funding to establish new trade training centres. I am pleased to see that, for example, those centres can also include multimedia type centres, because we have a growing industry in multimedia, web design, film animation and those areas. Many young people need technical skills in those areas as well. I think that is an excellent initiative.
Not taking the skills shortage issue seriously had obviously contributed to inflationary build-ups and particularly to capacity constraints. That was brought home to me by the local mining industry, where apprentices had not been put on for many years. Some of the senior tradespeople were saying to me, ‘Well, they’d better start putting them on soon because I’m about to retire. Who’s going to train them?’
The other area that was important to local people was infrastructure. The Rudd government’s commitment to establish Infrastructure Australia was very well received. I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services in the previous parliament, and we did a substantive report called The great freight task: is Australia’s transport network up to the challenge? Sadly, the answer was no. We identified that there needed to be significant investment in freight movement, particularly if we were going to have some of that massive growth in the task moved from roads to rail. Given the issues around port access and competing demands on roads—increasingly, for people in cars as opposed to trucks—the committee believed that there was a great need to move much more of the freight on to rail. So that was a really important report, and I think it made some significant points. But the consistent message from many of those key players was that they wanted to see an independent national infrastructure planning body. I think that the Infrastructure Australia proposal will meet with a great deal of support.
In my own area in particular, Port Kembla has been expanding from a small port mainly used by BlueScope Steel and coal users—and including a dedicated facility for grain users—into a transformed facility to unload vehicles. It is soon to have some cargo container capacity as well. That expansion was funded by the New South Wales government. Around $140 million was invested. Sadly, the previous federal government did not put a great deal of money into that port expansion or the feeder avenues into it, either road or rail.
I travelled with the chair of the transport committee at the time, Paul Neville, up to his electorate. I remember saying to him, ‘I am going to choke you,’ when he kept pointing out to me all the federally funded roads and loops and things that he had in his electorate. But in the spirit of bipartisanship I have to say that he certainly did not hesitate to recommend that the port of Port Kembla needed some investment as well. So I was very pleased last night that the budget confirmed the initial funding that this government has committed in order to get a rail link from the Maldon-Dombarton line underway again—to have a look at the feasibility study and get it moving. It is a really good initiative.
I am very pleased to acknowledge that, from the beginning of this month, we have had an operating Medicare licence for the MRI machine at Wollongong Hospital. It is something that I have been banging on about, as the member for Gilmore would know, for quite a while.
AK6
Gash, Joanna, MP
Mrs Gash
—You got it through us.
DZP
Bird, Sharon, MP
Ms BIRD
—I will acknowledge that five minutes before the election was called the previous government did announce the allocation of a licence. It was achieved not so much from my own efforts but from the fact that there were 17,000 local people who had been lobbying and signing petitions to say that they thought that that service was critically important. The medical arguments for it outweighed any of the political posturing, as we knew they would eventually. It is a good initiative and I am pleased that it is now operating at the hospital.
The other big issue that is critically important to me and that I am focused on working on over the term of this government is youth unemployment. We get into a bit of a debate sometimes about the actual figures. As we know, with statistics people can argue one way or the other as to which ones should or should not be used. But there is no doubt that if you look at the highest youth unemployment areas they tend to be coastal areas. It is probably for a whole lot of reasons but particularly to do with teenagers finding it much more difficult to travel for work. In our area we have an unsustainably high teenage unemployment rate. There has been very good work done on that by a local task force. I understand that they are to put a report out very soon. That particular task force report is going to provide us with some solid, well-researched background on where we might make a significant difference on teenage unemployment over the next three years. I want to acknowledge the financial contribution of BlueScope Steel and the University of Wollongong in making that research possible. I think we will all find it very valuable in policy formation. I thank the House for the opportunity to reply to the address of the Governor-General.
2859
17:58:00
King, Catherine, MP
00AMR
Ballarat
ALP
1
0
Ms KING
—As I rise to reply to the address of the Governor-General, I would like to start by thanking the people of Ballarat for again re-electing me as their representative to this place. Ballarat is a large and diverse electorate. I am absolutely delighted to be elected to represent such a wonderful community. I really do want to thank the people of Ballarat for again putting their faith in me. Running a campaign in a regional electorate poses a number of challenges. I would also like to thank my campaign team, my staff, ALP members and the many supporters for their hard work during that period.
There were a number of important commitments and promises that the Rudd Labor government made to our electorate that are vital for our future economic and social growth. These have now been well and truly delivered in our first budget last night. During the campaign, we committed to fund Anthony’s Cutting under the AusLink 2 funding agreement. This is a significant road project which will cut transport times, ease infrastructure bottlenecks and, most importantly, greatly increase the safety of the many people who use this road. Upgrading that part of the highway will have tangible benefits for the region. These include a projected saving in transport costs of $186 million, increased tourist traffic estimated at up to $7.5 million annually and a reduction in the number of accidents, injuries and fatalities along this section of road. The state government have also in the recent state budget reiterated their financial commitment to the project. This comes on the back of our long-term support for the Deer Park bypass, a project which is well and truly ahead of schedule and is nearing completion. The funding for AusLink 2 is provided to commence in the 2009-10 year and I certainly look forward to seeing that in the budget next year.
Another important infrastructure project that we committed to was the goldfields superpipe which, in a responsible and sustainable way, will help to provide the Ballarat region with a steady and reliable source of water. The Rudd Labor government, prior to the budget, already provided the $90 million in funding to actually complete this very important project. Unfortunately, it was attacked during the election campaign by the former Liberal government, yet it is a very, very crucial step in ensuring the availability of water in my electorate—and I do not just mean continuing water supply or that we are topping up our water supply; our water supply is currently at around eight per cent. The availability of water in the entire goldfields region is extremely important.
I am pleased to report to the House that the laying of the actual pipeline has been completed—Senator Penny Wong came and laid the final pipe herself; it was her first time on a piece of heavy equipment, which was good fun—and that we are a long way towards the goal of water security in Ballarat, with the testing of the pumps about to get underway. Water really is the life blood of any community and, with our commitment to the goldfields superpipe, we have acted to secure the water supply for Ballarat.
In the area of community infrastructure, we committed to a number of important projects. We committed $400,000 to the Bacchus Marsh Community Learning Centre, which will include within it a state-of-the-art library, an IT lounge and a community meeting place. The centre will give the Bacchus Marsh community better access to information and digital technology, and it will become a hub for community activity within Bacchus Marsh.
Also in the area of adult education, we committed $200,000 to the Trentham Neighbourhood Centre, which provides fantastic courses for adults in areas like computers, languages and cooking. The funding will go towards a much needed expansion and modernisation of the centre. Trentham Neighbourhood Centre and places like this are important and often overlooked aspects of the education system which will drive the essential acquisition of new skills by our local communities. As well as these important roles, the learning centre in Bacchus Marsh and the Trentham Neighbourhood Centre will become hubs for community activity in Bacchus Marsh and Trentham, allowing people from all around the community to come together not just to learn but to meet and to socialise.
Also in Bacchus Marsh, we committed the $500,000 needed to maintain the Bacchus Marsh Avenue of Honour, an important project honouring the sacrifice and service of the community’s First World War soldiers. The avenue, if anyone has not seen it, is one of the finest and most magnificent elm tree lined avenues in the world, and it is a unique and important part of the town of Bacchus Marsh. The avenue is one of Bacchus Marsh’s most recognisable attractions, but it has been under pressure recently due to the ageing of the trees and obviously also because of the drought. We have acted to ensure that the avenue is maintained and will be restored to its magnificent best.
The Rudd Labor government also has made the commitment to funding the Bacchus Marsh and Melton Regional Hospital, an important cog in the regional healthcare strategy and one in which I am very proud to be involved. Our government is committed to properly funding our hospitals and ending the blame game between the states and Commonwealth and improving healthcare delivery to rural and regional Australians. The $2 million we have provided will go towards providing much needed improvements to its facilities and to upgrade the facilities and the standard of care.
The government has also committed $1 million for the establishment of a GP superclinic in the township of Ballan, which will form a significant plank in the healthcare plan for the region. This funding is on top of the $400,000 regional medical infrastructure fund previously committed. Regional health care is a challenging policy area, and it requires a multifaceted approach. Distance, isolation and population dictate that a single hospital, however well resourced, is not enough to service a rural district. There needs to be a concerted effort from government to provide the full range, particularly of allied health services, that rural and regional areas require. The Rudd government has recognised this. Through initiatives such as the funding of the Ballan GP superclinic, we are acting to make sure that the people of rural and regional Australia have a good standard of health care, comparable to that received in the cities. They expect nothing more, and they deserve nothing less.
The Creswick visitor interpretive centre is an innovative initiative which we are also contributing $450,000 towards. Creswick is becoming more of a tourist attraction, with the advent of people moving to areas like Creswick for the lifestyle and its natural beauty. Just recently, we have had the opening of the Forest Resort, which is a five-star convention centre, hotel and resort in the township of Creswick. With new businesses such as these opening up, all from private investment, places like Creswick are becoming major tourist attractions in my district, and there is a need to focus and guide this tourist activity. Tourism is a very important part of the economy, and this information centre will help to facilitate expanded tourism in Creswick. Also, the facility will make sure that other businesses are getting a share of that tourism dollar.
We also committed $1.5 million towards the Ballarat Aquatic Centre. Health and physical fitness have become pressing concerns for both adults and children. Facilities like the aquatic centre are important places where the community can exercise in a safe, clean and well-managed environment. Exercise is not only a personal issue; it is a major public health imperative. We need to help build a society that places exercise and physical activity at the forefront of our health regime. The funding will expand a much-utilised facility in Ballarat and provide greater opportunities for participation in physical activity, particularly amongst our older residents.
We have also committed $100,000 to Ballarat Group Training, an important organisation addressing the skills shortages which have affected Ballarat as they have many other regions. Ballarat Group Training are providing a much needed space and forum for apprentices in Ballarat to come together and advise government and industry on issues specifically affecting them.
We have also delivered $300,000 to the Ballarat business incubator, an organisation that will help small businesses in Ballarat grow and prosper. Small business is really the lifeblood of a town such as Ballarat, and this funding will go a long way to making sure that small to medium enterprises, particularly those newly starting up in Ballarat, will have the help and the support they need to be established and to thrive.
There is a common thread that runs throughout all of these election commitments. These election commitments are all targeted at boosting the economic and social activity of our region, whether it be supporting tourism, securing our water supply, ensuring our freight and commuter task has access to improved infrastructure or increasing participation in physical activity. They are all about regional economic and social development. These are projects which have been supported by the people of our district, championed by them, and I am proud to be part of a government that is actively delivering on them. These projects are about improving the life of regional communities—
BV5
Adams, Dick, MP
Mr Adams
—Hear, hear!
00AMR
King, Catherine, MP
Ms KING
—something that my colleague well and truly supports. The Rudd Labor government has come to office with a strong understanding of the pressure that working families and those on low incomes are under. There are significant pressures facing Australian families today, and the Rudd Labor government takes the task of relieving these pressures very seriously.
In opposition, I chaired a task force which examined the challenges and problems of families in Australia. It was called Family Watch. In the process of producing the report, we spoke to over 5,000 families from all across the country. We heard numerous accounts of how Australian families were not always seeing the prosperity the Howard government claimed. We heard that inflation and interest rates were biting hard on working families and about concerns about housing affordability and the cost of providing health and particularly dental care for their children. We heard how the general rises in prices of things like petrol and groceries were squeezing the household budget more and more every month.
When we handed down that report, it was widely publicised. I was really interested at the time to hear the Howard government’s reaction. We did not hold hearings. Basically, I took the members of the committee into shopping centres right the way around the country and we conducted surveys. I thought the Howard government may actually be interested in what the 5,000 families from across mostly outer metropolitan and regional areas had to say. But the Howard government’s response to the Family Watch report and the concerns that were expressed in it was for John Howard to say in parliament—and the quote has now become famous:
Working families in Australia have never been better off.
We were all pretty amazed at that statement, particularly those who participated in the Family Watch task force. The Leader of the Opposition’s concern for working families is, in my view, an absolute farce. When these issues were raised with them in government, they just brushed them off. Now that they have been voted out, they realise that they actually misread what was happening to families and they are now trying to play political catch-up.
The Rudd Labor government is not playing catch-up; it is actually out there, delivering for working families. I was very pleased to hear in the budget last night of part of the $55 billion Working Families Support Package, a very, very important commitment to honouring our promise to help families through these difficult times. One of the first measures introduced in the budget last night was the $47 billion in tax cuts. These tax cuts are aimed squarely at low- and middle-income earners, people who may be struggling to balance the family budget. These are the people who need the help that these tax cuts provide to manage their growing grocery, petrol and mortgage bills. Child care is another large cost for families, and I am very pleased to support the government’s increase in the childcare rebate from 30 to 50 per cent. I understand how important affordable child care is to ensuring that the workplace retains some of its most valued members. Increasing workplace participation is good policy for the economy and it is also good for working families. Child care plays a very important role in ensuring that working parents can continue to be engaged in paid employment.
The economy is also facing a skills crisis. Many of those skills can be found amongst those parents who are currently not able to participate in the workforce because of the lack of availability of and a lack of access to child care. By providing more affordable child care, the Rudd Labor government has given parents back the choice to re-enter the workforce when they want to, on their terms—a real choice, not one that is imposed upon them. Another cost that families were concerned about when we went and spoke to them in the supermarkets and shopping centres around the country was the cost of education. I am very pleased to be part of a government which takes seriously the challenge of education in a digital world. For this reason, I am glad to support the new education tax refund, which will allow parents to recoup some of the inevitable costs of educating a child for today’s world. Education today requires great knowledge of computers, and children who do not have access to these resources lag badly behind their counterparts who do. Access to information and communications technology must become a fundamental right for every Australian student and, with the education tax refund as well as the National Secondary School Computer Fund, the Rudd government is moving to make that right a reality.
Some of the more pressing concerns that families had also, as I found when I toured around the country with Family Watch, were the prices of groceries and petrol, and the Rudd government are acting here as well. We have given powers to the ACCC to enforce the Trade Practices Act, and the ACCC is monitoring grocery prices to ensure that they are as fair and as competitive as possible. We have also introduced, which was funded in the budget last night, the National FuelWatch Scheme, which will help consumers find the best price for petrol, enhancing competitiveness and providing the best information for consumers on which to base their decisions when purchasing petrol. These actions will help to alleviate some of the cost-of-living pressures. We are tackling housing affordability as well. The First Home Saver Account is a key initiative that will help first home buyers save more effectively and work towards that all-important deposit for a new home. We are also working to ease the crisis in rental accommodation by encouraging the building of 50,000 rental properties. These are real initiatives to help families who are suffering housing stress—and I absolutely encourage any property developers who are looking at developing new housing estates to look very seriously at the programs that the Rudd government has put in place to ensure that new developments actually incorporate affordable housing within their parameters.
The dream of owning your own home should not be unattainable. Young people leaving school and entering the workforce should be able to see a clear pathway to financial security. We must strive to create a society that opens up the path to owning a home, a society where, with hard work, anybody can own their own home. That, unfortunately, is not the case today. There are serious pockets of disadvantage and even some middle-class people cannot aspire to home ownership in some of our capital cities. We must build a society where anybody can afford a home.
In a broader sense than those specific initiatives, working families also need a return to fiscal responsibility. They need a return to responsible government which will manage the fiscal policy of the government to help maximise downward pressure on inflation and maximise downward pressure on interest rates, and that is what we delivered in the budget last night. I am very proud to be part of a Labor government that will act to protect working families in these tough economic times and that will make sure that families in Australia have the best possible chance to raise their children in a prosperous and fair society. That is the Labor way, and we saw that in the budget last night. I would again like to thank the people of Ballarat, who have given me the honour of representing them here in this place in the 42nd Parliament. Thank you.
2864
18:16:00
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
1
0
Mr ADAMS
—It is a great pleasure to take this opportunity to speak in the address-in-reply debate and to thank the people of Lyons for re-electing me for the sixth time and again putting their trust in me. It is always an honour and a humbling feeling when you are re-elected. I feel that they have renewed my contract again and I am very grateful to be here and to be a part of a government. I started my political career here as part of the Keating government and I am pleased to be back now. There is a great deal that I want to do and that I was able to get pledged from the party during the last election campaign. I look forward to that. I will address some of those things later in this address.
We needed a fresh start, and the Labor government with Kevin Rudd at the helm will give us the opportunity to build back Australia’s reputation as a lucky and also a tolerant country. The opening of parliament this time actually meant something. I am pleased that we are at last recognising the rightful place of the Indigenous people of Australia.
It is not going to be easy, with the economies around us suffering pretty turbulent times at this period in history. We are looking at how we can ease the pressure on mortgages and on those people that are affected by rising bank interest rates. We are considering other models of housing tenures and housing design to deal with one of the big issues facing us at the moment. I believe there are many opportunities to refigure how we think about housing. We can certainly help people much more, and technology has helped us to some degree. We need to help our states in that task with innovation and ideas. I am sure we can do that.
The big issue of climate change is one that we need to deal with, and that is firmly on the agenda. There was an exciting development the other day in my electorate with drying coal—not that I have that much coal in my electorate. There is a small coalmine with about 100 employees, the only coalmine in Tasmania.
At the Beaconsfield goldmine, which is also in my electorate and which people will remember from the tragedy we had and the long rescue of two miners, there is a shaft being used for a technique to dry Victorian brown coal, which is a very damp coal. They believe that they can take 30 to 40 per cent of the moisture out of that, which changes the whole emission trading argument and helps in that area enormously. I understand that the Victorian coal is very similar to the coal in India, so there are opportunities to use this technology and in exporting coal from Victoria, which I think has never happened before. So those opportunities exist, along with lots more on climate change. I am looking forward to the debate on the forest industry, which I believe will come into its own in that regard.
Dealing with the ever-increasing petrol prices is difficult, but we now have the Petrol Commissioner on the deck and I understand that the price watch will be in place towards the end of this year.
Health is another area that desperately needs an overhaul. There is a perception that we are tied to old ways of dealing with sickness, but I believe that new technologies can take us in new directions. We need to take some responsibility for our own health and we need to make sure that that message goes out. We need to sell prevention and wellness, and we need to put some money into that area. We saw the minister answering questions today about binge drinking, how that is a health issue and how we need to make changes in taxes in that area. I feel technology means that we should have people’s medical histories on a memory stick that we carry around our neck or on our car keys. The fact that we have not solved that one is a bit of an indictment of the industry and the professions involved. If somebody gets taken into hospital and there is no access to the history from the GP’s computer, it is really a problem that all the tests and scans have to be done straightaway again rather than use electronic records. We are a long way behind where we should be in that sort of thinking.
We are moving that way and we need to move away from the simplistic stuff of going to the doctor and getting a handful of pills, and we need to get away from some of the queues in our hospitals. We have to be brave enough to do that and we have to be brave enough to take on something new and something different. There are many choices these days and we have to open our minds, make some choices and opt for directions about the future. I think we are going to do that and some of us will endeavour to help push in that direction.
In the past few years we have dedicated time to finding some of the answers on drought and helping develop better and more sustainable water systems. I have done some work on our committees, and it has been pretty frustrating effort in some regards. I would like to pay tribute to Professor Peter Cullen, a founding member of the Wentworth group. Peter came to the parliament on many occasions and I met him at committee hearings when he gave evidence to us and also during meetings on water in different parts of the country. As we all do, with people moving around this country at airports, we would exchange half an hour of discussion about relevant topics, especially water. I believe Peter understood the land in Australia very well and he knew and was concerned for farming communities. He knew that their concerns did not have to be in conflict with ecological concerns.
I was very sorry to hear that he passed away recently. He will be sorely missed in the debates and discussions, as will his input. Despite his science background, he had the knack of being able to get his message across very simply and succinctly to people with non-science backgrounds. I think he understood the relationships between the land and water—that is, water storage and the problems of preserving water and recycling water—and how to come up with new ideas to help our very dry continent, especially in times of drought. He also believed in keeping farming communities sustainable in Australia by working hard to find new ways and new directions. I send my condolences to his family. He will be remembered very fondly by all of us here in parliament who knew him.
My agenda in Tasmania will include some of these water issues, such as trying to ensure that our water is used efficiently and sensibly and also that many of the small towns in my electorate finally receive good supplies of drinking water. In this day and age, access to drinking water should be a priority, and I believe that the state government in Tasmania is now moving towards providing that. To have a well-managed supply, it recently set up through legislation three bodies to take control of water and sewerage in our regions. That will of course also help people to develop skills and keep skilled people in the water industry, and possibly we have been lacking the level of professionalism and skills to keep up that infrastructure. Of course, the people making decisions to spend money on infrastructure in local government areas want to make sure that infrastructure can meet the current needs and the future needs of those areas. In my electorate, where we have finally got private investment, we do not have the infrastructure and that delays things by two or three years, which means that you could possibly lose some of that tourism investment money that comes along.
We need to ensure that irrigation and water management in other areas is affordable and sustainable so that we can be more innovative in land management and farming production. In the area in which I grew up, the Cressy area, we hope to run a pipeline from Poatina as far as Oaklands. This, I am sure, is going to open up the area to much more production and more opportunities. With the pressure on the Murray-Darling region, which produces over 55 per cent of the fruit and vegetables of Australia, I think other areas of Australia have a great opportunity to take over some of that role, because I do not believe that that region will be able to continue to do what it has done in the past. And the state government is on board with that. We have about $240 million from the state and federal governments to put in this infrastructure, which will give us great opportunities.
Another pledge from the Hobart region, coming out into the electorate of Lyons—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 6.29 pm to 6.57 pm
2866
18:57:00
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
1
0
Mr ADAMS
—As I was saying, there will be great opportunities in my electorate if we can get right some of the water and irrigation programs and make sure we use water and land in a very sustainable way. I pointed out some grey water initiatives coming out of the bottom end of my electorate from the city of Clarence, which is part of the city of Greater Hobart, and from the Coal River Valley, where we have grey water going to seed production and irrigation dripped onto the stone fruit orchards. That is a great way of utilising that grey water, and it is a more productive use of it than if it were put into the Derwent River. But using water better means that we have to look at farming practices in a whole new way. We have to help farmers who want to make the changes and want to continue on the land with research and funding so that we can continue to provide the food and fibre for our country.
Australia has always been innovative, and we have some of the best farmers in the world. But, when one gets hit by the sorts of cyclical changes that prevent people from carrying out their traditional land use, we need to help them change and go in different directions. A lot of them want to do that and they need help to do it. We have to look for solutions and new ways to solve these old problems. There are a lot of opportunities. A lot of people have done some work, and I am sure we in the good electorate of Lyons are going to do more. It will be a part of our role in government to make sure that these people have the tools and the resources to make those changes. I am sure the new Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Burke, is going to assist and lead us in that way.
I think Jeff Kennett had the right approach—and it is not often that I would quote him or agree with him. I see him occasionally in Tasmania now that he is President of the Hawthorn Football Club, and they play a lot of their AFL games in Launceston. In commenting on Ticki Fullerton’s book Watershed, on the politics in the history of water and what we should really be concentrating on, he said:
It’s not just about making sure you have water flows down rivers that have to be changed. It’s all embracing. It’s about rainfall, it’s about collection, its about storage, it’s about distribution, it’s about pricing, it’s about recycling, it’s about avoiding waste, evaporation, seepage. It’s about money, capital investment. But as much as about capital investments, it’s about people’s understanding to better utilize what we’ve already got.
I cannot think of a better way of putting it. We have to take on board that there is not just one simple answer—there is not a silver bullet that can solve all these problems. There are a lot of fundamental changes to our land use and our water practices that we have to get into.
I would also like to thank a lot of people involved in my campaign who helped me enormously: my campaign manager, Peter Kearney, and his wife Di; my good friend Tom Greenwood, who came down from Queensland for the duration of the campaign and whose only thanks was to get a speeding ticket; John Pym from Sydney, who became quite an expert at reading the betting tips—and, of course, I was always in front on the bookies so I knew I was okay. There is no better reader of the numbers than the bookmakers. I want to thank Richard Bolst and his wife, Sheryl, for putting up with some very difficult requests at times; Jock Chalmers for continuing to renew my image in the advertising stakes and working through all those issues; and my staff, who had to get on with all the other work while I was out shaking hands—in the north, Ian Gabites, Eve Lewis and Leeann Loosmore and, in the south, Deb Carnes, Jess Dallas and Lauren Browning. All of them kept the office functioning as the constituents’ queries continued. Those queries did not go away just because there was an election. People still needed to be dealt with. Without these friends and work colleagues life would be very much harder.
To my stepson J.J., John James, who was not around to drive me around this election, as he was in other parts of the world: I missed you, mate. To my partner, Dee, who I could not operate without: thank you very much. To my daughter, Kellie: thank you for your support and love. My grand-daughter Esther, who had not long had a birthday, was able to turn ‘Happy Birthday’ into ‘happy election day’. That was by waving a Kevin 07 flag most of the night. That was a lovely occasion. I congratulate my new parliamentary colleagues, and I wish them all the best: Julie Collins and Jodie Campbell and Catryna Bilyk in the Senate. Of course, my good friend Sid Sidebottom is back where he belongs, in the seat of Braddon. I am sure that they will be here for the long haul.
2867
19:03:00
Vamvakinou, Maria, MP
00AMT
Calwell
ALP
1
0
Ms VAMVAKINOU
—It is indeed a privilege and a relief to finally be given the opportunity to give my speech in the address-in -reply debate. I want to begin by thanking the people of Calwell for their generous support and endorsement in last year’s federal election. It is, in fact, a very great honour to be re-elected as the federal member for Calwell, and I want to note once again that it is a responsibility that I personally take very seriously. What makes this particular election all the more special is having the opportunity, under a Rudd Labor government, to represent, as always, the needs and the interests of Calwell.
Overall, Labor achieved a swing of 11.3 per cent in Calwell—more than double the national average. It is a result of which I am very proud and one that reflects just how strongly issues such as fair workplace laws, healthcare reforms, investment in education and more support for working families resonate in my electorate. Such a result would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of many individuals who selflessly volunteered their time and energy to my campaign. They are too numerous to name and, for fear of forgetting anybody, I simply want to record my sincere gratitude and thanks to all those people.
Labor has a long, strong and proud heritage, one that is firmly anchored in the history of working Australia and in the values of fairness, equality and social justice. As Labor continues to grow and evolve alongside the changing landscape of modern Australia, this heritage serves as a reference point against which to measure both specific policies and our country’s progress. It is a heritage that we on the Labor side must never forget.
In Calwell, the values of fairness, family and opportunity matter. They form the bedrock on which local demands and community expectations are built. For me, fairness, family and opportunity remain the key fundamentals when it comes to determining good policy in this place. They include an obligation to ensure fairness in the workplace, to ensure that basic services and essential infrastructure are able to meet local demand in my electorate of Calwell and to ensure that all Australians have access to opportunities.
One of the key themes in the lead-up to last year’s federal election was federal Labor’s commitment to scrapping the Howard government’s extreme and unfair Work Choices laws and to restore fairness and balance in the Australian workplace. We have done this through the introduction of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008. It has seen an end to Australian workplace agreements. Australian workplace agreements, or AWAs, became shorthand for driving down wages and conditions and stripping back protections from Australian workers. This was an issue never far from the minds of many local residents in Calwell. In a climate where the cost of living continues to rise, protecting wages and job security is absolutely vital, especially when it comes to working parents for whom job security is a prerequisite to meeting their everyday financial commitments. Labor and a Rudd Labor government are committed to making sure that our workplace relations system never strays from the core ideal of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.
Over the last decade, my electorate of Calwell, which is located in Melbourne’s north-west, has undergone many significant changes. An influx of young families moving to the area in search of more affordable housing and a more family friendly environment has seen strong growth in local residential development. At the same time, statistics for the area show that Calwell’s ageing population is also growing at an equally significant rate. These changes to Calwell’s core demographics pose a number of significant challenges, not least in the area of infrastructure and service delivery, which I would like to address. Strong population growth also means a corresponding demand for stronger business investment, industry growth and job creation.
Calwell has long been a centre for local manufacturing and industry and boasts a large pool of existing skilled workers employed in the manufacturing sector. This is a foundation on which we need to build to meet the difficulties Australian manufacturers face as a result of increased global competition. That combined with a decade of dwindling government interest and short-sighted industry policies has had a significant impact on my electorate. Many of our local industries are struggling to survive and local jobs continue to be lost as companies downsize their operations. Protecting and expanding local manufacturing is crucial to Calwell’s long-term future. One of our key priorities in government is and will be to turn around the lacklustre fortunes of manufacturing in Australia.
In today’s knowledge economy, the focus of our approach to industry policy in Australia needs to be on innovation and measures aimed at fostering a culture of innovation in Australia. We need to deepen Australia’s investment in research and development and we also need to do a lot more when it comes to identifying and cultivating new overseas markets and export opportunities for quality Australian made products.
What I would like to see in Calwell is local industry becoming a magnet for innovation, product development and the expansion of Australia’s technical and productive capabilities. Adding to my electorate’s competitive advantage is the close proximity of Melbourne Airport. In addition to being a major source of local employment, Melbourne Airport is a huge asset for local business and industry looking to interstate and overseas export markets to expand their operations. It is an asset that we need to promote and support in Calwell. Working towards a more integrated regional approach when it comes to enhancing the north’s social and economic potential, strengthening local employment opportunities for residents in Calwell to ensure that our local economy remains strong and vibrant and striving towards closer coordination between all levels of government and various stakeholders, such as local community groups and community service providers, industry associations, local businesses and local education and training institutions are all equally crucial.
There are many challenges. One of these particular to Melbourne’s northern and north-western regions is image. As a 2003 Northern Area Consultative Committee report titled Growing Melbourne’s north: developing an integrated economy identified, current misconceptions about Melbourne’s north-west often see us overlooked by the business community as a potential locus for investment. Changing the image of Melbourne’s northern and north-western regions to make them more attractive to business and investment is another crucial challenge that we need to meet on the road to securing our long-term economic growth. My federal and state colleagues in the region and I have an important role to play in this.
I want to now turn to some of the Rudd Labor government’s election commitments announced in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election—commitments that will have a positive impact, I am absolutely certain, on the lives of the people who live in my electorate. As highlighted by the Governor-General in his address to the opening of the parliament, the Rudd Labor government has identified education and the need to invest in education as a key national priority. Investing in education is both an investment in our children’s future and an investment in Australia’s future prosperity. At an individual level, education is one of the most important pathways through which Australians have an opportunity to start life on an equal footing and to strive for self-betterment. At the national level, investing in skills and education is about making sure that we are able to meet future challenges.
Federal Labor’s education revolution is premised on the belief that investing in education, skills and training—that is, investing in your own people—is the best way to lift Australia’s flagging productivity growth, strengthen Australia’s international competitiveness and secure Australia’s long-term economic future. In a global economy, where the competition for skills and expertise becomes fiercer by the day, lifting Australia’s education standards, skilling up tomorrow’s workforce and making sure that we hold on to our best and brightest are absolutely crucial. That is why this government, the Rudd Labor government, is committed to making sure that all four-year-olds have access to 15 hours of quality preschool early learning each week for a minimum of 40 weeks per year at no extra cost to their parents. Research tells us that those children who have access to some form of preschool learning are more likely to do better at school later on in life. Preschool is about building a strong foundation for success later on in life. This commitment includes, of course, funding an extra 1,500 new university places in early childhood education, scrapping TAFE fees for childcare diplomas and halving HECS repayments for early childhood graduates working in areas of need.
The Rudd Labor government has already moved quickly to implement one of its key election commitments, the National Secondary School Computer Fund, under which all secondary schools in my electorate can apply for up to $1 million in funding to buy new computers for students through years 9 to 12, as well as to upgrade the school’s information and communication technology. Of course, applications for the first round of funding under the program are now being accepted, with the second round soon to open in July this year. Over the next four years, this program will see significant infrastructure upgrades undertaken in every Australian government, independent and Catholic secondary school in my electorate. In an age where e-education has become all but indispensable and given the reality that not all parents can afford to buy their children a computer, this is an important initiative, one that promises to pay strong dividends in my electorate.
Equally important is the Rudd Labor government’s Trade Training Centres in Schools plan. This $2.5 billion commitment to build or upgrade trade training centres in Australian secondary schools is all about tackling Australia’s worsening skills crisis by providing local students with the skills they need to pursue a future career in the trades. It is also about encouraging students to stay in school longer by broadening the range of subjects available to them and by making school more relevant to students who otherwise would not see the relevance of schooling. In Calwell, this policy provides us with a unique opportunity to establish trade training centres in strategic locations across the electorate and to align these centres with the skills base sought by local industries in areas such as manufacturing, engineering, construction and the automotive sector.
Building stronger partnerships between local industries and our local schools, especially when it comes to making sure that students who undertake trade training courses are armed with the skills needed by local industries, is crucial to the long-term viability and success of trade training centres. The benefits of such an approach include boosting local employment opportunities for school leavers and making sure that local industries have access to the sort of skilled workforce that they need in order to grow and develop. The Trade Training Centres in Schools plan is in addition to the federal government’s plan to create an additional 450,000 training places over four years, including an extra 65,000 apprenticeships.
The Rudd Labor government has also put forward a number of higher education policies, including halving HECS fees and repayments to encourage more students to study maths and science, increasing the number of Commonwealth funded university places across a number of disciplines, scrapping full fee paying places at university and expanding the Commonwealth Scholarship program for both undergraduates and postgraduates. Investing in education is about investing in people—in human capital—and ensuring that the fundamentals of our economy are geared towards long-term growth and prosperity.
One of the most important priorities in my electorate of Calwell over the next three years concerns access to affordable services in areas such as health care, aged care and child care. Access to these and other essential services plays a defining role in shaping the quality of life a family enjoys. Ensuring access to affordable services and investing in essential infrastructure to meet the demands of a growing population is particularly important in Calwell. Significant pockets of my electorate remain mired in intergenerational poverty and disadvantage, whilst elsewhere rapid population growth has created a situation where demand continues to outstrip supply when it comes to the delivery of essential services. For example, access to affordable health care is an ongoing concern in my electorate. The rising cost of health care and basic medicines, coupled with a shortage of local GP services and a lack of adequate after-hours medical services are all areas in desperate need of serious attention.
For those on the ground, the road map for Calwell’s future is clear. Alongside healthcare reform, there is a need for more childcare centres so that working parents do not have to drive long distances in the morning to drop their children off before work, as well as youth services and youth venues to cater for our local youth who do not enjoy the mobility or ease of access to suitable venues and outlets that their counterparts living in the inner city do.
We also need to radically rethink Calwell’s future infrastructure needs, in line with recent residential development, changes in our population demographic and strong population growth, and this needs to include additional public transport, better roads, more sports facilities and a host of additional social and civic amenities and services. Rather than problems that can be fixed overnight, these are all long-term challenges that demand closer cooperation between federal, state and local governments as well as sustained community involvement. In relation to infrastructure, I strongly welcome the establishment of Infrastructure Australia, which is an independent Commonwealth statutory authority set up by the Rudd Labor government to develop a strategic blueprint for our nation’s infrastructure needs, as well as the advent of a major cities program that will focus on the infrastructure needs of Australia’s towns and cities. My electorate of Calwell is a testament to the reality that Australia’s infrastructure needs do not stop once the country becomes the city.
When it comes to basic services, there is a lot of work to do in this area, but as a start Calwell has already benefited from three new federal Labor government grants. In January, I was pleased to announce Commonwealth funding for a new headspace Communities of Youth Services hub to be established in Broadmeadows. Headspace is Australia’s national youth mental health foundation, funded by the Australian government to provide people aged between 12 and 25 with mental health support as well as help for drug and alcohol problems. The centre will offer a range of support and counselling services geared towards prevention and early intervention. This investment in new services is part of the Rudd Labor government’s focus on the importance of preventative and early intervention health care, and this new centre will play a significant role in lifting the quality of life of those young people that it helps in my electorate.
Calwell has also received federal government funding for a new family relationships centre to be established in Broadmeadows. Family plays an important role in the social fabric of Calwell’s local community. The new centre is designed to provide assistance and advice to local families in areas like strengthening family relationships and resolving relationship difficulties after separation, including mediation services and of course some three hours of free counselling.
These new initiatives will begin to fill the current gap in basic support services in Calwell, and their promise of significant personal, social and economic benefits helps contribute to the long-term wellbeing of our local community. In the lead-up to last year’s November election, I also announced that a Rudd Labor government would provide capital works funding to build two new childcare centres in Calwell. The first childcare centre will be located in Tullamarine, where childcare shortages under the previous government became particularly severe, and the second will be built in Craigieburn, where Calwell is experiencing one of its strongest population growths.
In another area to do with our ageing population, aged care, the Minister for Ageing has already announced substantial changes to current funding arrangements for the allocation of Australian government care subsidies. The aged-care funding instrument took effect on 20 March 2008, with more than $380 million in additional funding to be provided over the next four years. Changes are also being made to accommodation payments and income-tested care fees, with the amount the Australian government contributes in subsidies towards accommodation and care costs increasing. For the first time, self-funded retirees will be treated the same as pensioners with respect to their income and assets.
Since taking office, the federal government has also committed $34.2 million to Victoria to fund an additional 5,908 elective surgery procedures, in order to reduce elective surgery waiting times in the state of Victoria. We have also begun work on boosting the number of nurses in Australia’s health and aged-care system by more than 10,000 over the next five years through a combination of cash bonuses to encourage back into the profession nurses who have been out of the health workforce for more than a year and contributions to assist hospitals with the cost of retraining and reskilling these nurses.
The Rudd Labor government has started to introduce measures to help tackle today’s housing affordability, a huge problem in my electorate. It is a problem that I imagine would be right across the country, but, in particular, in my electorate, housing affordability is becoming more of an issue.
Debate (on motion by Mr Dreyfus) adjourned.
2872
19:25:00
Main Committee adjourned at 7.25 pm
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
2873
Questions in Writing
Immigration and Citizenship: Staffing
2873
2873
8
2873
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
0
Mr Pearce
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 11 March 2008:
How many departmental staff (including permanent, temporary and casual staff) work in the Minister’s Parliament House office, and that of any other Minister and Parliamentary Secretary associated with the Minister’s portfolio; and what is their length of service in the office.
2873
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
Mr McClelland
—The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Currently, there are two departmental staff working as Departmental Liaison Officers in my Canberra office. They joined my office on 3 December 2007.
Similarly, there is one Departmental Liaison Officer currently working in the Office of the Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services, Mr Laurie Ferguson MP. The officer joined the office on 12 December 2007.
Attorney-General’s: Staffing
2873
2873
21
2873
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
0
Mr Pearce
asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 11 March 2008:
How many departmental staff (including permanent, temporary and casual staff) work in the Minister’s Parliament House office, and that of any other Minister and Parliamentary Secretary associated with the Minister’s portfolio; and what is their length of service in the office.
2873
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
Mr McClelland
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
As at 11 March 2008, four departmental staff and two agency staff were working in the offices of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs. Length of service in these offices ranges from 12 weeks to 31 weeks.
Resources, Energy and Tourism: Tourist Complaints
2873
2873
76
2873
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
Mr Ciobo
asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 13 March 2008:
-
How many complaints has his department received through its national online tourist complaint form; how many of these complaints were in English; and how many of these complaints have led to prosecutions.
-
How many complaints has the department referred to the State and Territory government fair trading agencies through the national telephone complaints hotline; and what information about these referrals have the agencies provided back to the department.
-
For the 2007-08 financial year, what amount of funding has the department provided for advertising the national online tourist complaint form and the national telephone complaints hotline.
1
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism
1
Mr Martin Ferguson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
From 28 November 2007 up and including 30 April 2008, 53 complaints were lodged to State and Territory fair trading agencies through the national online tourist complaint form hosted on the web site of the Department. The number of complaints in English was 33. Prosecutions are pursued by the relevant state and territory authority.
-
83 calls have been forwarded to State and Territory fair trading agencies through the national telephone tourist complaints hotline facilitated by the Department, over the latest 12 month reporting period (ending April 2008). The Department coordinates national monitoring of online tourist complaint activity and outcomes, for reporting to the Australian Standing Committee on Tourism. State and Territory activities in response to complaints received are further discussed in various tourism forums involving the Department.
-
Advertising the national online tourist complaint form and the national telephone complaints hotline is part of the Department’s broader on-going work to market and strengthen tourist protection measures.
Ongoing, baseline promotion is achieved via links to the online tourist consumer protection resources from www.australia.com, Tourism Australia’s information site for travellers to Australia as well as industry websites.