The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Anna Burke) took the chair at 9:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 2) 2012
Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012
Customs Tariff Amendment (Schedule 4) Bill 2012
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (09:01): I move:
That the bills be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Malabar Headland Protection Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Garrett.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (09:02): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak on the Malabar Headland Protection Bill 2012. The bill sets out provisions for the protection of the Malabar Headland in New South Wales, following the progressive transfer of its ownership from the Commonwealth government to the New South Wales government.
The bill has been created to prohibit the development of the site and to ensure the protection of the environmental, heritage and cultural features. This will ensure this unique site is conserved in perpetuity for the people of New South Wales.
Malabar Headland is located in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney between Maroubra Bay and Long Bay. It is an important asset not only to the local Malabar and Maroubra communities but to all people of New South Wales.
The 177-hectare site has been used for several purposes since European settlement from farming and recreational shooting to military use as a training facility, and a base and defensive position during World War II. It was also used for sandmining and then landfill operations.
Malabar Headland is a historic site with important natural and heritage values, including World War II structures and endangered ecosystems such as the Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub. The site holds several heritage listings for its natural, cultural, historic and landscape values. It is listed on the Commonwealth Heritage List and the New South Wales State Heritage Register. Its importance is also recognised in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan as it is registered as a Heritage Conservation Area.
The Labor government announced its policy in an election commitment in 2010 to transfer approximately 70 hectares of the Malabar Headland site to the state of New South Wales for use as a national park. In 2007, Labor announced that it would transfer the whole site to the New South Wales government and it is still the government's intention to honour that pledge.
Before transferring the Malabar property, the Commonwealth government will ensure that any public liability risks are addressed. One such risk with the Malabar Headland site is the unknown quantities and sources of contamination from its previous uses. To ensure this risk is addressed, extensive remediation is required to make the site safe for public use.
I want to seek your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, to let you see this photo of what an absolutely beautiful and wonderful site this is but I will now return to my comments. Malabar Headland comprises three distinct areas—the western, central and eastern sections. The western section was the first section to be transferred from the Commonwealth government to the New South Wales government on 2 March this year. This 17.7-hectare area contains remnants of the Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub, eucalypt woodlands and coastal heathland.
The Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub is regarded as of extremely high conservation significance. The community was once common across the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney. Due to its decline, as a result of previous clearing across the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney, less than three per cent of the original community remains.
The western section had high levels of asbestos in construction waste. Following clean-up and remediation, ownership of the western section was transferred to the New South Wales government. The transfer of this land is a significant achievement and has created 17.7 hectares of national park for the community to enjoy.
The transfer of the western section is the first step in the delivery of the Labor government's commitment to create around 70 hectares of additional national park and conservation reserve. This new national park will be managed and protected by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service.
The eastern section is the next stage of the progressive transfer of the site to the New South Wales government. Remediation works are well underway to remove the unregulated fly-tipped waste, such as old car bodies and asbestos-containing materials. Once remediated, this transfer will create around 50 hectares of national park. The eastern section is abundant in historical and natural values. It contains the remnants of World War II fortifications constructed in response to the threat of sea-borne attack. One of these structures is known as the Boora Point Battery—an imposing, purpose-built coastal landmark, which is important for providing tangible evidence of Australia's coastal defence efforts in the Sydney area during the war.
The eastern section also contains large areas of coastal heathland, Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub and eucalypt woodland. Coastal heathland supports a distinctive fauna, including several species that have become threatened within the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority Area. The coastal heathland established on the Headland is a potential habitat for this distinctive fauna.
The central section of the Malabar Headland site was not covered by the 2010 election commitment. This area of the site was previously used for landfill operations and, as a result, is heavily contaminated. Until the Remediation Action Plan has been developed and approved by an independent accredited site auditor, it is not possible to determine the extent of the remediation required for this section.
It is the government's strategic vision to progressively transfer the entire Malabar Headland site to New South Wales for national park and public open space for all of the community. However, significantly more work is needed before consideration can be given to the transfer of the central section to the New South Wales government.
The people of New South Wales deserve this unique site to be protected as national park and public open space in perpetuity. For decades the local community has campaigned to protect Malabar Headland. I want to place on record this government's appreciation of their efforts—in particular, the Friends of Malabar Headland, including Peter Ryan, Alan Hall and many others who have worked tirelessly to rehabilitate the bushland. Their vision of a national park on Malabar Headland is now being realised.
With this bill, the Labor government has set in place the strongest protection measure that can be established to prevent this land ever being taken away from the people of New South Wales. Protection of the environmental, heritage and cultural features of this important site is a priority for this government.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Plibersek.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (09:10): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Professional Services Review (PSR) Scheme and the Medicare Participation Review Committee process (MPRC) are important parts of the government's efforts to support the provision of high quality, appropriate and safe health services for patients. They protect the integrity of Medicare.
The Professional Services Review Scheme is a peer review process for investigating whether a practitioner has engaged in inappropriate practice in the provision of services under the Medicare benefits scheme or Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Medicare Participation Review Committees are independent statutory committees that make determinations on whether a practitioner should maintain the right to participate in Medicare.
This bill makes amendments to the provisions for the Professional Services Review and the Medicare Participation Review Committee process in the Health Insurance Act 1973 (the act).
The proposed amendments do not alter the purpose of the Professional Services Review or the Medicare Participation Review Committee process. These amendments strengthen the ability of the Professional Services Review to protect the integrity of Medicare, improve administration and clarify issues raised in recent court decisions.
The bill addresses issues raised in a recent Federal Court decision, Kutlu v Director of Professional Services Review [2011] FCAFC 94. The Federal Court's decision in this case brought into question the validity of findings of the Professional Services Review if the consultation process for appointing a person as a Professional Services Review panel member or deputy director had not been followed.
In cases where practitioners have been found by a Professional Services Review Committee to have practised inappropriately and are serving periods of disqualification, the Federal Court's decision could result in these practitioners being able to provide services under Medicare. This could compromise public health and safety.
The bill will address this issue by retrospectively validating past Professional Services Review findings that have been brought into question because a panel member or deputy director was not validly appointed. These Professional Services Review processes will be held to be valid and effective.
The government considers that retrospective legislation is necessary and justified in this case to remove uncertainty about a number of Professional Services Review findings, where practitioners have been found by a committee of their peers to have practised inappropriately.
The bill has a legitimate objective in rectifying the effect of technical errors in the appointment process. The retrospective provisions aim to ensure that action taken to protect the integrity of services provided under Medicare may be relied on.
These validating provisions are not intended to apply to parties to proceedings for which leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia has been given before the bill is assented to, if the validity of a Professional Services Review appointment is in issue in those proceedings.
However, the bill will allow the Director of the Professional Services Review to establish and re-refer matters to a new PSR Committee in such cases. This will mean that practitioners who have been found to have engaged in inappropriate practice by their peers, and have successfully challenged a Professional Services Review process on the grounds of irregularity in the appointment process, may be re-referred to a new PSR Committee for investigation if the director decides to do so.
Other provisions
The bill also includes a number of provisions that strengthen the Professional Services Review's capacity to protect the integrity of Medicare, improve the operations of the scheme, and respond to the recommendations of a review of the scheme in 2007.
The Professional Services Review currently applies to only some, not all, of the types of health professionals who can provide services under Medicare. The bill will enable the PSR Scheme to be applied to all health professionals who provide Medicare services.
The bill includes amendments to improve the protection of the public under the Professional Services Review.
If the conduct of a person under review poses a threat to patient life or health, the Director of the Professional Services Review will be required to contact the relevant body that is authorised to recall patients for independent medical review. The bill also requires the director to notify the relevant registration body.
The quality of patient care can be placed at risk if practitioners undertake unreasonably high numbers of services. In 1999, medical professional groups agreed that 80 or more unreferred attendances on 20 or more days in a 12-month period constituted inappropriate practice.
This bill clarifies in legislation that a practitioner who performs this number of services is automatically deemed by the legislation to have practised inappropriately, unless they can provide evidence that exceptional circumstances existed.
Patients will also be protected by amendments that will require all persons who are disqualified from Medicare due to a Professional Services Review or Medicare Participation Review Committee process to display a notice to inform patients that services will not attract Medicare benefits.
The bill clarifies the respective role of the Professional Services Review and Medicare Participation Review Committees, so that the PSR investigates inappropriate practice and the MPRC reviews practitioners where they have contravened a relevant civil penalty provision or committed a relevant criminal offence.
Other amendments improve the administration of the Professional Services Review following its review in 2007. These amendments include clarifying processes where a person is unable to participate due to illness, or where the person under review dies, and making minor administrative changes.
Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are two of the key pillars of Australia's health system. Robust structures to prevent inappropriate practice are essential if they are to benefit all Australians for years to come.
This bill will ensure that the Professional Services Review continues to protect the integrity of Medicare and to support high quality, appropriate and safe health services for all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.
Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 2012
Reference to Federation Chamber
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (09:17): by leave—I move:
That the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 2012 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (09:18): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012 is the principal bill in a package of two bills which will enable the government to impose a charge for the production of visa evidence. The Visa Pricing Transformation program restructures the way in which visas are priced and this is part of that program.
The visa evidence charge will reduce the administrative burden on the Department of Immigration and Citizenship associated with processing hard copy visa evidence. The visa evidence charge will also allow for greater cost recovery for these services and will generate additional revenue.
The Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012 imposes a charge in relation to requests for visa evidence and establishes a charge limit of $250 for a request made in the financial year ending on 30 June 2013. The bill also provides a mechanism for this amount to be indexed in later financial years.
The Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 is the second bill in this package and will make amendments to the Migration Act 1958 to implement the visa evidence charge.
Currently, Australia does not require visa holders to have hard copy evidence of their visa; however, clients are still provided with the option of being given evidence if it is necessary for them to have the evidence to transit or exit another country, or if they make a personal decision to obtain such evidence. Visa holders will continue to have the option to request evidence of their visa; however, once the amendments in this package of bills commence, visa holders will be charged for this visa evidence, unless an exemption or waiver applies, or there are circumstances where the visa evidence charge is nil.
The key elements of the Visa Pricing Transformation include a move to a user-pays model. The visa evidence charge component of the Visa Pricing Transformation program will discourage reliance on visa labels by immigration clients and foreign officials and encourage the use of electronic systems for validating a non-citizen's right to enter Australia.
Although most non-citizens are not required under Australian law to have a visa label as evidence of their visa status, many visa applicants apply to have a visa label issued at the time of grant or post-grant. Eliminating the perceived need for visa labels is a priority for the government as currently one-third of visas granted each year are evidenced. In 2011, 455,000 visa labels were issued onshore and 910,000 offshore, totalling 1.365 million visa labels issued over calendar year 2011. Issuing visa labels is the highest volume service undertaken at immigration client service counters both in Australia and overseas. Imposing a service delivery charge as a prerequisite to having a visa label, or other non-electronic evidence issued, is intended to compensate for the costs associated with delivering that service and encourage Immigration clients to travel without a visa label.
Changing client and stakeholder behaviour to recognise the validity of electronic confirmation of a person's visa is the primary driving force behind the introduction of the visa evidence charge. Visa Entitlement Verification Online (VEVO) or advance passenger processing systems in the case of airlines and border agencies will reduce overheads for the department and reduce the risk of fraud. A number of business process based initiatives have been tried to reduce the use of hard copy visa labels in recent years, but in the absence of a price disincentive these have had only limited success. As part of the visa transformation program, work will be undertaken to improve the online entitlement verification service and educate clients about the ease of travelling without a visa label.
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship conducted modelling which has confirmed that the new visa charges including a charge for visa evidence will have only a minimal impact on education and tourism.
To complement the modelling conducted by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade sought views from Australia's overseas missions, as well as conducting assessments of how the proposed changes would be received by host governments.
In summary, this package of bills will enable the government to impose a charge for the production of visa evidence. The visa evidence charge will encourage clients to reconsider their need to have a visa label. The department's modelling has confirmed that the visa evidence charge will have a minimal impact on the education, tourism and employment sectors and immigration clients as visa demand has been shown to not be affected by these changes. These changes are a component of a larger strategy that will ultimately reduce the administrative burden non-electronic visa evidencing imposes on the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and will eliminate the current financial burden visa labels impose on the Australian taxpayer.
Debate adjourned.
Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (09:24):
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 is the second bill in a package of two bills which will enable the government to impose a charge for the production of visa evidence. The Visa Pricing Transformation program restructures the way in which visas are priced.
The visa evidence charge will be imposed by the principal bill, the Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012, which enables a charge to be payable for the production of prescribed evidence of a visa. The Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 completes the package of amendments needed to implement the visa evidence charge.
This bill amends the Migration Act to enable a visa holder to request to be given a prescribed form of evidence, and requires a person who makes a request for visa evidence to pay the visa evidence charge. If a visa holder makes a request to be given visa evidence and pays the visa evidence charge, the officer must give the visa holder this evidence.
The amount of the visa evidence charge will be prescribed in the migration regulations and will be subject to the maximum charge limit set out in the Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012. In appropriate circumstances, the visa evidence charge may well be nil.
The bill will also insert regulation-making powers to allow regulations to be made to specify different amounts of visa evidence charged for different forms of visa evidence, different classes of visas, different methods of payments, where the person elects to have the request dealt with expeditiously or for requests made in different circumstances.
The regulations will also prescribe the circumstances in which the visa evidence charge may be waived, refunded or remitted, as well as specifying those persons who will be exempt from the charge.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by the Ms Macklin.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (09:26):
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill delivers on the government's announcement of a new payment for families to help with the costs for children in school.
It is part of this Labor government's commitment to helping Australian families make ends meet.
And it shows our determination to continue supporting low- and middle-income families as we return the budget to surplus.
Our economic fundamentals are strong, unemployment is low and we are in the middle of a mining boom but we do recognise that it is not everybody's boom.
We understand that many working Australians are struggling to balance the family budget. For many families, the extra costs of sending children to school and giving them a great education can add to this pressure.
So that is why, from 1 January next year, the government will deliver a new payment to around 1.3 million Australian families with kids in school.
This payment, the schoolkids bonus, will be paid to the families of around 2.2 million children in primary and secondary schools across the country.
The schoolkids bonus will be delivered as an up-front payment to families in two instalments each year, before term 1 and term 3, to help them cover the costs of their child's education.
Expenses like school uniforms and school shoes, textbooks, camps, excursions as well as extracurricular activities, such as music lessons.
Eligible families will receive a total of $410 a year for each child in primary school, and $820 a year for each child in secondary school.
The schoolkids bonus will replace the education tax refund in 2013, and this bill also removes the education tax refund for 2011-12 from taxation legislation.
For many families with children in school, the education tax refund has made a big difference. However, we know that many families are not experiencing its full benefits.
This is especially the case for working families on low incomes—it is simply too tough to pay the school expenses first and then wait months, or even a year, to get 50 per cent back. For busy families it can also be hard keeping track of receipts and then filling out all the paperwork at tax time.
Last year more than 80 per cent of families did not claim the full amount they were entitled to. About 20 per cent did not claim a refund at all.
In total around one million Australian families are missing out on the full benefit of the education tax refund.
This Labor government wants to change that.
This is the right time to turn this assistance into an upfront payment, with the 1 July 2012 increase to the tax-free threshold meaning that more than one million people will no longer needed to do a tax return.
The new schoolkids bonus will make sure that all eligible families get their full entitlement, not just those who can afford to spend the money upfront and claim later.
The schoolkids bonus means more support for families with kids in school.
It means not having to wait months to get something back.
It means not having to collect a pile of receipts or fill out that extra paperwork at tax time.
Paid in full and upfront, the schoolkids bonus means working families get the support that they need, when they need it.
It is money in your pocket—and new support from the Gillard government.
It is support that is there before the costs start rolling in.
It is extra support for more than one million Australian families who have missed out in the past and can now get every cent they deserve.
The schoolkids bonus will be available from 2013 to families receiving family tax benefit part A plus young people in school receiving income support payments such as youth allowance, ABSTUDY, disability support pension and veterans' educational allowances, on the eligibility test date.
Families will only need to notify Centrelink when their child first starts school so that the payments can begin.
After that the bonus is automatically paid in January and July every year if they remain on the relevant linked payment such as family tax benefit part A.
Parents will also need to let Centrelink know when their kids go to high school so that they can move on to the higher payment.
The government is delivering this new support because we know it can be tough to make ends meet, particularly when you are trying to get your kids through school.
Uniforms, school shoes, textbooks, excursions are not cheap. I think all of us know that the cost can quickly add up. When the schoolkids bonus begins in January next year it will help families relieve some of the pressure on the household budget.
We do also know that many families are feeling the pinch right now—and need a bit of extra support right now.
So as we transition to the schoolkids bonus we want to do what we can in the next few weeks to make sure that we are looking out for low- and middle-income families who are finding it tough to keep up.
This bill creates a one-off transitional payment called the ETR payment which will pay out in full the education tax refund to all eligible families for 2011-12.
This means families will receive their full education tax refund entitlement for the 2011-12 tax year ahead of tax time. So parents will not have to worry about keeping receipts or making claims when they do their tax this year.
The one-off ETR payment will be $409 for a child in primary school and $818 for a secondary school child, the same maximum amounts that would have been available in the 2011-12 tax year. A family with one primary student and one secondary student will get more than $700 extra on average this year.
All 1.3 million families will get the maximum amount they are entitled to for the first time and all will get their payments earlier.
They will not have to collect their receipts and they will not have to fill out that extra paperwork at tax time.
This lump sum payment will be paid to all families entitled to family tax benefit part A on 8 May this year for a school-aged child as well as to young people in secondary education who are receiving certain student income support payments on 8 May.
A similar ETR payment will be provided through amendments to Veterans' Affairs legislation for recipients on 8 May of payments under the Veterans' Children Education Scheme or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme.
The bill will also create an administrative scheme for the ETR payment which will assist people who may not be able to access an appropriate ETR payment under the family assistance law or veterans legislation; for example, a parent who was automatically paid the primary school rate for a child who is actually in secondary school.
In a tough environment this government is making the hard decisions as we return to surplus.
But we are a Labor government, driven by Labor values.
Labor will always stand up for Australia's low- and middle-income families.
Families who do their very best with what they have got.
Who do not ask for much and who deserve a bit of extra support.
It is our job to make sure that those families who need that extra help are getting it, and that is what this government's schoolkids bonus will do.
Labor will always work to ensure that Australian families, particular those putting their kids through school, have a support that they need to make ends meet. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (09:35): Can I indicate at the outset that the coalition will oppose this legislation. We will oppose it because it is bad policy. It is bad policy for a number of reasons—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Mr ANDREWS: If the minister at the table would be quiet for a moment I will explain to her and to anybody else who happens to be listening to this broadcast why this is bad policy. It is bad policy because when you look behind the spin of a Treasurer last night in his budget speech, and you look behind the spin of the minister in her second reading speech of this bill today, then you can see what is actually going on here. The first reason this is bad policy is because this is essentially a sleight of hand by the Labor government. Look at the current situation in relation to this education payment. If a family who is eligible has a child at primary school and they have receipts for educational expenses as set out in the legislation, for that child at primary school they can currently claim $410. And if they have a child at secondary school, in the same circumstances they can claim $820. So the current situation—what operates right now; what would operate for this financial year without this legislation being passed—is that parents around Australia with primary school children can claim $410 and with secondary school children can claim up to $820. That is the situation that exists right now. Without this legislation, parents in that circumstance would be eligible to claim that amount and they would have it repaid at the end of the tax year. That is the situation that applies for parents right now.
After the passage of this legislation are those eligible parents who make a claim going to get a cent more? No. They are still going to get $410 if they have a primary school student and they are still going to get $820 if they have a secondary school student. That is why I say this is a sleight of hand. This is taking one payment, abolishing it and replacing it with the same payment in terms of what parents actually receive, so there is a sleight of hand here. A targeted program that exists at the present time is therefore being replaced by one which is untargeted—and any pretence, as we have heard in the speech this morning by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, that this is about offsetting education costs is simply denied by the facts that there are no changes in the amounts of payments that go to the eligible parents. So the first reason that this is bad policy is that this is simply spin. It is taking a payment that already exists—which this coalition supports and will continue to support into the future; in other words, we support parents of primary school children getting up to $410 and we support parents of secondary school students getting up to $820—and that is made through the tax system and saying, 'We're now going to make this a welfare payment.'
What this shows is that the Labor Party have learnt nothing from the incompetence of administration in the past. Remember the expenditures that they have paid over the past few years: the cash handouts, the pink batts, the cash for clunkers, the set-top boxes—and one could go on and on and on about poor and incompetent administration by the Labor Party over the last few years. So what are they doing with this payment? Instead of having a targeted payment, where all that is required is for parents to keep the receipts of their expenditure on the list of allowable expenditures, they are saying, 'We'll just give you the money.' What is the consequence of that? There is no connection between the money that is being handed out and educational expenditure.
Parents can go and spend the money on what they like. If they want to go down to the local club and put it through the poker machines they can do that. If they want to go and buy some new electrical gear from the electrical retailer they can go and do that. Of course, we know from the past when payments were made by the Labor Party that payments were made to dead people, that payments were made to people living overseas and that a lot of the money was simply wasted.
If this was genuinely an educational expenditure, if this was genuinely about saying that we should provide for children and some of the expenses that their parents have for their education and schooling, then we have a targeted program that does that—and all that requires of responsible parents is that they keep the receipts and make a claim on their tax. But that is no longer the case so far as the Labor Party is concerned. It is not about a targeted educational expenditure. This, in reality, is a handout in order to help cook the books, which this budget is all about; a handout in relation to offsetting what they know is coming by way of the cost increases under the carbon tax from 1 July.
So the first reason that this is a bad policy is that it takes a properly targeted educational expenditure, a properly targeted program which is working quite well at the present time, and then changes that into something that is simply a handout, where there is no connection between the educational expenditure and the handout itself. And we know from past experience of the poor and incompetent administration of these programs by this Gillard-Swan government that some of this money is going to be wasted. I ask the ordinary, hardworking taxpayers of Australia, the men and women who are working hard and putting their children through school in this country and who are able to list their educational expenses and make a proper and genuine claim, do they think it is reasonable if somebody cannot be bothered to do that or somebody just wants to take the money and spend it however they like? Do they think that that is actually connected to enhancing education and schooling and training in this country?
Go down to the front pub and apply the pub test to this by asking people. I will have a bet with anybody on the other side what the answer will be. The answer will be that they think it is quite reasonable the way the system works at the present time. If this is genuinely about educational expenditure then there ought to be a connection between that expenditure and the payment being made, but that is being ripped up so far as this piece of legislation is concerned. So the first reason why the coalition will oppose this measure because we believe it is bad policy is that it disconnects the existing nexus between the educational expenditure and the payment itself. For that reason it is bad policy. It is bad policy for the additional reason that this government has shown itself totally incompetent in administering these sorts of programs in the past, and there are numerous examples which I will not continue to rehearse in this debate today.
The second reason this is bad policy goes to the heart of the accounting tricks in this budget. This budget accounting trick is one which will unravel in the coming days. Why was there an indecent haste, and there still is, to introduce this bill? Yesterday afternoon the minister came in here before the budget was delivered to seek leave to introduce this bill. The budget had not even been delivered: this is a bill of which the Treasurer made an announcement in the budget last night. But hours before the Treasurer even stood on his feet at the dispatch box here at 7.30 last night to announce this measure, amongst other things, the minister was in here seeking leave to introduce this bill. Why was that? Why the indecent haste to introduce a measure that is in the budget but has not yet even been announced in the budget? The reason is this: it goes to the accounting tricks at the heart of this budget.
Currently, this payment would be in next year's financial accounts. I will go back to explain how the system works at the present time. At the end of this financial year a parent, if they have a primary school student and if they have the requisite receipts for educational expenses, could put in a claim on their tax for $410, or $820 for a secondary student. They would put their tax in after the end of this financial year, as we all do, and that claim would be accounted in their tax for this year, which of course means that any refund or any allowance would be actually paid by Treasury next year. Currently this means that the amount which the government expends on this measure would be accounted for in the 2012-13 financial accounts of the Commonwealth.
But what is this measure doing? Why this indecent haste? The minister has just said he wants to pay this money out before the end of this financial year. What is the consequence of that? It is that that expenditure by the government will be in this year's financial accounts. That expenditure will be part of the $44 billion deficit that this government predicts it will have by the end of this financial year—it will probably be more given the way it has blown out, but based on the words of the Treasurer last night, the projection was of a $44 billion deficit this financial year. It will be part of this year's financial accounts because of the passage of this legislation; whereas, if people were still to receive the money which they would otherwise have received, it would be in next year's financial accounts.
Why is this an accounting trick? Because it is moving what normally would have been an expenditure by the government in the next financial year into this financial year. And what are the consequences of that? It helps the Treasurer to achieve his paper thin, and probably paper only, $1.5 billion surplus next year. If this amount of money was in next year's financial accounts then that would probably reduce by about half the $1.5 billion surplus that the Treasurer is claiming he will achieve next year. This is financial accounting trickery. This is why, as someone said, this is a 'fudge it not a budget'—because it is moving expenditure that would have normally occurred next year, and would have been accounted for next year, into this year. He is not worried if there is an extra half-billion or so on what is already a $44 billion deficit this year. He is worried, politically, that he will be able to say, 'I'm going to get a surplus next year.' Of course, nobody believes that. But if he did not have this measure being paid out in this financial year, then it would be paid next year and so the pretend surplus that he announced last night would be halved overnight.
This is not the only example of this sort of accounting trickery that we have in this budget. We see that flood payments to local government, which would normally have been made next year, are being made this year. That is $1.1 billion that would have been in next year's expenditure now being brought forward into this year's expenditure. The Treasurer says, 'I'm going to have a $1.5 billion surplus.' However, if you take the 1.1 billion away from that, it reduces his surplus to $400 million just like that. Just one simple accounting trick. That is what we have throughout this budget.
Let me take another example: the clean energy advance of $1.5 billion. That is exactly the same amount that the budget is projecting will be a surplus. The clean energy advance, which would have been paid next year and therefore would have been a cost to the finances of the Commonwealth government next year of $1.5 billion, is being brought forward and paid before the end of June so that it is in this year's budget rather than next year's budget.
So there are just three examples of the financial and accounting trickery that is at the heart of this budget. That is why this surplus being projected by the Treasurer is simply unbelievable. If you took that payment of the clean energy advance of $1.5 billion alone, and it was made next year, as it was meant to be made, then the surplus disappears—with just one payment! But add to that the payments to local government of $1.1 billion and the payment under this bill that we are debating now—probably in the order of half a billion dollars—and there is no surplus; there is a deficit. The reality is, when next year's financial accounts come in, there will not be a surplus, there will be a deficit, no matter what trickery is engaged in cooking the books by the Treasurer.
This bill is not the only example of accounting trickery. There is other expenditure which normally—as would have been forecast in the forward estimates before last night—would have been made next year but has now been pushed out beyond next year. In other words, expenditure for next year is either being brought forward, so it does not show up on the books next year and so this paper surplus can be claimed, or pushed out to years beyond that, so again it does not show up on the books next year and so again the Treasurer is able to claim that he is getting a surplus.
That is not to mention the NBN, which is not even in the financial accounts. It is not even part of the bottom line. If you add the NBN in, there is another $8 billion or so that would have to be taken into account and would add immediately to the deficit of this government. So the surplus is an illusion. It does not exist, except on the paper of the Treasurer's statement and in the mind of the government.
If you look at the borrowing from the future, this year the government spending is increased by $25 billion. It falls by $7 billion next year—the year he wants to achieve a surplus—and yet on his own figures and data it then goes up by $23 billion the following year. These bottom line figures just show what is happening: expenditure is being brought forward into this year so that it can fall next year and then the year after that it goes up to about what it is this year. So this is trickery—trickery at the heart of the Treasurer's budget and at the heart of the financial accounts—and this bill is an example of that trickery simply by bringing this forward to this year. So the surplus is illusionary—and it would not be believable anyway, because this time last year the Treasurer was telling all and sundry who would listen that we would have a deficit of $22 billion. I remind the House that his first estimate was $12 billion and that he later revised it upward to $22 billion. Fast forward 12 months to last night, and he says, 'No, the deficit is not going to be $22 billion; the deficit is now going to be $44 billion.' So you cannot believe what this government says about the deficit. It may be more than $44 billion. We still have almost two months to go before the end of this financial year, and we will not know until September whether it is a $44 billion deficit or even higher. The point is: how can you believe now what the Treasurer says about the deficit when last year he was telling us it would be $22 billion and it has blown out by 100 per cent to $44 billion?
Put this in the context of what has happened under this government. Last year the deficit was $47 billion; the year before it was $54 billion; and in the first year of this government it was $27 billion. The cumulative total of these deficits, even if the $44 billion is correct, is about $174 billion over four years. Yet we are told, assured and led to believe that we are simply to say, 'Yes, Treasurer, you are going to produce a $1½ billion surplus next year.' The cumulative total of the deficits is $174 billion over four years, and we are going to turn it around and produce a $1.5 billion surplus next year? As I have already explained, part of that apparent surplus will be achieved through financial trickery. If anybody believes on the basis of the evidence of what has been done over the last four years that this $44 billion deficit is going to lead to a surplus then they can find fairies around Lake Burley Griffin.
If they have been unable to control the budget for four years, how is this government going to control the budget in the fifth year? It is simply not going to happen. If you want further evidence of this, there is the fact that we found out last night that elsewhere in the budget papers the government has increased its debt ceiling. The government currently has the legislative authority of this parliament to borrow up to $250 billion. The government says, 'We're getting things under control. We're not going to have any more deficits; we're going to have a surplus. We're all back on track. Forget the last four years. Forget all of that; this is a new start.' That is effectively what Mr Swan was saying last night. It was: 'Forget that; we're all under control. We've got the spending under control. We've got tax under control. We've got our programs under control.' But, if that is the case, why does the Commonwealth need to increase its debt ceiling for borrowings from $250 billion to $300 billion? If somebody says, 'I've got the household expenditure under control—I'm not expending any more than I'm bringing in by way of income,' would you believe that person when they then said, 'But I'd better go out and increase the bank card limit from $250 to $300'? That is what the government is doing. In this budget they are seeking the legislative authority of this parliament to increase their borrowing ceiling to $300 billion, yet they are trying to tell us that somehow everything is under control.
This government is borrowing $100 million a day and projecting an interest bill next year of $8 billion. What could you spend $8 billion on, when in the last years of the Howard government we had surpluses? Last night the Treasurer was trumpeting that he is putting $1 billion over four years into the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The scheme is going to cost $4 billion, according to the Productivity Commission, so we are yet to find out where the other $3 billion is going to come from. The Treasurer is trumpeting that he will put $1 billion into the scheme over four years, but in reality it is probably going to cost closer to $8 billion to put the National Disability Insurance Scheme in place. If you did not pay $8 billion worth of interest each year, you would be able to do something socially useful that this country needs, such as have a proper national disability insurance scheme rather than have it on the never-never, which is what you are proposing.
The government says to us that there are 400,000 profoundly disabled people to whom the scheme should apply in the first year. Do you know how many of these people are going to be covered by what the government announced last night? In the first year there will be just 10,000 packages, and in the second year there will be 20,000 packages.
Mr Champion: What did you do?
Mr ANDREWS: I will tell you what we did. We left the budget in surplus so you could pay for things like this; we did not run up $174 billion in cumulative deficit.
Mr Champion interjecting—
Mr ANDREWS: Keep the interjections coming. We did not have to raise the debt ceiling of the Commonwealth from $250 billion to $300 billion. We did not project in the budget, as your Treasurer did last night, that the unemployment rate is going to go up in the next year.
Mr Champion interjecting—
Mr ANDREWS: Keep the interjections coming if you want to know what we did. I do not think the record stands any comparison with the incompetent Labor government that we have at the present time.
In programs such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, just one-twentieth of the need is going to be met. There will be just 20,000 out of the 400,000 packages projected to be needed, because the money is not there. Another example from the budget is its approach to aged-care reform. There was a bit of money for aged-care reform in the budget last night, but is that going to meet the ageing of the population and the huge increase in demand that is coming in future years as more people get older and need dementia services and other services? No. Why can't these services be provided? They cannot be provided because we have a government that is chronically unable to control the budget of this country, and this budget is just another example of its inability to do so.
Another reason that this budget represents bad policy is that it is basically compensation for the carbon tax. I heard the minister saying in her second reading speech that families were facing pressures—and they are. But this is what the Treasurer said last night:
The price on carbon pollution that begins this year will only be paid by Australia's biggest emitters. It will not be levied on families.
As if big emitters will not pass costs on to families!
But to help with any price increases, we are cutting income tax and increasing payments to pensioners, families and recipients of allowances beginning this month.
In other words, despite telling us that families in Australia are not going to have any impost because of the carbon tax, the Treasurer let the cat out of the bag last night when he said, 'Yes, there are cost increases coming and this is part of the reason we are having to give these handouts.' That is what this is about as well. It is not just about moving payments that would normally occur in next year's financial accounts into this year's; it is also about providing compensation with a bit of pretext that it is about an education allowance. As I explained before, you can make educational payments for genuine education needs under the present system without making this change. The Treasurer let the cat out of the bag last night. The reality is that this is about compensation for the carbon tax. Labor know that the carbon tax is toxic in the community. They know that people have made up their minds about it. People do not believe the spin that only big emitters will pay and that, having done that, they will absorb all the costs.
In reality, two things will happen as a consequence of the carbon tax. Emitters will, where they can, pass on the costs. Any business does that. If a business has an increase in the cost of production of its goods or services, it passes on the costs. It would have been better if the government had come clean and said this, but they are trying to walk both sides of the street. That will be one consequence. The other consequence will be that many small businesses in particular, where they are not able to pass on the costs, will reduce the number of their employees. This is happening already. If you go for a walk around the northern suburbs of Melbourne, where there are a lot of small manufacturing businesses—or the eastern suburbs of Melbourne or elsewhere around Australia—and if you talk to the people who are out there running businesses, you will find that the reality is that jobs are being lost already, and that is because of the impact of these changes under the Labor government. What the government is seeking to do is to give a bit of a sugar hit now, because they know that the big hit to the budget of ordinary Australians is coming with a huge whack in July.
The pretence in this budget is that we are taking money from the rich, the miners, to pay for the poor, but we are also taking a lot of money from low-income earners. There are changes to the FTB in relation to older teenagers—which is something that the government promised back in 2010 they would look after. That is suddenly gone in this budget. So one group of low-income earners are paying for another group of low-income earners. Then there are single parents. The government are taking a saving of about $700 million from that group of low-income earners to pay for other low-income earners and, at the same time, slashing the funds in the budget for the job service providers who might have been there to provide for these people whom the government are moving off parenting payments onto Newstart. While the government are moving them off parenting payments onto Newstart, they are actually slashing the funds that are available to the job service providers in Australia to provide the services that might help those single parents to get into a job. This pretence that this is just taking from one group who can pay it to another group who need it is just that: spin and pretence. There are low-income earners who are losing money under this budget and the reality is that the cost of the toxic carbon tax will be passed on when it is passed. That is what we are facing.
In terms of the carbon tax, the budget has $36 million to advertise and promote the carbon tax. I calculated that the government are going to have to spend almost $2 million a week on promotion and advertising for the carbon tax. Why have they got to do that? They know that it is so toxic that they have to try to convince people otherwise. At the same time, we know that electricity prices have gone up, gas prices have gone up, prices are going up and they will continue to go up.
Unemployment is forecast to go up under this budget, and that means job losses for ordinary Australians. There is every reason for this budget to be feared by the Australian people. When they look beyond the spin to what is actually in this budget, it will start to unravel, because they will see that one-off handouts—handouts that can be misused in some instances—are not going to fix the structural problems of the Australian economy. They are not going to make Australia a more economically secure place than it is at the present time. Worse than that: at the end of this budget process, nothing much has changed. We still have Julia Gillard as Prime Minister and Wayne Swan as Treasurer. It is still a government hanging onto the vote of the member for Dobell in order to maintain its majority in this place. We still have a tricky PM who did a deal with the Speaker in order to try to shore up her votes in this place. Nothing has changed—nothing at all. These issues are not going to simply go away because of whatever spin the Treasurer wants to put on these matters.
As I said at the outset, the coalition will oppose this measure. We will oppose it because it is bad policy. It is bad policy because it is taking a targeted payment and making it a general payment that can be used in any way unrelated to education expenses. It is bad policy because it is bringing forward expenditure from next year's financial accounts into this year's financial accounts in order to give the Treasurer his surplus. For those reasons, this measure should be opposed.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (10:06): I listened to the contribution from the member for Menzies on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012. I will not denigrate the debate by resorting to political spin, as he chose to do, particularly in his concluding remarks, but I would say that what the contribution the member for Menzies actually does bring to this debate is the difference in the approach of a government that is committed to looking after low- and middle-income families and the approach of those who simply think that those families may not be the people who are the primary concern in their electorates.
My electorate is probably vastly different to the electorate represented by the honourable member for Menzies. My electorate is the most multicultural electorate in the whole of Australia, according to the ABS. My electorate also is somewhat distinguished from other electorates—and particularly that represented by the member for Menzies—in that it is the second lowest when it comes to socioeconomic standing in this country. In other words, the electorate I have the honour to represent is an electorate of great need. It has significant disadvantage, and as a consequence we are obliged to look at people who are falling through the cracks, who are missing out.
This measure that is being introduced goes right to the heart of that. Those opposite have indicated that they are going to oppose this bill. I do not mind that; I am actually proud. This is a genuine Labor initiative—looking after low- to middle-income people. The argument of those opposite—if you cut through what the argument was—was that if you give people money upfront they are going to go to the pub and literally pass it over the wall. That really shows a great difference in approach.
The government will provide $2.1 billion over the next five years for this new schoolkids bonus to provide guaranteed support to families to help with the cost of their children's education. This will replace the education tax refund, which is currently available as a tax refund offset. The schoolkids bonus will be made in two equal instalments—in January and July of each year—commencing from 1 January 2013. As a transitional arrangement, the educational tax refund in 2011-12 will be replaced by a one-off payment to eligible families in June this year. Making these payments automatic will increase the assistance to many eligible families currently missing out on the education tax refund. This bill that the minister has just bought before the House introduces the new payment for family assistance which will commence on 1 January 2013. The payment will provide direct assistance to eligible families with children in school and will be paid through the family benefits scheme. The payments of $410 per child in primary school and $820 per child in secondary school will be made twice each year.
I have spoken a little bit about the electorate that I have the honour to represent. We need to put in context not only what the value of the educational tax refund was but also the fact that it was probably underused. Like every member here, I imagine, I regularly conduct mobile offices. As I indicated, I have a very multicultural electorate. I am very fortunate to have both Vietnamese and Chinese speaking staff and so when we get out there we can engage directly with people. About six weeks ago we were doing a mobile office in Cabramatta park and a Vietnamese gentleman came up and started talking to us and asking what we were doing. We discussed a range of things and we spoke about his kids. He had two children with him and we asked him what he got out of the education tax refund. He said, through the interpreters, 'No, Sir, I am not entitled to that.' He was very, very embarrassed because he could not find a job. This man, whose English was not good and who was certainly struggling to provide for his children, thought that he was not entitled to the education tax refund because he did not have a job and he did not pay tax. He did not understand that you could submit your receipts and claim the money back. That was the experience we heard from one man who fronted me six weeks ago.
Since then we did a bit of hunting around some of the local statistics in that regard, and I have actually discovered that, of all the eligible families in my electorate, 10 per cent have not claimed the education tax refund. That is a lot of low-income families that are missing out. They, like that gentleman, did not understand that they were entitled to the education tax refund, that it is a provision designed to assist in the education of their kids.
When people stand up and give us a lecture and say that if we give people the money upfront, when they need it, to be spent on their kids' education—whether it be for uniforms, books, computers, tuition, music lessons et cetera—they will go to the pub with it, what does that say to the people I represent? I know that a lot of people I represent work two and three jobs to pay for extra tutoring for their children. The Vietnamese, in particular, understand that the difference between success and otherwise in a modern society is education. I see firsthand these families who are struggling but who go out of their way to invest as much as they can in their child's education.
If those families are listening to the debate today, I wonder how they would take the fact that those opposite think that whatever we pay them will simply be expended at the local hotel or club? I wonder what they would think that says about the level of trust placed on how they raise their families? They are very good parents. They love their kids dearly and, above all, they know the benefit of education. As a matter of fact, of all the schools I visit, the schools attended by Asian children—whether Vietnamese, Cambodians, Chinese or from Laos—the teachers tell me that they feel that they work in partnership with parents because, as I said, these parents understand the value of education.
This money is going to go to them twice a year, not after they have expended it but when they need it the most. They will have this money when they need to commit to send their kids to an excursion or when they need to purchase school uniforms, textbooks or computers. It will help to ensure that their kids are able to be totally included in the education system, in the same way as every other kid out there. That is all kids, including those represented by the member for Menzies and those opposite. I see the need of people in my electorate. The other side do not represent those people, and maybe they are not high on their agenda, but these are real people making a real contribution. What is more important than the next generation—what these kids are going to do for our country, our economy and our productivity?
This schoolkids bonus will not change the method of calculating the education tax refund but it will ensure that people get it. It will put it into their accounts as opposed to people going out of their way to maintain receipts, hoping they have got them and using them every tax year. People I have personally spoken to believe that because they do not pay tax they are not entitled; that is why 10 per cent of my electorate has not claimed the educational tax refund. My electorate is probably the second-most disadvantaged in the whole of Australia and yet 10 per cent have not done that. Above anything, I would ask members to think about that—about the people that I represent in an electorate which is significantly disadvantaged. This is directly doing something for them and their children.
Much has been made of bringing the budget back into surplus. Clearly the Treasurer's speech did not impress those opposite last night because he actually did it: he has brought down a budget that is going into surplus. I recall the comments of the shadow Treasurer not all that long ago. His rhetoric has changed considerably over the last six months. It went from, 'We'll get back into surplus before Labor will get back into surplus,' to the last position he had—that is, that getting back to surplus was an aspiration: 'No great plan for it.'
There has been a litany of things that those opposite have failed to have any regard for in their contributions about budgetary matters. I cannot for the life of me recall that at any stage, during any economic debate, any of those opposite even vaguely mentioned the world financial crisis. It is as if it did not happen. When most European states at the moment have a sovereign debt of 80-plus per cent of their gross national product, when their unemployment rates are over 10 per cent, when the United States' unemployment rate is about 8½ per cent, Australia is a standout economy. Those opposite certainly no longer mention the International Monetary Fund, mainly because it has credited the Australian government's move to bring this budget back to surplus in such a timely way. Nor have those opposite mentioned similar positive comments made by agencies such as Standard and Poor's. In any economic contribution, they are going to completely ignore the fact that, despite the challenges we have faced leading up to this budget, Australia has now received AAA status from every rating agency for the first time in its history—never before.
What we are doing through this budget is placing downward pressure on interest rates. We are creating an incentive for the Reserve Bank to again reduce interest rates. I would not expect those opposite to acknowledge it but the recent 50 basis point adjustment by the Reserve Bank, which is being taken up in dribs and drabs by other banks, has had a huge impact on my electorate. My electorate might be the second-most disadvantaged in the country, my electorate might be the most multicultural in Australia with 50 per cent of my electorate born overseas, but one thing my electorate really strives hard to do is participate in private housing. When they got that rate cut it went down very significantly for families who work so hard to look after their kids. This is another initiative by federal Labor to do the exact same thing. Without increasing any inflationary aspect, without making any adjustments to the calculation of the education tax refund, we are moving in such a way as to ensure that all those families that are entitled to it for their kids will get it.
I ask those opposite who are going to participate in this debate to understand that in my electorate, an electorate of great need, to date 10 per cent of families who are eligible for the education tax refund have not claimed it. This is for a range of different reasons, but many just did not think they were entitled to it. This will be well-received by them and I can assure those opposite there will be no issue of it finding its way into local clubs, poker machines or the front bar of some establishment, as the member for Menzies indicated; this will go to looking after their children. (Time expired)
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (10:21): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012 abolishes a good program, the education tax refund, and replaces it with a fistful of dollars designed to shore up the electoral prospects of the Prime Minister. The bill itself should be called the 'sugar hit bill' because that is exactly what the intent of this bill is. Make no mistake: it is about two things and they are not to do with education. It is about trying to compensate for the carbon tax—the world's biggest carbon tax coming on 1 July this year—and trying to add to the pretence that the government has some sort of economic credibility by delivering a budget surplus next financial year.
I will get to those two points in a minute, but let me get to the substance of the bill in front of us first. The bill abandons the education tax refund. This tax refund was specifically designed to assist families with their education expenses. We support that intent, and we support the education tax refund because, as the member for Fowler pointed out, many families are doing it tough at the moment. We know that education expenses have been going up. There are uniforms, school fees, textbooks, drama, music and all sorts of things that families need to pay for.
We are a strong supporter of the education tax refund to enable families to pay for those measures which specifically are tailored towards helping their children go to school. In fact, so much so are we supportive of this measure that we took to the last election a policy to increase the amount of money which people could claim against that education tax refund. It was based on an important principle, and it is a principle that the other side of this chamber have great difficulty with. It is the principle of accountability. It is accountability to the taxpayer, who is paying for the payment, and it is accountability on behalf of the recipient to spend it according to what the desires of that payment were.
The design of the education tax refund was quite simple. You simply had to collect the receipts for items which went towards the education of your children. That was all. It was no great burden. If you bought textbooks you got a receipt, put it in your pocket, and then you could claim it back against your taxes and get a refund at the end of that financial year. That is what it required. That did two things. First of all, it created an incentive for people to spend the money on education rather than other things, because we think that is a good thing. Second of all, it created an accountability mechanism so that we ensured the money set aside for education expenses actually got spent on education expenses. We are in favour of this. We are in favour of supporting families with their costs of education, so much so that, as I mentioned before, we took to the last election a policy to increase the amount of support provided to each family—up to $1,000 for each secondary school-aged child and $500 for each primary school-aged child. By contrast the Labor scheme provides only $820 for each secondary school aged child and only $410 for each primary school aged child.
This bill removes the linkage between the payment and education. That is what it does. No longer do you have to collect the receipts and no longer do you have to ensure that the money has to be spent on education in order to receive that payment. Rather the payment just gets delivered directly into your bank account to spend on whatever you like. We have seen this before, because we have had a pattern from this government, and we know through the GFC that there were $900 cash splashes provided to families. Yes, many of those families used it for the right purposes to help them with their food and accommodation and other costs that they were struggling with. We also know that a lot of that money was spent on flat screen TVs from China, it was spent on holidays and it was spent on some other unsavoury things, which I do not need to mention here. It was given to dead people and it was given to people who were overseas. I am concerned that exactly the same thing will happen, again, here. Yes, a lot of people will use it for education costs but there will also be people who use it for things other than the costs incurred for the education of their children. There will be payments, I am sure, made to people who are now deceased and there will be payments made to people who are living overseas.
Our concern is that it breaks the nexus between the payment and the purpose for the payment and, consequently, this core concept of accountability gets thrown out the window. It is accountability, most importantly, for the taxpayer who is paying for this. They are the ones who are paying for it. It is not the Labor government paying for it; it is the taxpayer. They deserve accountability to ensure that their hard earned dollars are going to where they are supposed to be delivered. It is accountability on behalf of the recipients of that money to ensure that they spend the money on the purpose for which it was intended.
Let me now go back to what this bill is really about. As I said at the outset, it is really about two things: compensating for the world's largest carbon tax coming to all families on 1 July; and trying to add to the pretence that there will be a budget surplus next year. The carbon tax, the greatest carbon tax in the world, will hit every single family on 1 July this year. This was the tax which was supposed to reform the economy according to the Treasurer—a clean energy future was going to occur, a transformation of Australia.
It is funny, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that it did not get mentioned once in the budget speech. This was the big transformation of our economy. You would think in the 14 pages, the half-hour speech, that the Treasurer might have mentioned it once. But, no, he did not mention the carbon tax. We know why, because it is toxic. It is politically toxic for this government. The reason it is politically toxic is it puts prices up for every family across Australia and it will cost jobs across Australia. When you look at the government's own figures, the carbon tax will increase electricity costs by 10 per cent in the first year alone. According to the government's own figures it will increase gas costs by nine per cent alone. It will cost jobs across Australia. The Victorian treasury has done some analysis and says it will cost 24,000 jobs across Victoria. In my electorate alone it will cost 500 jobs. The reason is that it penalises our businesses but does not penalise the businesses that we are competing with from overseas. So a manufacturer in my electorate, which is struggling already with the high Australian dollar and fierce competition from China, will all of a sudden have additional costs imposed but the Chinese manufacturer will not have those additional costs. It operates like a reverse tariff. It is poisonous because it is bad policy.
Of course it is based on a lie: it is based on the premise that this government went to the election promising that it would not introduce a carbon tax, and what does it do as soon as it gets in? It introduces it, and this bill is all about trying to provide a little sugar hit to divert people from the carbon tax, which is coming their way. But of course it will not compensate for fewer jobs. It will not compensate for the higher prices which will be coming from 1 July. It certainly will not compensate for the continuing increase in prices which will occur because the carbon tax is legislated to increase from $23 up to $29 in the first three years alone. It cannot compensate for those things, and the government should not pretend that it will do so.
The other thing that this bill is about—and the member for Menzies touched on this—is trying to add to the pretence that the government is reining in its expenditure and getting on top of its debt and will deliver a surplus in 2012-13. The trickery of this bill is that it brings forward some of the costs from the education tax refund, which were supposed to be incurred in 2012-13, and brings them forward into this financial year—that is what is happening. Under the previous scheme, you had to collect your receipts, you would put them in and the payment would come the next year; under this measure, a payment will be delivered in June, immediately, and that is why there is a great rush to get this bill through the parliament to deliver the payment in June. The government does not care about the expenditure; it only cares about the paper projected budget surplus of next year. If this payment were put into next year's budget then half of the $1.5 billion budget surplus would be gone. This is not the only piece of accounting trickery which is going on, as the member for Menzies pointed out; there are any number of other pieces of accounting trickery occurring in order to give the pretence that we will have a budget surplus next year.
The key thing about a budget surplus is that it is not just to give the pretence through a bit of paper that they have got the spending under control. We advocate for running a budget surplus because, primarily, it is intended to stop a government spending money beyond its means. We advocate for a budget surplus because it puts limits on the government spending money beyond its means. But the government actually does not care about that. That is why we have seen this financial year's budget deficit balloon out from $12 billion to $22 billion to $37 billion to $44.5 billion for this financial year. It does not care about that as long as it has the pretence that next year it will get this $1.5 billion surplus.
The other thing that I would mention is that of course we will not know whether they actually deliver on this budget surplus until the end of next year. We know for sure that they will not deliver. It is interesting that we have the member for Fraser in the chamber. The member for Fraser has been a big advocate of looking at betting markets to determine what is the most likely outcome in politics. He suggests that they are a very good predictor of what will occur. In fact the betting markets today have the odds on whether the government will deliver a budget surplus—not just project one but actually deliver one—in 2012-13. The odds of them delivering a surplus are about $4 or maybe $5; the odds of them delivering a budget deficit for 2012-13 are about $1.20—that is, the markets suggest there is about a 20 per cent chance of them delivering a surplus, even taking into account all of their accounting tricks. Maybe the member for Fraser will be able to comment on that, because he has written extensively about how the betting markets are very good predictors in politics, and the betting markets are saying that there is about a 20 per cent chance that they will deliver a budget surplus next year even taking into account their accounting tricks.
Let me summarise: this measure before us is poor policy because it takes away the link between the payments and the actual intent of the payments—that is the first point. It is also poor because it is based on accounting trickery, trying to bring forward payments from the next financial year into this financial year. Thirdly, it is all about trying to create a sugar hit for the carbon tax, which is going to hit all families on 1 July this year.
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (10:36): I rise to proudly support the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012. This bill introduces a new payment through the family assistance legislation called the schoolkids bonus to begin on 1 January 2013. The payment will provide direct assistance to eligible families with children in school and will be paid through the family payment system twice a year: in January and July. It will be paid right at the start of the school year and just before term 3. The two payments will total $410 per year for each child in primary school and $820 per year for each child in secondary school. The schoolkids bonus will replace the education tax refund. Subsequently this bill removes the education tax refund from the taxation legislation. As part of the transitional arrangements to the new schoolkids bonus, the bill also creates a new payment in the family assistance and veterans affairs legislation to pay the maximum value of the education tax refund entitlement for 2011-12 as a lump sum. This lump sum payment will be delivered to eligible families before the end of June 2012.
What does this mean? It means parents do not need to keep receipts for months and months on end to get a guaranteed payment. It means that parents will receive a full amount every time, so families will not miss out if they lose their receipts. Parents do not have to pay out of their own pocket and then wait months to get paid back. The payment will be made upfront twice a year before the start of term 1 and term 3.
In addition, the paying out of the 2011-12 education tax refund as part of the transitional arrangements means that parents who are entitled to family tax benefit part A will be paid on 8 May 2012 for a school-age child—and for young people in secondary education a lump sum payment. The education tax refund payment will pay out the full amount of what would have been available through the taxation system for 2011-12. This means $409 for each child in primary school and $818 for each child in secondary school. The education tax refund payment will be paid earlier than otherwise would have been the case under the education tax refund, and without the need to lodge receipts for a tax return.
On many occasions in the five years I have been here I have had to shake my head while listening to speeches—yesterday afternoon while listening to a matter of public importance which the opposition treated as such a joke that they turned it into a story about Star Trek—but I do not think I have ever stood in this chamber and been as angry as I am now. The arguments being put up by the opposition—and importantly by the shadow minister, the member for Menzies—are appalling, to say the very least. Families in my electorate should be disgusted at the arguments that are being put up by the opposition today. For the shadow minister to stand there today and say that families are just as likely to go down the road and blow it on poker machines is just offensive. It is so interesting that every time this government provides financial assistance to ease those cost-of-living pressures we hear the opposition drag out that line, 'They are just as likely to blow it on poker machines.'
What is absolutely ironic in this argument is that the then minister under the Howard government, Mal Brough, was more than happy to give a $5,000 lump sum baby bonus—no checks or balances, just: 'Here's $5,000 because you've had a baby. You don't have to prove that that money is spent on that child.' You did not hear arguments from the Howard government saying, 'We're worried this is going to be blown on other things.' They trusted the families that they gave this money to. But when we want to give $400 or $800 to families for education expenses, it is: 'No, we cannot trust them. They won't spend it on their kids.' That is just offensive. The families in my electorate should be furious at the opposition for wanting to block this bill.
I have heard arguments from the opposition today that this is bad policy and that no-one is going to get any more money. That just shows that the opposition do not understand this bill and why this change is occurring. The reality is that more families are getting extra money, because many families across the country were not claiming the education tax refund despite being eligible. There were many families who were underclaiming. In my electorate there were 1,600 families out of the 9,700 local families who were not receiving the education tax refund at all. There were another 8,100 who were receiving less than they were entitled to. This is a bonus to those people. It is extra money. To say, 'It is just shifting money from one side of the ledger to the other; it means nothing; it is no extra money for families,' is either showing the ignorance of the opposition in not understanding the bill or, worse than that, misleading the Australian people. I suspect it is the latter, because there is certainly a history of that behaviour.
It was interesting to hear the member for Aston today say that the education tax refund's intent—which they supported—was to help families with education expenses. He went through a list of different expenses. He mentioned textbooks, uniforms, music, art and other extracurricular activities. It is very interesting that the member for Aston would say that, because he is absolutely right that families are weighed down with those expenses; they are having to pay for all of those things. What he is wrong on is thinking that the education tax refund covered those things, because it did not. In fact, the education tax refund was limited to what families could claim, and I bring the chamber's attention to the education tax refund eligibility:
Eligible expenses include the cost of buying, establishing, repairing and maintaining any of the following items:
home computers and laptops
computer-related equipment such as printers, USB flash drives, and disability aids to assist in the use of computer equipment for students with special needs
computer repairs
home internet connections
computer software for educational use
school textbooks and other printed learning material, including prescribed textbooks, associated learning materials, study guides and stationery, and
prescribed trade tools for secondary school trade courses.
More recently, in the 2011-12 budget, the government extended that to include school uniforms, hats, footwear and sports uniforms purchased from 1 July 2011—all very important expenditure for families. But it did not include the sorts of things that the member for Aston talked about. That is why—despite the opposition claiming that this is just a 'sugar hit'—this is a much better program. It is much better than the education tax refund, not only for the obvious reason that families are getting the full amount and they are getting it when they most need it, but also because it recognises that education expenditure goes much broader than textbooks, computers and uniforms. There are a lot more expenses for families. The member for Aston is right in saying that kids who want to do music have to buy their own equipment. Whether it is government or non-government schools, whether it is part of the normal curriculum within the school or an extracurricular activity after school, they still have to buy their own equipment. If the kids want to learn violin, mum and dad still have to find the money to buy that violin. This program means that that money can go towards those expenses. It can go to art courses, to music and to other things, but importantly I want to give a couple of examples why this program is so much better and more important for families.
The reality is that there are students who need more support than the education system can provide, wherever they go to school. Sometimes those children need some external tutoring. Sometimes because of learning difficulties those students need speech therapy, and I have met many families whose children need speech therapy. That is not readily available in schools. In government schools in Queensland, if your child is assessed and they need speech therapy they may get one session a week or fortnight, and it may even be less than that. If you talk to any parent whose child needs speech therapy, they will tell you that is not sufficient to bring their child up to the level they need to be at to further their learning. This money can actually assist in those kids getting speech therapy lessons outside of school. I am very proud of this program because it recognises that there is no one-size-fits-all answer when it comes to education expenses. It is up to the family to decide that.
To argue that we do not know where this money is going to be spent ignores the fact that this money has already been spent, that these parents have already put their hands in their pockets and spent the money on their children, and it is okay to reimburse them for those costs. But there are also families out there who have not been able to put their hands in their pockets already. I will tell you, for example, of the mum in my electorate who could not afford to buy new shoes for her daughter who was starting high school. The daughter had to wear her existing shoes from the previous year. The shoes were too tight, and she came home in the first week with blisters on her feet and in excruciating pain. The mum did not want to send her to school in other shoes because she might get picked on. Her solution was to pull her daughter out of school until she could afford to raise the money to buy new shoes. No parent should have to do that. She turned to one of our local not-for-profit community organisations for help, and she got that help. But I do not think she should have to turn to that community organisation for help. We should be supporting that family, and that is what we will do through this financial assistance.
Many benefits come from this bill. Despite my anger, I do in part feel sorry for those members who stand up on the opposition side and speak to oppose this bill, because they have to go back to their electorates and face those families. They will do one of two things: either they will pretend they are not opposing it and go out and say this is a great initiative—a bit like the BER, when they went out and said how great it was locally, but then came here and opposed it—or they will have to tell those families why they do not deserve this money and that they do not trust those families to use this money on their own children.
This government, through this bill and the budget initiatives, is doing a lot for families including the Paid Parental Leave scheme, the family tax benefit part A, the teenager boost that we have previously provided, the childcare rebate and the assistance that we are giving parents in their childcare and their training needs to get back into the workforce. These are all positive measures, but I stand here today to say that there is no more positive measure that we can do for families in relation to cost-of-living pressure. We hear those on the other side constantly arguing about cost-of-living pressure, but this is the test: when they talk about cost-of-living pressure on families, is it about the politics or is it genuinely about helping families? If you are genuine about helping families, you will support this bill. You will go back to your communities and say, 'I will stand up and support this bill,' just as the government is doing with the clean energy future household assistance package. We will support families. That is what a Labor government does. That is what this government is doing, and I support this bill wholeheartedly.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (10:51): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012. Let me start by noting that the process under which the House of Representatives is being asked to consider this bill is a deeply deficient one. The first official announcement of this measure was in the Treasurer's budget speech last night. We now have a bill which was introduced this morning that was only available to members of the House to review from 9.30 this morning. The second reading has been brought on immediately and members of this House, the people's house, are being asked to consider the merits of a bill which extends for some 55 pages and contains some extremely complex provisions with very little notice. That is poor process and it could only lead one to doubt the motives with which the government brings forward this bill and its motives in wanting to have it considered in such a rush. It is hard to avoid the suspicion that the government is eager to avoid detailed scrutiny being brought to bear on the measures contained in this bill.
In the brief time that I have available to me I want to make three points: firstly, that the measures implemented by this bill are poorly designed measures and they do not do what they say they do; secondly, that what is really driving this bill, and the measures contained in it, is politics. This is pure politics, and is about seeking to offer additional compensation for the effects of the carbon tax and the increase that will cause in the cost of living faced by millions of Australians; and thirdly, that families would be much better served by having a better government, lower taxes and less debt to be repaid, including debt that will inevitably fall upon the shoulders of the very children whose families are to receive payments under this bill.
Let me turn first to the proposition that what we have before the House this morning is a poorly designed measure that does not, in fact, do what the governments says it is going to do. The stated intention of this measure is that it will pay for expenses like school uniforms, school shoes, textbooks, camps, excursions and extracurricular activities, such as music lessons. That is what the minister told the House this morning in the second reading speech. The reality is that this money can be spent on whatever the recipient chooses to spend it on. If this is a measures designed specifically to target expenditure associated with the cost of having a child in primary school or high school it is a very poorly designed and poorly targeted measure. Curiously, it replaces a measure designed to achieve the same outcomes—that was much better targeted. Again, one can only wonder about the government's motives in introducing this change.
To be eligible to benefit under this measure, a number of conditions need to be satisfied. The first is that the family must be eligible for Family Tax Benefit Part A. But the class of eligible families goes beyond families who have children in primary school or high school because Family Tax Benefit Part A is available for those who, first of all, meet the income test and, secondly, have a child up to the age of 20 or a dependent student within the family up to the age of 24. In other words, if this measure is to be effective in being targeted only to primary and high school children there are additional eligibility conditions which will need to be met. The family will need to demonstrate that here is a primary school or high school aged child in the family.
There are reasons to be uncertain as to whether the eligibility mechanisms have been adequately thought through. We are told, in the minister's second reading speech, that the design of this scheme means that parents or eligible recipients do not have to collect a pile of receipts. It is paid in full and up-front. It is money in your pocket. The minister's second reading speech says very little about the mechanisms by which eligibility will be established and very little about the inevitable possibility that this money will be paid to some families who do not, in fact, meet the eligibility criteria because although they are eligible for Family Tax Benefit Part A the relevant child is not a primary or secondary school student.
In this regard, it is interesting that when you delve into the bill it says, amongst other things—under proposed section 35U(c) of A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999—that the bonus can, in some circumstances, be paid even after the child has left school. In other words, the very drafting of the legislation acknowledges that there is a problem is trying to determine who is eligible to receive this bonus. The solution is apparently a quick fudge: we will allow payment even if the child has left school.
There are other provisions of the bill which are equally concerning when it comes time to consider how well designed and targeted this scheme is. Clause 24 provides that the minister has the power, by legislative instrument, to determine a scheme under which ETR payments—education tax refund payments—be made to persons in particular circumstances. This bill, in other words, very deep within it, contains provisions entitling the minister, by regulation, to expand the circumstances under which money is paid.
That is just one piece of evidence amongst many that this is a poorly designed and hastily cobbled together package of measures, and we all know the underlying political reason for that. It is that the government panicked, late in the day, as it was developing this budget. There was not sufficient compensation for Australians who are going to face cost-of-living increases as a result of the introduction of the carbon tax. So they have come up with a new way of throwing money at people and they have dignified it with the term 'schoolkids bonus'. We know from past experience of similarly hastily put-together and poorly designed cash-splash schemes by this government—such as the $900 cash bonus in the Rudd years of this government—that such schemes are rife with problems. Money gets pumped out to a whole range of people who ought not to have received it, even under the rules of the scheme. That is an inevitable consequence of a scheme being cobbled together in a rushed fashion to meet political objectives.
We have heard claims from members opposite this morning that the policy objectives here are worthwhile and important and that this is in some way a better designed and targeted scheme than the one it replaces. But even a moment's consideration suggests that that claim cannot be substantiated. There is no attempt to link the amount that is paid to the actual expenditure incurred. In other words, the amount is paid regardless of whether the child goes to a school where the uniform costs $50 or the child goes to a school where the uniform costs $250, and regardless of whether the child does sport and music, and incurs fees in doing so, or does not. There is no linkage at all between the amount of the schoolkids bonus and expenditure actually incurred by the family in supporting the child in his or her education.
It is a bizarre approach to policy to say, 'There was previously a tax rebate which was payable for a defined objective if the taxpayer provided evidence of having spent money in the designated areas but we are going to replace that scheme because not enough people claimed under it.' The government is saying: 'Not enough people wanted to claim money from the government. Something must be wrong; we're going to fix that up by replacing it with a scheme which has no restrictions and no requirement to demonstrate eligibility, at all.'
Economists speak of 'revealed preference'—that is to say, you work out what it is that people want to consume based upon what they actually do. If people have chosen not to make a claim it is a pretty good inference that that is because they did not need the money or they made a judgment that the time incurred in gathering the documentation and making the claim was time that could have been spent more productively doing something else. But that is not good enough for this government because it is determined to push money into the pockets of people even if, to date, they have shown no desire to make a claim. The consequence is that we have moved from having a measure which was well designed and well targeted at education expenses towards a generalised cash splash.
The government's arguments on this point are completely threadbare when you give the matter even a moment's thought. If their true objective was to make it simpler procedurally for parents to obtain this money to use for the specified purpose, there are a range of alternatives they could have considered. They could have considered, for example, a voucher scheme under which you are given a certain amount of money which can only be spent with specified suppliers. You could be given a voucher which could only be spent with people who make and sell school uniforms, with providers of sports and music lessons and so on, or with the school itself, which will often be the one which is charging the extra fees. The point I make is this: there are a raft of other policy designs which could have been used if the government was genuine in wanting to achieve its stated objectives. But the reality is that the stated objectives are merely a smokescreen for the government's true purpose.
The second point I want to make today is that this is purely about politics. This is a measure which is designed to deliver further compensation for the cost of the carbon tax, because the government knows, despite its protestations, that the carbon tax will materially increase the cost of living for millions of ordinary Australians
The Treasurer told us last night in his budget speech that families will not pay the carbon tax; it will be companies that pay. If that were true there would be no need for compensation. But the reality is, as the Treasurer either knows or ought to know, there is a well-established distinction between the legal incidence of a tax and the economic incidence of a tax. This is a tax the economic incidence of which will fall upon all Australians. This is pure politics designed to try and soften the blow of an ill-judged carbon tax.
The Treasurer and the government are desperate to ram this measure through quickly because they are desperate to get the money out before 30 June. Amongst other things, we know that the true cost of this measure in 2011-12, according to the budget papers, is $1.32 billion. If that money were to be spent in the 2012-13 year the consequence would be that the Treasurer's wafer-thin surplus would disappear almost immediately. So it is politics that is motivating the government's desire to move to this supposed new scheme. It has nothing to do with the policy merits or otherwise of the existing education tax rebate scheme.
The third point I want to come to, in the brief time I have remaining to me, is to argue that what families deserve is a better government, lower taxes and less debt to repay. Of course, if we could all have an extra $820 in the pocket, which did not cost us anything to get, that would be wonderful and we would all sign up for it. But that is not the proposition on offer. This $820, far from costing us nothing, is going to cost us all a lot of money. The people who will end up paying the most for it are the very schoolchildren purported to benefit, because in years to come they will be the ones repaying this government's debt. That is why we oppose this ill-judged measure.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (11:06): I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012 today. I had not planned on speaking directly after the member for Bradfield, who is always a hard act to follow. I had expected, according to the very latest speakers list, to speak after the member for Robertson, but as usual it appears that the government speakers list is as inaccurate as their budget forecasts.
What is this bill really about? We have heard a lot of talk today that it is about education and making sure money gets to the right people, but there are some other aspects to this as well and we can never lose sight of those. Possibly this bill is not all about education; maybe it is all about politics and maybe it is also a little bit about the budget. I will get to those aspects which so many of my colleagues have spoken about this morning and make my own points.
Education is something that all of us in this place agree is of great value. It is the great leveller, the great equaliser—the chance for people born in the lowest socioeconomic circumstances to rise up to great places in this country and to do great things for our nation. That is important, and that is why we supported the education tax rebate. It is a very good, targeted program. I spoke a couple of years ago about the need to expand it when you could not claim a refund for uniforms. I am on the record for having said you should be able to, and later it was expanded to allow that.
I know that there are families within the electorate of Cowan—in Girrawheen, Koondoola, Ballajura, Marangaroo, suburbs like that—where there are young kids who just do not fit in at school, where the fact that they do not have the leavers shirt or the latest upgraded uniform means they do not feel that they really fit in. I made an offer to Ballajura Primary School recently that I would help pay for leavers shirts for a couple of kids who did not appear to have them, because I know how important it is for young people to fit in. Obviously my 13-year-old and my nine-year-old do not want for such measures, but I know there are families in the community that struggle. So it was a welcome thing that the education tax rebate focused on specific, directed delivery to allow kids to fully participate in the educational process and the educational system, so that they did not have to feel different and that that was not something that made them less likely to turn up to school each day.
There is no doubt that we as a coalition support education and that we want kids in the more struggling families in the lower socioeconomic areas to have the same opportunities and not to feel bad for want of the basics such as a decent school shirt or a decent school uniform to wear. We certainly would not want them to feel that they could not have the same textbooks and other things that kids in Western Australia get from places like Wooldridges, the great suppliers of the book lists in the state school system in Western Australia. So it is important that we focus on making sure that the money that is on offer to Australian families actually makes it to the mark and results in real educational outcomes. Those outcomes were aplenty: school uniforms, books, school fees, even those voluntary fee ones in state schools in Western Australia. They were the sorts of things that could be claimed: actual deliverables, an actual impact as a contribution to the school and directly to the student.
What worries me about this proposal, specifically when we are talking about the educational outcomes, is that this will be something like the BER . It will purport to be some education revolution but, like a new building, which is great, not something that substantially changes the actual education outcomes for kids. I know from past experience—quite distant past in my case—and from the experiences of a lot of families in Cowan about the impacts of the cost of living and what happens when money lands in their accounts. What will happen when this money lands in the accounts of some families in the electorate is that that money will not just be immediately moved over to an education account or subaccount for that family. They will receive that money and then, when the next bill comes in, that money will probably just flow out to pay for that. In a very small number of circumstances we may see a pick-up in whitegoods, TVs or, worse and hopefully in none or hardly any cases, drugs and alcohol and other excesses and vices and things like that. The one thing that we can be certain of is that there can be no guarantee that the upfront $820 cash payment for a high school student or $410 for a primary school student will actually make an educational impact for a student. We can always hope, but we can be certain that it will not all go in that direction. And that is what the education tax rebate was really all about at the start.
As I said before, both sides of politics agree on the great value of education. What we believe in on this side is making sure that every dollar that comes from the taxpayers—it does not come from the government; it does not fall from the sky—actually ends up making some impact on the educational opportunities for young people across this country. That should particularly be so for the students in those great state schools I mentioned before within the electorate of Cowan: Hudson Park Primary School, Roseworth Primary School, Koondoola Primary School, Waddington Primary School, Marangaroo Primary School, Rawlinson Primary School and South Ballajura Primary School. Those are in areas where there is struggle, where there are people doing it hard. They are the lower socioeconomic areas where education is needed to help children to lift up to be great participants in this great country's life.
We need to make sure that this money goes all the way through. We are not opposed to $820 going to a high school student or $410 going to a primary school student. But we stand for that money going to the educational benefits for those children and not, through an act or omission or other issues, being diverted to something else. The government knows that. The government knows exactly where this money could end up and they are not concerned about making sure that every dollar goes to education. This government is thinking of other things now.
This government is thinking about what it has done in the past in this place and the impact of that from 1 July 2012. I am talking about that great betrayal of the Australian people by the Prime Minister and by the government with regard to the carbon tax. The government knows that the Australian people disagree with it. It knows that it is going to have to try and buy its way out of this adversity. Despite the scandals that afflict the government right now, it knows that the big tidal wave is coming and it is going to have to try and buy out the Australian people—to flash some cash in their direction—to try and get off the hook on that deal. This is primarily about politics. It is about the government's benefit, not ours.
We on this side believe in the great value of education. We believe in what must be done for young people in Australia. We believe that $820, for secondary school students, and $410, for primary school students, should go towards their education, towards helping them and towards providing benefits to them—that is, making sure they fit in and that they can fully participate. We believe in that. And, without this bill, that would continue. There would still be the need for accountability—that is, people would have to prove that they actually spent the money on education for their child. Is that such a bad thing? Is it such a terrible thing that Australian parents should have to prove that taxpayers' money went to the education and benefit of their child? I do not think that is too much to ask. That is exactly the sort of support that this federal government, and this parliament, should be providing. They should be making sure that taxpayers' money goes to the future of this country, which is represented by all those young people around the country. It is not too much to ask. It is the right thing to do.
However, in the case of this bill, it is not right. This is not what is going to benefit Australian children. This is not going to be an investment in the future. An investment in the future was the education tax rebate—that was working. Maybe, if the government is so concerned about people not participating because they did not know about the rebate, it should divert some of the $36 million that it is spending on promoting its toxic carbon tax. Maybe it should put some of that into some posters on the front doors of school admin blocks around this country, to tell people that the education tax refund is there for them. Maybe that is what it should be doing with some of these advertising dollars. But instead, what we have is this sugar hit, this sweetener and this compensation for the carbon tax in the form of extra cash handouts. That is what this is really all about.
However, it is not just these matters—the lack of focus on education, the politics and the buy-out. It is not just those things. We have also got the budget. Last night, the Treasurer tried to persuade us that his figures were going to be accurate this time: $1.5 billion for a surplus—not a whole lot of change from the figures for the year before, when he told us there was going to be a $22 billion deficit, which has now blown out to $44 billion. But this time, apparently, it is all going to be accurate. It is all going to be cast in stone. It is going to be accurate for the first time in four years. I think the Australian people know that it is not going to work out that way. This coming year will be another red ink year, despite the fact that, if this bill passes, the government will have managed to move these payments, such as the $750 million in educational tax rebate payments, into this financial year, which helps it take that little bit of pressure off the next financial year. That is sleight of hand.
The government has also announced that the $1.1 billion in flood payments to local governments is being moved from what was forecast as part of the next financial year—that is, this allegedly $1.5 billion surplus financial year—into this financial year as well. Again, a sleight of hand. What we are seeing with this government is that it talks about education but it is not about education. This bill is about politics. It is about buying people out. It is about trying to compensate for the government's toxic carbon tax. It is also about trying to create a false image, which will be seen to be such in the coming months. It is about trying to balance the budget and trying to do that sleight of hand with the budget.
As I have said, both sides of this House believe in education, but we on this side stand by our opposition to this bill because we believe that it is not too much for taxpayers to ask that every dollar of the contribution they make to the future of this country towards issues like education and towards the education tax rebate should go towards an educational outcome. We should be able to be certain that every dollar spent goes to those young people around the country, including those in Cowan, who need to fit in and who need to have the resources there to make sure that they do not miss out We need to make sure that education, that great leveller, is pushed out through all the streets and all the communities of our country. It is not too much to ask that the money that the government offers actually goes all the way through to an educational outcome.
What the government proposes today is no guarantee for that. It is just a handout. It is just a sugar hit. We cannot be sure that educational outcomes will ever be achieved by this measure. It is not the right way to go. It should be left as it is. We support the current situation with the education tax rebate and the government should leave it alone in the best interests of this nation.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (11:21): I rise to speak on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012. I would like to acknowledge the previous speakers, including the member for Cowan, another West Australian, who I know has a deep interest in education, particularly as he has two young girls that he is extremely proud of. His interest in their education is shown by the way he delivered his speech on this particular bill. We also heard from the member for Aston, who spoke about this bill being all about a carbon tax compensation, and the member for Bradfield, who spoke about this bill as being just politics. Last night the government announced their planned budget for the coming year. It was a confusing message from the Treasurer, and it seems that this government continues to lack any sort of narrative that appeals to the Australian public and deals with the economic challenges which Australians face. If we had taken Labor's rhetoric at face value, we would have expected a tough budget with a coherent economic strategy to deliver stronger growth and higher productivity. Instead, we got more Labor handouts, money shuffles and a pretend surplus.
The surplus is an illusion. The planned increases in national debt next year and over the forward estimates will continue to rise. Those who watched the budget last night might ask themselves: 'How can the government deliver a surplus while simultaneously increasing national debt? Surely there's something the Treasurer isn't telling us.' The bill currently before the House is yet another example of the government not being upfront with the Australian people. Labor has decided to dump the education tax rebate, a targeted program that provided genuine assistance to relieve education costs for parents. Instead, it is giving out handfuls of taxpayers' money in a desperate bid to improve its electoral stocks.
The new handouts bring back memories of the $900 cash handouts that former Prime Minister Rudd sent out in the early days of the government. Consistent with this government's usual practices, waste occurred on a massive scale, with payments going overseas and to dead people. I recall during the Rudd period a talkback caller to 6PR in Perth whose name, if my memory serves me right, was Charlie. He won the title of talkback caller of the day. The subject he spoke about was what he had spent his $900 of stimulus money on. He had spent it on brothels. There was no accountability for the $900, so, instead of helping him out—
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
Mr IRONS: It seems to be an acceptable practice.
Mr Baldwin: At least it was his own money!
Mr IRONS: He thanked the government for the good time he got out of the $900.
Mr Baldwin: That's cheap compared to Thomson!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): I am sure that the member for Swan can have his contribution by himself, without your assistance.
Mr IRONS: The education tax refund—the ETR—was designed to help with the cost of educating primary and secondary school children. Eligible parents, carers, legal guardians and independent students were able to get money back on education expenses. These included items such as computers, educational software, textbooks and stationery. Under the education tax refund system you may have got 50 per cent of your money back. If you got family tax benefit part A, you were probably eligible for the ETR. There were also some payments which prevented your receiving FTB part A but still entitled you to receive the refund.
This new legislation has abandoned any pretence of being about offsetting education costs; it is simply a sugar hit to create a diversion from the increased bills and costs that will occur as a result of the carbon tax while families go about their everyday lives. Labor are recklessly promoting this measure by saying that families will be eligible for the money even if they lose their receipts, but they have failed to explain that every eligible family will get the money regardless of whether they keep their receipts and that they can spend the money on anything they like. It is funny that the government stood up a few weeks ago talking about how much they support small business and then gave away the one per cent tax cut they talked about while the ATO and this government insist on businesses keeping receipts and everything being accountable. A business in my electorate went under because the ATO pursued it for not having proof that payments out of the company went to superannuation funds and the people it had employed were not able to give back to the company proof that the money had gone into their accounts. The business was treated as having given a distribution and was forced into liquidation by the ATO because it did not keep receipts. The ETR was all about accountability: if you wanted to get the ETR, you had to be accountable and keep receipts. But under the new legislation you will not need to keep receipts, and that means that you will be able to spend the money on anything you like—it does not have to go to education. It can be spent on TVs—it can go to the Taiwanese economy as the $900 handouts did. The Taiwanese economy was the main beneficiary of the $900 handouts through people's purchases of TVs.
Under the ETR you needed to keep records to help you or your tax agent prepare your tax return or claim. You also needed receipts to ensure that you were able to prove your claim for expenses if you were asked by the tax office to do so. Eligible education expenses had to be listed separately on invoices. Under the ETR the eligible expenses included the cost of buying, establishing, repairing and maintaining any of the following items: home computers and laptops; computer-related equipment such as printers, USB flash drives and disability aids to assist in the use of computer equipment by students with special needs; computer repairs; home internet connections; computer software for educational use; school textbooks and other printed learning material, including prescribed textbooks, associated learning materials, study guides and stationery; and prescribed trade tools for secondary school trade courses. This system ensured that the money went to specific and important areas and was not wasted. Labor's bill will remove the cash incentive for parents to invest in their children's schooling needs. This bill put forward by the government is one of the most blatant attempts at cooking this year's budget books in order to allow Labor to protect its unofficial surplus in the next financial year, as the refund will be paid out before the end of this financial year. The education tax refund system was a regime that ensured taxpayers' money was given only to families who actually spent money on education costs. The coalition, which supports the ETR, took a policy to the last election that vastly expanded the number of school expense items that were eligible and also increased the rebate amounts. The coalition's plan would have provided a rebate to families of $1,000 for each secondary school aged child and $500 for each primary school aged child. By contrast, Labor's scheme provides only $820 for secondary school aged children and $410 for primary school aged children, leaving a family with two children—one secondary and one primary—some $270 per year worse off.
The coalition's policy at the last election delivered more money, was better targeted and went straight to those families who needed it most. While some families might benefit this year under this bill, Labor continues to borrow money and it will be the children of these families who will have to repay Labor's debt for years into the future. An eligible family with an 18-year-old in year 12 may get a sugar hit, but that will not last long, as the student will then get slammed with hundreds of dollars in compulsory student union fees—which is a topic I have spoken on at length in this place and is one of the numerous new taxes or tax increases introduced by this government.
What more and more Australians are realising about this government is that, despite all the lofty rhetoric we hear from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer day by day, this confused government continues to raise taxes and grow our national debt. Australians know that this new legislation is simply designed to distract from the carbon tax hit to families, which will go up every year. Labor is once again playing at divisive, class based politics. This is not a battlers' budget in the way that the Howard and Costello budgets were. Labor has proven time and time again that it supports recklessly throwing money away to give a handout and not a hand-up to hardworking Australians. Under this government the focus has been on dividing the Australian people as opposed to being aspirational. This government have shown time and time again that they are not behind the average aspirational Australian family. Instead, they are focused on dragging down those families who attempt to support their children with high-quality education. On this issue, Labor's track record is telling. In the 2008 budget, Labor means-tested the family tax benefit so that any family where the main income earner has income of more than $150,000 lost the benefit. In the same budget, Labor introduced a means test on the baby bonus, which meant that the baby bonus went only to families with an adjusted taxable income of $75,000 or less in the six months after the birth of a baby. This is the equivalent of an adjusted taxable income of $150,000 a year or less. I think we can all agree that a family earning this much is not rich by any standard. An income such as this translates to the combined income of a nurse and a police officer, or a teacher and a public servant. These are the people that this Labor government has shown they are willing to abandon.
I now draw the attention of the House to the numerous attacks on middle Australia from this government. In the 2009 budget, Labor attacked middle Australia by freezing the indexation for the full payment of family tax benefits A and B, the baby bonus and the dependent spouse rebate. The people who benefit from these payments are not extraordinarily rich. They are the majority of aspirational Australian families—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Leigh ): Order! I remind the honourable member that the House is debating the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012 and I would ask him to keep his remarks relevant to that bill.
Mr IRONS: It is a pity that you were not in the chair before, Mr Deputy Speaker Leigh, when members on the other side of the House strayed very far and distant from the subject as well.
In the 2011 budget, the narrative was exactly the same. Labor froze the indexation for family tax benefits A and B and supplement payments. This is a blatant attack on every Australian, as is this legislation. In the 2012 budget, Labor cut the age of eligibility for family tax benefit part A to families with children who are 18 years of age, meaning that families with children aged 19 to 21 will no longer receive assistance through the family tax benefit, even though many children of this age remain classified as dependants and still have the same, if not higher, costs for education.
While this Labor government are unwilling to assist families to educate their children, they are more than happy to take through an ever-increasing tax and levy system. The flood levy introduced by this government unashamedly relied on these families. Those earning over $100,000 pay 0.5 per cent of taxable income in excess of $50,000 and one per cent of taxable income in excess of $100,000. Labor have demonstrated that they do not care for productive, well-targeted payments that really do benefit families.
From the December quarter of 2007 to the December quarter of 2011, Labor's economic mismanagement has led to price increases which have impacted on every family. That demonstrates to this House again that this bill is impacting on the economic management of this country. Electricity prices have increased by an average of 61 per cent across Australia. Gas prices have increased by an average of 37 per cent across Australia. Water and sewerage rates have increased by an average of 58 per cent across Australia. Health costs have increased by an average of 20 per cent, education costs have increased by an average of 24 per cent, the cost of food overall has increased by 13 per cent, and the amount of rent people are paying has increased by 25 per cent across Australia. This payment will not help to curb these constantly rising costs. Childcare costs are also continuing to rise because of Labor inattentiveness.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to comments made by George Megalogenis in today's Australian newspaper. He notes that the razor-and-handout approach taken by this reckless government has taken us back us back to stimulus levels in terms of cash handouts—hardly the tough budget the Treasurer has claimed. There is no doubt that all families were better off under the coalition. The Australian article noted:
Family payments were 12.1 per cent of spending at the end of the Howard era in 2007-08 … By 2015-16, family payments will be less than 10 per cent of the budget for the first time on record.
This is not sensible spending. It is reckless spending by a desperate government, designed to make Australian people forget the toxic carbon tax which will hit everyone and increase already rising living costs. This bill is not intended to fairly assist families; it is intended to cushion a failed budget full of toxic taxes. The coalition supported the ETR but we do not support this, because this is bad policy.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (11:36): It is my great pleasure to rise to speak on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012. Let me start by telling the House that this is bad legislation. This bill before the House is a desperate, crude, blatant cash splash designed to win votes. There is no productivity outcome for the Australian economy, there is no positive educational outcome for kids at school and there is no dividend in terms of job creation and investment in Australia. That is why we oppose it. And we oppose it because it plans to replace a perfectly viable and effective scheme, the education tax refund.
The education tax refund was based on parents with school-age children at primary and secondary school providing receipts at the end of the financial year. They then received reimbursements for those particular educational related expenses. It was such a good scheme that the coalition took to the last election improvements. We took to the last election policies to expand this particular dividend. In fact, if you go to our election policy, under the title 'Real action plan: Reducing the pressure on families', it talks about how the Liberals will increase the education tax rebate. It said that we would 'increase the maximum rebate to $500 per year'—up $110 per year—for every child in primary school. That same document said that the Liberals and the Nationals, the coalition, would 'increase the maximum rebate to $1,000 per year'—up $221 per year—'for each child in secondary school'.
What is more, we were planning to expand the eligible expenses for the rebate so that it included government and nongovernment school fees; special education costs for children with disabilities, like dyslexia; camps and excursions; musical instruments; extracurricular school activities, such as music, sports, dance and drama lessons; and tutoring costs, sporting fees and equipment and school photos.
This education tax rebate is a targeted scheme. This is a scheme that put money in the pockets of parents who have primary and secondary school-age children. They would provide receipts. This encouraged responsibility in our system. Instead, we have this proposal before us in this Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill particularly designed to cushion the impact of the carbon tax. This is not an education related expenditure.
This government is so embarrassed by its record on education, including the fact that it believes that a billion-dollar cost blowout on its computer in schools program means better educational outcomes and that spending more than $15 billion or $16 billion of taxpayers' money on overpriced school halls leads to better educational outcomes. It was wrong on both accounts. This government commissioned the Gonski review to look at how to improve educational outcomes in our schools and has done nothing in this budget to meet the recommendations of David Gonski and his committee. Instead, it has rebadged this cash handout the 'schoolkids bonus'. How ridiculous is that. There is nothing that is linked to school outcomes. This is just a desperate bid for votes.
You tell me, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker: what is the connection between school outcomes and handing out cheques for $800-odd for secondary students and $410 for primary students with no receipts and no commitment by the parents that that money will be spend on education related expenses? They have got rid of that responsibility, that accountability, that viability and that transparency in the current system. Instead, they have replaced it with this desperate, blatant cash splash. It is a bad outcome for parents and a bad outcome for taxpayers and it does not produce the educational dividend. What would have produced a better educational dividend is the policy that we took to the last election, designed, as I said, to increase the maximum rebate for parents with students at primary and secondary school and designed to expand the eligible expenses for the rebate. That would have produced a better educational outcome.
So why has this government done this? Why are we having this legislation thrust upon us the morning after the budget? I will tell you why. It is because Australia is about to face an economy-wide carbon tax—the biggest carbon tax in the world. If you go to the United States, there is no cap-and-trade system. In Canada, their Prime Minister, a conservative, just won the biggest election victory in over 100 years campaigning against a carbon tax. If you go to China, you see that they are increasing their emissions by 500 per cent. But if you go to Australia, you have a Labor government which wants to burden every taxpayer and every household with higher cost-of-living expenses through a carbon tax.
I can tell you from my own experience in the electorate of Kooyong that parents and households are worried about this. Small businesses are getting desperate, and they know they are not going to be compensated. That is why this government has decided, through this fictitious bill called a schoolkids bonus, to hand out money to parents, with no link to educational outcomes. I will tell you about the drycleaner in Cotham Road, Kew, who employs four people. He works six days a week. He has seen his electricity bills rise and now they are going to rise another 10 to 12 per cent on July 1 this year with the carbon tax. He does not know what to do in order to recoup those expenses. He cannot lift his prices because that will see a fall in his trade; but he can put off a worker and that will not be good for the economy. He cannot work any harder because he has a family and he works six days a week. I will tell you about the self-funded retirees in my electorate, who are under the age of 65 and have an income of around $30,000, who went to the government's own website to see what compensation they get under the carbon tax—and they get nothing. They are over $200 out of pocket and worse off every year under the carbon tax, but they do not get compensation.
Under the carbon tax this government is going to be spending $3½ billion of taxpayers' money on offshore permits by 2020 and $57 billion by 2050. In my electorate people—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Leigh ): Order! I would remind the member for Kooyong of the debate before the House. The member for Kooyong will keep his remarks relevant to the bill before the House.
Mr FRYDENBERG: I am staying absolutely relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am talking about the carbon tax because it is the motivation for the bill that is before the House right now. This is not an education-related bill. This does not produce better outcomes for parents and their children who are students. It does produce a cash bonus for their pocket which will not necessarily be used on educational outcomes. The reason is the carbon tax. That is the only reason. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Leigh, you know that there is no job creation in just giving a handout to parents with school-aged children.
The last time this government gave cash bonuses, during the GFC, 16,000 dead people received their $900 bonuses. How many ineligible people will receive this cash bonus? The current scheme, which the coalition strongly supports, is all about giving parents money after they have spent their own hard-earned dollars on education-related expenses and provided the ATO with the receipts at the end of the financial year. That is the current system which we were in favour of improving. Instead, this government has designed to remove that existing system so that it can cushion the pain and the blow of the carbon tax. Deloittes have done studies that have found that over 23,000 people will lose their jobs in my own state of Victoria. Jobs will not be created. Billions of dollars will be sucked out of the economy. I have told you about my own experience with small business and self-funded retirees. They are not going to get this cash bonus—this fictitious schoolkids bonus—but they will be paying higher cost-of-living expenses.
This Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill is part of a rotten budget. It is part of a budget which has forecast an increase in unemployment to 5.5 per cent, which has ripped more than $5 billion out of Defence and which insufficiently supports the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It is part of a budget which has lifted the debt ceiling from $250 billion to $300 billion—four times the amount that existed under the Howard government. It is part of a budget which has told us that last year's budget deficit has ballooned from $22 billion to $44 billion. That is why this educational mechanism, this schoolkids bonus, is so wrong. It is part of a broader budget which fails Australian families. It is a budget which abolishes company tax cuts for small and big business, which makes people pay more for aged care and which will see Australia's debt rise to $145 billion, including an interest bill of $8 billion a year or $22 million a day.
Mr Gonski was talking about an extra $5 billion dollars to provide better educational outcomes. Hang on! Isn't the interest bill for the Australian taxpayer now $8 billion—the cost of an NDIS; the cost of five teaching hospitals; or the cost of real educational change? You get educational change by putting the budget in the black, not by running up massive deficits. In fact, the four largest deficits in the history of the Australian nation have been in the last four years under Wayne Swan—a total of $174 billion.
One of my heroes, Margaret Thatcher, a reformist prime minister, said: 'The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.' That is what we are seeing from this government. That is why I am against this cash handout, this 'cash splash' which is a desperate bid for votes. It is not designed to boost productivity, it is not designed to create jobs and encourage investment, and it is not designed to improve educational outcomes. We want to go back to responsible fiscal management. We want to look after those students who are at school and whose educational outcomes we care about.
WYATT ROY (Longman) (11:52): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, before I begin today, let me use this as the first available opportunity in this place to express my deepest sympathy and my community's deepest sympathy for the young girl who was tragically stabbed in my electorate this morning. She attended St Columban's College, which I am proud to say is a great local school. It is a school that I have a strong involvement with. It has great students, great staff and a great sense of community. This is, obviously, a very dark and difficult day for the school community and for the community at large. In this place I want to record my sympathy and the community's sympathy for the young girl, and our thoughts are with her family, with her friends and with the school.
I rise to speak today on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012 and to voice my sincere disappointment with, and objection to, this bill. Last night the Labor government disappointed millions of Australians with their cook-the-books budget. It is a budget which many Australians had high expectations for but were miserably disappointed with. One of the major disappointments for Australians, including the people in my electorate of Longman, was Labor's announcement that they are dumping the education tax refund, instead, give handouts of taxpayers' money, borrowed money, in a desperate bid to improve their electoral stocks.
As I have said in this in this place before, the government has a record of wasting taxpayers' hard earned money. Its record of waste and mismanagement is a mile long with pink batts, school hall rip-offs and border protection blow-outs, to name just a mere few. Now, the Labor government has abandoned the education tax rebate. It was a targeted program that provided genuine assistance to relieve education costs for parents.
This government has ripped out a program that not only ensured that the education needs of students were met but also provided genuine relief to the many families in my electorate and around Australia. They are families who are struggling with the escalating cost of computers, textbooks, workbooks and subject-specific resources. They are families who are trying to give their kids the best possible start in life, which is the very best thing a parent can do. They are parents who are doing everything they can to live within their means, but want to provide for their kids. Now, this program has borne the brunt of the consequences of this Labor government's waste and mismanagement and has become the latest victim of another dodgy Labor budget.
As the dust settles Australians will be able to see the truth. This Labor government is making its best effort to hide and distract from the pain that everyday Australians are feeling. This Labor government is trying as hard as it can to increase taxes, including the biggest of them all: the carbon tax. Any pretence of this new policy being about offsetting education costs has been dispelled. What we have before us today, what we have here in this place in this debate, is an instant sugar hit, a one-off hit for families, that is designed to help with a smoke-and-mirrors budget being delivered by this incompetent Labor government. It is a sugar hit being delivered before the end of this financial year to help dodgy the books and to deliver a fanciful surplus.
Let us talk about what this policy is not. It is not genuine relief for families to compensate for the enormous imposition of the carbon tax. This policy is not a carefully considered targeted measure that will reach families who need the assistance most. It is a careless blanket splash of cash, and there is no limit in the way it can be spent. In fact, this Labor government is recklessly promoting the policy by saying that families will be eligible to receive it even if they lose their receipts. It fails to explain that every eligible family will get the money regardless of whether they keep their receipts or not. This is an indiscriminate and careless sugar hit.
I am extremely concerned about the long-term consequences of this $820 sugar hit to families. As a young person I am continually aware of the long-term implications of debt. It is a debt, it seems, that people of my generation will be paying off for the extent of our lives. It is a debt incurred in just four years of Labor. The irony in this situation is that these young people, whose families will receive the $820 bonus, will be the very ones who will be faced with this interest bill. The very people this bill seeks to address and help will actually be hurt by the borrowings of this Labor government. They are the very ones who will be contending with the consequences of this over their lives.
I challenge those opposite with this: would the young people of the Australia prefer the security and stability of a healthy economy of a country that is not left with the burden of generations before who are unable to live within their means, or would they prefer the burden that comes with paying down an enormous debt: a difficulty in purchasing their own home and partaking in the Australian dream? I suggest that they would prefer the security and stability of a healthy economy and a healthy budget, one that has not been used to deliver a sugar hit to produce the appearance of a wafer-thin surplus.
What we are seeing with this budget and what we have seen with this sugar hit is one of the most blatant attempts at cooking this year's budget books, in order to allow Labor to protect its artificial surplus next financial year as the refund will be paid out before the end of this financial year. I propose that Australians deserve better. They deserve a government that is upfront and honest with its people, one that can live within its means, one that does not need to resort to smoke and mirrors to manage its books and one that does not cook its books.
The coalition understand families. We know that families with school aged children have large costs. The best way to ensure that money is spent on our kids is through the now abolished education tax refund system. We believe that this was a regime that ensured taxpayers' money was given only to families who actually spent money on education costs. It delivered the relief to families who relied upon it and who were making sacrifices for their kids' education to give them every opportunity in life. We believe that this could have gone even further. The coalition took a very strong policy to the last election—a policy that vastly expanded the number of school expenses items that would be eligible and increased the rebate amounts. We understand that parents have been looking for practical relief for real expenses. The coalition's plan would have provided a rebate to families of $1,000 for each secondary-school-age child and $500 for each primary-school-age child. By contrast, we are seeing with Labor's scheme $820 for secondary-school-age children and $410 for primary-school-age children, leaving a family with two children—one secondary and one primary—some $270 a year worse off. The coalition's policy was more money better targeted and it went straight to those families who needed it most.
Labor continues to borrow more and more money. While some parents might benefit this year, it will be their children who will have to repay this Labor debt for years into the future. Australians will not be fooled by this sugar hit. They know that Julia Gillard is not interested in helping families and is interested only in keeping her own job. An eligible family with an 18-year-old in year 12 may get a sugar hit, but that will not last as long as the student when they get hit and slammed by hundreds of dollars in compulsory student union fees when they go to university.
This Labor government is addicted to more spending and higher taxes. To put in perspective what this bill is trying to hide, let me have a closer look at this year's budget. What we have seen in this year is a predicted deficit of $23 billion blowing out to a delivered deficit of $44 billion—the fourth-largest deficit our country has ever seen, delivered in order by a Labor government. What does this amount to? A record net debt level of $145 billion and an interest repayment of $8 billion a year. This is what the young people of Australia will have to pay off for the reckless waste of just four years of Labor. They have taken away real means that would have given real assistance to families to deliver on their kids' futures and have instead given a political announcement and a sugar hit. This is why I will strongly oppose this bill. I encourage all members of this House to stand up against this Labor government's attack on working families. Thank you.
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (12:02): I speak in support of the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012. This is a particular subject that I have always spoken on in this place. In fact, the old education tax refund goes back to 2008. I spoke on that bill at the time and subsequently in 2011, when the education tax refund was adjusted to include school uniforms. But, having heard some of the debate here this morning—especially the contributions coming from the opposition benches—I really do wonder if many of these members have ever gone out and spoken to their constituents about school costs. Although the education tax refund was a very good scheme, it did not cover all the costs of sending children to school, and anyone who has children at school would know that. Although it covered books and stationery, although it covered computer items and equipment, although it even covered such things as iPads, there was a big list of essential school items that were never part of that but on which parents will now be able to spend the money provided by the schoolkids bonus.
The list is quite instructive. Many of us in this place have children at school, and we know about these bills. There are things like the school fees you get at the start of every year or even before the start of the year. A government primary school is $250, $300 or $400 a student. A secondary school can easily be double that. That is in Victoria. And that is just the start. That was not covered under the old education tax refund, but it is most certainly what a parent would regard as an education expense. The other big one is school camps. I quite often get letters about this from parents who are a bit distressed that they cannot send their child to a school camp because they simply do not have the money. Again, under the old education tax refund that was not an allowable expense. Under the schoolkids bonus it will be. The money will be there in the bank account and, hopefully, some more kids will get to go away on camps because of payments like that.
There is another one that I have spoken to quite a few constituents about over the years, and that is after-school tutoring costs, sometimes for children who need more help than they can receive in school and sometimes because they may actually be getting ahead by doing that. Again, that has not been part of what was on offer and can now have money directed to it.
There are many others on the list as well. Sporting equipment is a big one. For all of us who have children at school who play sport—and that is most—things rapidly escalate beyond the school uniform. It does not take much at all for a piece of sporting equipment to set you back several hundred dollars, and they do not always last as long as you would like as kids grow bigger.
There are other items. A really big expense—though not every child has them—is musical instruments. A lot of schools have music programs, and that is a great thing, but they all come with a cost. There is generally a cost for the musical instrument or the hire of it, and there is a cost for the teacher. Quite a lot of these classes are done during school with extra cost or after school with extra cost. It is a great thing. It is a wonderful component of education. But if a child is at school and decides to play the flute it is possible to rent that flute for a year. That would cost quite a few dollars. You can buy one for around $200 or $300 at the cheap end. It goes up from there. If a child chooses to play a musical instrument such as the cello, the costs can go through the roof and be four figures rather than three. And that is quite common. Again, under the old education tax refund, although that is what a lot of people would regard as an education expense, it was not part of the scheme and could not be claimed. There are other things on the list that are also important. School subject levies and levies for consumables in subjects such as woodwork and home economics are not necessarily packaged by schools in their fees in ways that could have been claimed under the old scheme. Now parents have money coming to them to provide for such items. There is a long list of others as well. Not so much in the government school sector but in the private school sector many schools raised building levies. Schools without as much money can only really finance new buildings by raising levies on parents to supplement what they get from the federal government. Again, that was not covered under the education tax refund.
There are smaller costs that also were not covered—costs like library book fees. If a school charged for such services there would not be many parents who would not regard that as an educational expense. There is also the old favourite, which any of us with children at school would know, which is school photos. I am probably showing my age, but when I was at school and it was the day for photos a large number of kids would be sitting on several levels of benches with a board at the front and maybe a football. We got one black-and-white photo and it was sent home. I do not remember if there was a charge, but it may have been a dollar or two. These days school photos come as packages, and the cheapest one that my children were offered started at $30. You get folders with various different poses and the class shot, but there is no cut price.
Mr Hartsuyker: There are no front teeth too.
Mr SYMON: That happens at school too. If there are a number children in the household, that happens every year and it is very easy to spend up to $70 on school photos. That is part of the educational experience. If a child misses out on having their photo when everyone else in the class has their photos it is not good for them and nor is it good for their parents because it is a record of what went on at school. I regard that as an educational expense, but photos were not covered under the old scheme.
Talking about the week-to-week functions of schools, there is not one parent in Australia who would not know about requests for school donations. There is always a chocolate drive, a raffle or a donation in lieu of attending on a weekend to clean out the gutters. Whatever it may be, schools need to raise money, but under the education tax refund scheme those sorts of expenses were not covered. Again, they are pretty important to the school and they are money out of the parents' pockets. Other things that are not necessarily thought of when looking at education expenses are transport costs such as bus fares. They add up, but were not covered under the old scheme. Again, most parents would say if children have to go to school on a bus it should be regarded as an educational expense. I think they are right.
There are many items that are now covered but that were not covered before. That is a great thing for parents right across Australia. It is a great thing that the money is going to be paid upfront, rather than parents having to collect receipts and wait around for a refund, in some cases for more than a year depending on when the expense was incurred and how soon the taxpayer gets to an accountant to get the paperwork done. Those expenses will now be covered—money before instead of money after is good for the family budget.
Those people who think that parents with children at school will immediately run off to the pub and blow the lot, as I have heard some people in this place say, really misstate the case of those parents. Most parents of children who go to school work very hard to get the best education for their children and a little bit extra helps. I am sure, like everything in society, not every last dollar that goes to every last person will be spent on educational expenses. Some may go on other household expenses too. As it is a government payment, it is not up to the likes of me to tell a family how they should spend their money. If they direct it to education for their kids and that covers some of the expenses I have just gone through then that is a great start. I am certain that even with these payments some items on the long list of expenses that were not covered by the education tax refund will still not be covered for many people, but this bonus is a great help.
Governments should be lending assistance to those who need it. By targeting family tax benefit A recipients the schoolkids bonus does exactly that. There will be high-income families that do not receive it and there will be low-income families and middle-income families that do receive it. I put it to the House: who is better able to afford to send their children to school, a low-income family or a high-income family? I suspect it is the high-income family in just about every circumstance. Producing the payment before children start the school year and the fees have to be paid is a good thing—as I said, usually school fees are not paid the year a child starts school as the bill is sent out and the school wants payment before the end of the previous school year. Generally these accounts arrive a couple of weeks before Christmas, which is the worst time for a bill to arrive because of all the other Christmas expenses and the hangover in January when the credit card bill inevitably arrives.
The education tax refund was a great step forward that was put in place by a Labor government. I think the schoolkids bonus is an even better step forward. Waiting around for your receipts to be checked and for the tax office to send a refund was an improvement, but now there is a better way of doing that. I have seen people coming into this place today to talk about how this money could be spent, which I think only devalues how parents will spend it. Money that is directed towards their children's education is not only an investment in that family's future but also an investment in Australia's future. I commend the bill to the House.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (12:14): I rise to speak on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012. I, along with many Australians, am very much aware of the costs associated with educating children. It does not matter whether the school is a government school, a faith based school or a private school; we all know that there are significant costs associated with educating our children. If taxpayer money is to be spent by government for the purposes of assisting with educating children, then it is essential that the money goes to where it is intended and that the recipients of that money—for example, parents—are accountable for how and where that money is spent.
The Labor government has made it clear that families will be eligible for the payment even if they lose their receipts. What does this actually mean? More importantly, what does it mean in practice? What does it mean for the implementation of this program? To me, it means that, if there is no requirement to produce receipts for expenditure on education, that money could be spent on anything. Without receipts there is no way to verify proper expenditure and there is no meaningful way to audit the expenditure of taxpayer money. So how can this government guarantee that the objectives of this policy are being achieved by the means? The answer is quite clearly that it cannot. There is virtually no accountability for recipients under this program.
Taxpayer money must not be used inappropriately and it must not be squandered. It must be used very wisely and, quite frankly, I do not believe that the program that is being proposed by the Labor government has sufficient checks and balances in place to qualify as an appropriate or wise use of taxpayer money. It is disappointing to see that there is another very ill-thought through move from this Labor government that bears the hallmarks of a desperate move to raise its political fortunes. The government intends to abandon the education tax refund, a targeted program specifically developed and designed to give assistance to parents to relieve the increasing costs of education.
The education tax refund allows for a refundable tax offset for eligible education expenditure up to $794 for primary-school studies and $1,588 for secondary studies. Items such as home computers and laptops as well as related accessories such as USBs, internet connections, software, textbooks, other printed learning material and even prescribed trade tools for secondary-school trade courses have all been covered by the refund. I listened to the member for Deakin criticise the scope of the items that were covered, but surely if the scope of the items was the issue you would add additional items, not scrap the entire program and replace it with a cash payment system where no receipts are required.
Not satisfied with the incentive the refund provided for families to invest in their child's education, this government will now promote a policy which removes any idea of sensibly offsetting education costs and merely creates a sideshow, an attempted diversion from the ever-rising costs of living that affect all facets of our lives. I will speak more about this later, and about how hard the cost-of-living increases are hitting families and will continue to do so, particularly in light of the introduction of the carbon tax. Cost-of-living increases certainly impact on our children's education.
All this measure forms is an obvious attempt to prop up the government's electoral hopes on an artificial surplus, with the refund to be paid out before the end of this financial year. Apparently this government has no wish to make things easier for parents who place a high value on their child's education or on equipping Australian students with the best possible start in their schooling careers. This measure is merely just another example of tricky accounting when the Australian people are demanding transparency and real action.
However, the coalition understands that there are many families with school-age children who are currently burdened with large costs. The best way to lighten their load was through the education tax refund, which ensured that taxpayer money was given only to families who actually spent the money on education expenses. The coalition took a policy to the last election that would have vastly expanded the number of expense items that could be claimed, and increased rebate amounts, including a rebate to families of $1,000 per secondary-school-age child, and $500 for each primary-school-age child. This is in contrast with Labor's scheme, which provides $820 for secondary-school-age children and $410 for primary-school-age children. The coalition's policy was clearly better targeted and would have gone to families who needed it most.
But the record stands clear. This Labor government, since its election, has been attacking middle Australia. Labor means tested the family tax benefit B in 2008 so that any family where the main income earner earned more than $150,000 lost the benefit. Labor froze indexation for the full payment of family tax benefits A and B, the baby bonus and the dependant spouse rebate in 2009. Labor froze indexation for family tax benefits A and B supplement payments in 2011. In the budget handed down last night, Labor cut the age of eligibility for family tax benefit part A for families with children who are 18 years old, meaning families with children aged 19 to 21 will no longer receive assistance through the family tax benefit. We should make no mistake here: Labor is most definitely assaulting the wellbeing of middle-class Australians, and the removal of the education tax rebate is just another blow at a time when it is least needed. What is hurting parents most is the increasing cost of living, and under Labor this has gone well beyond the norm. Electricity prices have gone up by 61 per cent; gas prices have gone up by 37 per cent; water and sewerage rates have gone up by 58 per cent. Families are struggling and I do not believe the government is doing anything to help. In fact, Labor are making a bad situation worse for families with their carbon tax, which starts on 1 July this year. The carbon tax is a new $9 billion a year tax—an immediate 10 per cent increase in electricity bills for the next year alone and a nine per cent increase in gas bills. When you couple the effects of the carbon tax with the other 25 new or increased taxes introduced since Labor were elected in 2007, and the continued pressure of cost-of-living increases, is it any wonder that our families are crying out for help?
However, the coalition has a strong appreciation for education and for families and the contributions that they make to our communities. To find out more about the pressures that are being placed on our students and their parents, as well as the many schools in the local community, I hosted a forum last week for non-government school principals with my colleagues the member for Sturt and the member for Moncrieff so that the educators could raise any concerns that they had with the Gonski review or any other elements of the education system. The conversation was certainly most enlightening. Many of the schools discussed the need for certainty in funding and their concern with the suggestion that NAPLAN could possibly be used as a tool to determine the allocation of resources and funding for schools. This point should be made clear: schools do not want a NAPLAN tested funding regime that in the long term may prove inequitable for the schools that need that funding. The purpose of NAPLAN testing is as a diagnostic school to assist schools and teachers in targeting their learning techniques, and it most certainly should remain that way. I would like to thank the principals from my electorate and also those from further north, in the Moncrieff electorate, who attended the forum and gave my colleagues and me some very valuable feedback with regard to what is in the best interests of their school community and what is currently hurting students and their parents the most.
There is no question that our schools deserve our support. They are not only institutions where children are given life skills and knowledge of the world around them; they also serve as a dual service as social hubs for the community. When school hours are over, many community groups use the premises for meetings. Sometimes they are social gatherings and sometimes they are other classes or functions held in the school buildings. They provide fun days out and opportunities for many residents in the local community. I note that many of the religious schools—and I have a number of faith based schools in my electorate—also open their facilities to worshipers on days of worship or religious holidays and provide a location for the community to congregate. So schools are clearly a key building stone to what constitutes the Australian way of life.
I am certainly very proud to have more than 30 schools in my electorate, ranging from the Queensland-New South Wales border all the way up to the northern part of my electorate, near Merrimac. Some of those schools are quite small and only have 100 or so students, but there are also schools which are very large and have well over 2,000 students. Throughout the year I attend many functions and events held by schools in my electorate and I am always impressed by the professionalism of the staff, the quality of the teaching and the conduct of the students when I visit those schools. I am consistently told by parents from each of those schools that they want choice in deciding where to send their children and they want an opportunity to send their children to schools without being penalised by the government.
I believe the measures that the government is seeking to introduce will do more harm than good in the long term. The education of our future generations is certainly not something that can be played with for political buoyancy. It is disappointing to find members of the opposite side of the House advocating for such a reckless measure that will leave families and students worse off. Education in Australia should be encouraged. I will fight to ensure that the families and schools in the electorate of McPherson receive the assistance that they need so that they can give their students the tools needed for the future.
I have spoken in this place on a number of occasions about the importance of education. A school student's education can last over 13 years. In Queensland we currently have prep to year 12, but a number of schools offer an additional pre-prep year. From preschool children through to adult learners, participants in education have greater opportunities to build their self-awareness and confidence. The years that students spend at school are clearly their formative years. I believe that we have an obligation to provide each student with the opportunity to develop and succeed not only at school but socially and to develop the skills that will take them from their childhood through to young adulthood and beyond.
What makes a quality education experience is not as simple as a cash payment for which there is little or no accountability—a payment that will be made with no requirement to produce a receipt for education expenditure. I want to see good educational outcomes for our students at all levels, from school through to tertiary education.
On the Gold Coast I believe that we are well placed to be Australia's education capital, and I have spoken about that on a number of occasions in this place. We have several university campuses, two of which are located in my electorate of McPherson—Bond University and Southern Cross University, which has a large campus at Bilinga that is currently undergoing expansion. We have TAFE colleges and numerous registered training organisations. As I have said before, there are more than 30 schools in my electorate alone. I consult widely with principals, teachers, parents and students, and I agree with them that the objective is a good quality education outcome. If I were assessing the Labor government's education policy, I would assess it as a fail.
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (12:29): I rise today to speak on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus) Bill 2012 because I believe that we should be redefining the education tax rebate system rather than handing out taxpayer money as a cash bonus.
It is obvious that Labor's announcement to dump that education tax rebate and to give out handfuls of taxpayer money is a desperate bid to win votes—nothing more; nothing less. If I did not know any better it would sound like cash for votes to me! It has taken the broader community less than 24 hours after the budget announcement to work this out.
This ploy will not work with the people of Macarthur, who understood the importance of the education tax rebate, a targeted program that provided genuine assistance to relieve education costs for parents. If this government was serious about supporting parents in Macarthur they would not be dumping this rebate and replacing it with a sugar-coated payment to try and win votes. We all know that this new program is designed to distract from the carbon tax hit to the cost of living, which will go up and up every year. Residents in Macarthur are not stupid; they know that prices will continue to rise as a result of the carbon tax, and a cash payment before July this year just is not going to cut it.
Labor's new policy is a bad policy. It is not about offsetting education costs; it is simply a sugar hit for families to create a diversion from increased bills and costs, which will rise come 1 July. Labor is recklessly promoting this measure but they do not spruik the fact that parents do not have to spend this payment on their children's education. They can spend it on anything they like; there is no accountability.
How can the government genuinely claim that this cash splash will be spent on the educational needs of our children? They cannot. How can they guarantee that the money will be spent for the purpose it was given? They cannot. I have heard a number of members speak today. Some of them are in dreamland or away with the pixies. Some of the members were talking about low socio-economic backgrounds and money being put upfront for people to spend on their children's education. Have a look at the last cash splash leading up to the last election. Go around and ask the publicans and the clubs how much their profits went up for that period of time. There is no guarantee that this money will be spent on each child's educational needs. A number of members have mentioned a number of issues in relation to alcohol and drugs and many other things. I am sure that a significant amount of this money will be wasted and not spent for the purpose it was given.
As part of its plan Labor has removed the cash incentive for parents to invest in their children's schooling needs. Ultimately, this will be counterproductive for our schoolkids. Yes, parents in Macarthur are struggling and need all the help they can get but the carbon tax is going to hit them hard, and a lump sum sugar payment will not sweeten the deal.
And why do you think this payment is being made before 30 June this year? This is one of the most blatant attempts to cook this year's budget books in order to allow Labor to protect its artificial surplus next financial year, because the refund will be paid out before the end of this financial year. The coalition knows that families with school-aged children have large costs, and Macarthur families are no different. But the best way to ensure money is spent on our kids is through the now abolished education tax refund system. This was a regime that ensured taxpayer money was given only to families who actually spent money on education costs and the needs of their children.
The coalition took a policy to the last election that vastly expanded the number of school expense items that were eligible through the rebate, and increased the rebate amounts. We did this because we know that parents need better assistance. The coalition's plan would have provided a rebate to families of $1,000 for each secondary school-aged child and $500 for each primary school-aged child. By contrast, Labor's scheme provides much less—only $820 for secondary school-aged children and $410 for primary school-aged children—leaving a family with two children some $270 per year worse off than our policy.
Perhaps this government should have paid attention to the coalition's policy, which was for more money, better targeted to go straight to those families who needed it most. If, as the government suggests, people are slipping through the cracks and not claiming their education tax refund we should simplify the system and promote an awareness program through the schools and possibly the P&C organisations. It is not too hard to put out a few newsletters at the start of the year, the middle of the year and at the end of the year, to notify parents how they can claim the rebate for the educational needs of their children. It would be simple, one would think. What about school newsletters, as I mentioned, at the beginning of the year and just before tax time?
Families need to know that they could receive just as much money, if not more, under coalition policy, by claiming the education tax rebate. Not only is the money accountable; it ensures that the education needs of our children are addressed. Labor says it is supporting our families and their children but who do we think will be repaying their debt in the future? I cannot just sit by as Labor continues to borrow more money, because while some parents might benefit this year, it will be their children who will have to repay Labor's debt for years into the future, and that is not right.
I brought up my two daughters in Macarthur. My wife and I worked hard to support our family, and I can tell you that a long-term plan like the education tax rebate system would have been much more of a helping hand than this sugar coated payment followed by a hike in all of our bills due to the carbon tax. The people of Macarthur will not be fooled by this sugar hit. It is a senseless cash splash for more votes. Residents in my electorate know that this Prime Minister is not interested in helping local families; she is only interested in keeping her own job.
Macarthur parents supporting students studying for the HSC need to know that while they may get a sugar hit in June that will not last long, because their child will then get slammed by hundreds of dollars in compulsory student union fees. If you ask me, this is just another example of Labor attacking middle Australia. The Schoolkids Bonus is not about helping local families; it is about throwing money at people before they get hit with the world's biggest carbon tax. It is merely a distraction: a quick, short-term sugar hit to distract people from a carbon tax that will keep on hitting them time and time again. Labor's claim that they support Australian families is farcical. Just take a look back through history. In the 2008 budget Labor introduced a means test on the baby bonus which limited the baby bonus to families with an adjusted taxable income of $75,000 or less in the six months after the birth of a baby. This is the equivalent of an adjusted taxable income of $150,000 a year or less.
In the 2009 budget, Labor froze indexation for the full payment of family tax benefits A and B, the baby bonus and the dependant spouse rebate. Labor also announced that from the 1 July 2009 the income test for the Commonwealth seniors health card would include income from superannuation streams with a taxed source and salary that are sacrificed to superannuation. They subsequently backed down after community outrage. In the 2011 budget, Labor froze indexation for family tax benefits A and B supplement payments. In MYEFO Labor cut the baby bonus from $5,400 to $5,000 and froze indexation of the payment for three years.
In the 2012 budget Labor cut the eligibility for family tax benefit part A to families with children who are 18 years, meaning families with children aged 19 to 21 will no longer receive assistance through the family tax benefit. And what about the flood levy? Those earning over $100,000 were forced to pay 0.5 per cent of taxable income in excess of $50,000 and one per cent of taxable income in excess of $100,000.
In my electorate, a retiring police officer was forced to remain in the workforce to avoid a $6,500 hit to his superannuation because of this tax as he was receiving a lump sum payment in that financial year. He was unwell and wanted to retire but was already paying $90,000 in tax on his super so he remained in the workforce to avoid another $6,500 loss. How is this looking after hard-working families?
And do not think that residents in Macarthur have not noticed the increase in the cost of living under this government. How can you claim to be supporting Australian families when so many of them cannot afford to pay their electricity bills? There are people in my electorate on low incomes or in the welfare system who are waiting up to three months for $30 vouchers to assist them with their electricity bills.
Let us look at Labor's record from the December quarter of 2007 to the December quarter of 2011. Electricity prices have increased by an average of 61 per cent across Australia. Gas prices have increased by an average of 37 per cent across Australia. Water and sewerage rates have increased by an average of 58 per cent across Australia. Health costs have increased by an average of 20 per cent across Australia. Education costs have increased by an average of 24 per cent across Australia. The cost of food overall has gone up by 13 per cent across Australia. The amount of rent people are now paying has increased by 25 per cent across Australia. When is this government going to realise that the people of this country are not stupid? They can see through the smoke and mirrors. They can see through the financial trickery.
We have a government saying that they are saving money, controlling their spending and reducing debt. What sort of message are they really sending to the people of Australia when they are increasing their borrowing ceiling from $250 billion to $300 billion? There are plenty of people in the community asking that question. This government just keep on spending and keep on taxing. The people of Macarthur know that this is a 'cook-the-books' budget, with the artificial surplus based on fiddled figures and money shuffles.
The Treasurer lives in Wayne's World. It does not exist; it is only in his mind. The $1.5 billion surplus is a mirage—the closer you look, you realise it does not exist. Local families know that a cash payment on 30 June is not going take away the carbon tax pain that begins on 1 July.
The education rebate tax should not have been dumped by this government. It was a silly mistake. Spending taxpayers' money on these payments with no accountability of how the money is spent is not fair to the hard-working people of Australia who pay their taxes on a daily basis. If the money is to be spent on the education of our children then redefining the education tax rebate would have been a much more effective way to do it than these lump sum payments that will only plunge this country further into debt.
We are currently paying $8 billion interest each year on our national debt. This could easily pay for the National Disability Insurance Scheme the people of Australia are waiting for. The people of Macarthur can see what is happening here. They can see that this cash payment is nothing but an attempt to distract them from the carbon tax and the painful price hikes that it will cause. And while this government claims to be supporting Australian families, it will be the future generations of this country that will have to repay the billions of dollars in debt caused by this government's wasteful spending and incompetence.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (12:41): It is a pleasure to rise and speak against the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012 as the member for Macarthur did so well just now. It was an excellent contribution on behalf of his constituents, who he understands very well. He also understands that this sugar-hit bill for the carbon tax that is about to hit Australian families will not work because Australian families no longer trust the government, which told them that there would be no carbon tax in the first place.
Directly before the last election, members of this House will know, the Prime Minister said on Channel 10 that 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. Of course, we are now just days and hours away from that carbon tax coming into place. So this bill that we are debating today, which is being rushed on by the government, has had no government speakers on it because it is so hard to justify, even from the government's perspective. Government members do not want to be on the record justifying what is an attempt to provide a sugar hit.
Ms King: The member for Deakin just spoke on this bill.
Mr BRIGGS: Minister, you are entitled to speak on the bill. Your name is not on the list. There are no Labor members' names on the list. There is a good reason for it. You are ashamed of what you have done to Australian families and what you are about to do to Australian families with your world's biggest carbon tax—a carbon tax you promised would not be implemented. I say to the minister, if she wants to speak on this bill, she should stand up after I finish my contribution and speak on this bill, represent those people from Ballarat, tell them why she supports this carbon tax, tell them why she wants this carbon tax to increase their costs and tell them why this is just an attempt by this government to try and sugar coat what is the nastiest pill that Australian families have faced in a very long time.
Last night we saw the Treasurer's fifth budget delivered. Each budget in this place has some sort of narrative to it and it tells a story about the government's direction. Last night what we saw was a budget which was about trying to enhance the electoral stocks of this Prime Minister and this government. It was a last-gasp effort to try and get a boost in the polls, to hold back the movement of MPs on the government benches. The member for Griffith may be their last salvation—the person who they so abused not too long ago and who they will no doubt, in just a little while, turn to when this sugar hit of the electoral prospects also fails. Last night we saw a budget which was built on a house of cards. I suspect the Treasurer does not think he will ever have to implement it, because the forecasts in it are so unbelievable—you would have fairies at the bottom of the garden to expect that the expectations in that budget of revenue increases, for instance, will be met.
I note that the Australian journalist Adam Crichton, who understands this far better than most, has written an article today about the biggest increase in tax receipts in three decades; that the expectation in the budget is that somehow, while growth will be a trend, there is going to be an enormous growth of 12 per cent in the next financial year of receipts—government receipts, taxation receipts—to create this falsehood of a surplus.
We know that last year the government forecast there would be a deficit in last year's budget of $22 billion. If we refer to the budget papers, which were tabled last night, we see that that blew out to $44 billion. We are now expected to believe that this government can manage the budget back from a $44 billion deficit—which followed on from a $47 billion deficit which followed on from a $54 billion deficit which followed on from a $27 billion deficit—and that somehow it is going to turn around some $45 billion in one financial year, no doubt through a whole lot of trickery in the budget papers, and it is going to stop wasting Australian taxpayers' money when all it has done in its five years of government is just that.
We see it again with this piece of legislation, one which is trying to overturn the whole intent of the original education tax refund; a proposal, as the member for Macarthur put so well, that the opposition sought to improve at the last election. In fact, at the last election the government opposed what we were trying to do because it would not address the educational needs of Australian children. Now people will be handed cash with no expectation at all that they will spend it on education expenses. Indeed, what this cash bonus is all about is for people to be able to pay their soaring electricity bills. The government knows that it has to bribe and compensate people for the pain that it is about to inflict.
This is no longer about assisting educational outcomes for Australian families or schoolchildren, which the opposition's policy sought to improve at the last election by expanding the number of items that this could be spent on by keeping receipts and claiming it through the taxation system, which has been a long-practised way of focusing the money. This, instead, through this piece of legislation, is attempting to—and I hope this legislation does not pass; I hope the Independents see that this cash hit, like the cash hit during the stimulus package back in 2008-09, will be ineffective and wasted. That is why we see a debt soaring up to $240 billion. Last night the credit card was extended: it has gone from $250 billion to $300 billion, and we know that the Labor Party will make the most of its extension, as it has each time it has extended its credit card.
This bill does no more than try to find a way of compensating people for a carbon tax which is about to hit them. If this bill is seriously about education expenses, why is it being pulled forward to be delivered in June this year? Why are payments all of a sudden expected to be made in the next financial year being brought forward and why is this bill being rushed through the parliament so that money is spent in this financial year? It beggars belief. It does not require any proof that it is being used for educational purposes at all. It is an attempt to put money in people's bank accounts and hope and pray that they do not take out their anger, as we know they are, on Labor's members of parliament when we inevitably go to the next election.
We know—and, thankfully, a backbench MP on the government side helpfully told a journalist off the record just two days ago—that you cannot go doorknocking at the moment without being beaten up about the carbon tax. We all know: when we are in public at the moment, every time we go to a function, all people want to talk to us about is the carbon tax, the incompetence of the government, the government's judgment in backing people like the member for Dobell and standing by the member for Dobell and his use of credit cards. What is it with this party and the use of credit cards? What is it with this party and extending cards and using other people's money? What is it with this party?
Mr Katter: Be very careful: it's the pot calling the kettle black.
Mr BRIGGS: It is interesting that this party does not mind wasting other people's money on all sorts of questionable expenses.
I repeat: this is a bad piece of legislation because it is not following through with the original intention of the education rebate. The education rebate was to assist Australian people with educational expenses. This is an attempt to bribe and compensate people for the impact of the carbon tax, which is about to hit them, in a budget which is built on a house of cards, a budget that the Treasurer does not expect to implement because the numbers and the forecasts are so ambitious as to be unbelievable. It has been interesting to note and watch as the Treasurer has failed fundamentally to explain how it is that the ambitious forecasts in his own budget papers, which get to this pretend surplus, will somehow be delivered.
We just have to look at the record. I refer again to the budget papers, which show that in every budget delivered by this Treasurer the result of the budgets have been deficits: $27 billion, $54 billion, $47 billion, $44 billion. Next year the government expects us to believe that somehow there will be a $1.5 billion surplus, a rounding error in the Commonwealth budget purposes. Just look, for instance, at the increase in spending since this government came to power: in 2007-08, the last Costello budget, the spending was $271 billion; this year it is expected to be $364 billion—near enough to a $100 billion increase in just five budgets. It is an extraordinary increase in government spending. It is an extraordinary increase in the power of the state. It is an extraordinary increase in the take from the Australian people. This is what this government does: it taxes big and it spends big. It spends more than it taxes each year. We have seen that; that is the evidence. This bill is another example of this government spending more money than it takes. It does not have an economic plan to make our country stronger and to take advantages of the once-in-a-lifetime opportunities we have. Its economic plan is to tax more and spend more—to waste more. We have seen how much money has been wasted. I referred earlier to the one-off payments as part of the stimulus package. We know, for instance, how many dead people, people living overseas and people in jail received those one-off payments.
During that period we also saw the money that was wasted on the pink batts scheme. We know it cost twice as much—it cost $2 billion to take out the $1 billion that the government spent. Why would this bill be any different? Why would this spend be any different? Changing the purpose of the education tax rebate in the first place to make it a cash payment is purely to try to compensate Australian families for the impact of the biggest lie that this Prime Minister has made to the Australian people. This carbon tax is the dagger at the heart of Australian families. This is an attempt to sugar-coat that pill, and it will not work. It will not work, just as this house of cards budget will not work, because we all know in this parliament that this expectation that somehow there is going to be a $45 billion turnaround from this year's deficit into a surplus next year is a flight of fancy. It is built on an extraordinarily ambitious forecast which cannot be met. It is built on the record of a government that has spent more than it has earned every year it has been in power. For five long years the Australian people have had to suffer under this Treasurer.
We should never forget that when this Treasurer took the Treasury off Peter Costello, Peter Costello left this country with money in the bank, a $20 billion surplus. Surpluses of $20 billion are shown in budget papers 2006-07, 2007-08—money going into the Future Fund to plan for the future. A future fund was established so we could meet contingent liabilities as our country gets older and more people retire. All these plans and all these long-term hard decisions that were pursued by the former government and the Treasurer were undone in what seemed like a matter of weeks—in fact, it has been five long years. To expect that that is somehow going to turn around this year, to expect that somehow we are going to have these ambitious forecasts met, and that the government is going to turn it into a surplus budget, is to be ambitious at best.
This bill is a bad bill. It is a bad decision to change the education tax rebate in the first place. It has been rushed because the government knows it needs to change its numbers in a hurry before the Labor Party members change their Prime Minister. We just hope that the Independent members of this hung parliament—a situation we hope never to see in this country again—decide in the best interests of our country—
Mr Katter: It's real bad having this democracy, isn't it.
Mr BRIGGS: It is not working very well. It is a terrifically stable arrangement, member for Kennedy! There is no doubt about that. The country is certainly going down beautifully at the moment!
We just hope that these Independent members finally wake up to themselves and decide that this government should end. This government was based on a falsehood in the first place. This carbon tax—which the Independent members of parliament helped get through this place—will do so much damage to Australian families. We hope those members finally wake up and end it before this continues; before too much more money is wasted and before future generations are damaged more than they are today. It is a bad bill. It just continues. It is a bad government. It was a bad budget last night. It is built on a house of cards that is, hopefully, going to collapse as soon as it possibly can.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (12:56): It always amazes me in my years in politics, particularly over recent years, when speakers get up and say, 'We have to get rid of this terrible government.' During the last state election campaign, I asked over 4,000 people at various meetings or talking to two or three people in the street: 'Why? What will change? In Queensland, what will change?' And I say to you: if you change governments from the ALP to the Liberal Party, what will change? In this country, what will change?
I think the first thing you would say, if you were intelligent—I do not know whether you are—is the carbon tax. I would say that the carbon tax was not announced by the ALP; it was announced by the Liberal Party. John Howard said there would be an emissions trading scheme that was fully operational by 2012, and the person standing beside him when he said it was Malcolm Turnbull. The minute you got out of office you immediately became anti carbon tax. When you get back in, please excuse me for thinking you might be back on the other side of the fence. But all I can say to you is that I asked—
Mr Craig Kelly: I've got 20 bucks on that.
Mr KATTER: I will remember that. I am not putting 20 bucks on it because I would not trust people to do anything.
Mr Craig Kelly: I'll make it $100.
Mr KATTER: I will take that interjection. The honourable member said that he will pay $100 if they do not abolish the carbon tax, and I will nominate the charity to which he can donate it.
I asked 4,000 people what would change. They were not our supporters; this was just at meetings at the chambers of commerce or public meetings. Out of 4,000 people only four people said that anything would change. Most of them burst out laughing when I asked them what would change. It was a good idea to get rid of the Labor government in Queensland; there is no doubt about that. But what will change? Why do you change it? Nothing is going to change.
One said it as a question: 'Would we get better economic management?' The other two said we would get better economic management. The fourth one said there would be an expectation that things would get better and that there would be an environment of investment that would come in Queensland. I said, 'For how long?' and he burst out laughing. Those who have been around with me can verify what was said. But there are no fundamental differences between that side and the other side. If there are, you can tell me about them when you get up to speak because I will be interested and fascinated to know what they are. But do not start on the carbon tax, because you blokes in opposition announced the carbon tax, not this mob. It is a disaster for this country—let there be no question about that.
The ultimate consequence for a race of people is that they simply eliminate themselves from the gene pool; that they simply cease to exist as a race of people. I am among the first of the baby boomers; I was born in 1945. Statistically, I will die in 10 years time. I will be dead. All of the baby boomers will die in 10 years time. In 10 years time, when that occurs, there will be more deaths in this country than births. In Australia, at that point in time, we will officially become a dying race. There are people who say, 'Yes, but people will come in from overseas.' Yes they will, but they will not be Australians—they will be migrants. They will not be the race that is here now. I do not know about other people, but my forebears have been living in this country for 130 years. That is not true for everybody, but the race of people that are here will simply vanish. Before they vanish, there will be this terrible problem of half the population being very old and decrepit and having to be looked after by less than half the population—if you take out children, less than half the population will have to be looking after the old, decrepit half of the population.
I was not aware of this until Dr Bob Birrell from Monash University, the leading demographer in this country, wrote a landmark article in the Weekend Australian newspaper. In that article, he said that in 100 years time the population of Australia will be between six and seven million people. I thought, 'This is ridiculous; this can't be right.' I went down to the Parliamentary Library to the demographer there and I said, 'Is this ridiculous?' and he said, 'No, you can work it out for yourself'. He said that when 20 Australians die they are replaced by 17 Australians. If you do that for five generations over 100 years, you will find that you will have a decline, a very significant decline. I went back up to my office and did the mathematics, and I was quite amazed and very worried that I now belong to a vanishing race.
There are enormous, horrific costs associated with having a child. My wife and I brought up five children. I think it would be impossible to keep a child for under $25,000 a year, and even in the most grinding of poverty it would still be $15,000 a year. A child is not tax deductible, as it was when we were originally bringing up our children, when it was fully tax deductible. Now, the DINKs—double income, no kids—pay the same tax as the poor beggar whose wife has to stay at home because he has got three kids, and they are trying to stay alive with four or five people on one income. It is Christmas time for the DINKs; it is horror time for those people who would love to have children, who want to see an Australia in the future and who would love to see more Australians. It is horror time for them.
I enjoy immensely coming in here and tearing into the mainstream parties over economic issues and other issues, but in this case I have to say that the Liberal Party under Peter Costello—one of the worst Treasurers in Australian history, but Paul Keating will tip him out well in that race—doubled taxation and trebled the national debt. I am not referring to the government debt; Costello skited about the government balancing the budget, but it is a pity he did not take the time to think about the nation's book of account and its debt problems. He fixed his own by nearly trebling taxation while he was here, so do not let the Liberal Party ever get up and say, 'We're the low-taxing party'. They are the highest-taxing party in Australian history.
But I give Peter Costello his due. His comment, 'One for mum, one for dad and one for the country,' was a very good comment, and he did not just say it; he backed it up. There was a huge increase in the amount of money going to families having kids. It did not go back to anything like it was when I was a young father and the kids almost made our taxation negligible. We did not pay much tax at all because we had five children. He did not go that far, but all the same he started a big movement back towards defraying the enormous prohibitive costs of having a child.
The current government has continued with this and I praise them for the fact that they have provided a continuingly increasing amount of money to get to where we should be. But even this, which I refer to as $2,000 for three kids, the best way to explain it to the electorate is to say, 'If you have three kids, you will get an extra $2,000 a year'. It is not a huge amount of money but it is significant. We as a party—the KAP Party that I belong to—believe that every child must get $7,000. If we are going to turn that birthrate around then there has to be a payment for the birth—I cannot remember exactly what the figure was that we determined—with $7,000 per year per child in addition to that initial outlay, which is a very expensive item in the budget. It comes to $26,000 million—a huge budget item. But if you want to have a nation and a people with a future, and still exist as a race of people, then you had better do that and do that quickly. People say, 'Where will we get $26,000 million from?' but we have a 10 per cent customs duty on everything coming into the country, which will provide that amount of money. We can justify that, WTO neutral, because it is a customs duty not a tariff.
I return to the theme of a vanishing race. We had a very large number of suicides in one of our towns. I will not repeat the name of the town. It got a lot of bad publicity at the time. I said to one of my very good friends, who is very active in my political party as well, 'How is this occurring?' because it was occurring to middle-class families. I was quite staggered when I found out who the people were, because I knew them. He said, 'What if you were a young mother and the police knocked on the door and said, "Your kid's been throwing rocks through windows. We want him. He's going to have to be charged,", then the next day the housing commission—Qbuild or whatever they call them; they change their name every 10 minutes these days—turns up and they say "You're behind in your rent; we're hitting you with an eviction notice. You're going to be out on the streets," and you know you have to buy food for tonight but your husband's taken the money for the food and spent it on grog and if you complain he might duff you up a bit"?'
My friend said, 'Really? What do you think their frame of mind is?' Let me go back to the fact that the mother cannot pay the rent. One reason, as this gentleman said, was that the father was spending it on grog. He was not referring to a specific case; he was generalising. Another reason is that they just simply have no money to pay the rent. We in Australia have three characteristics that differentiate us from every other country. One of them is that we have the highest juvenile male suicide rate in the world, consistently and continuously now for over 20 years. I have my own views on why this is occurring and I am not sure whether they are correct or not. Boys are no longer allowed to be boys. They can no longer go fishing, camping, hunting or shooting. There are no male teachers anymore in the schools. Football is not available to them; there is no-one to take them there or to train them. They have no male role models. Probably a third of the population of Australia now live in families where there is no father. All of these things come together.
One of the issues that arise, and it is most unfortunate in this budget, is that we say to that little mother, who is trying desperately to raise three kids after her husband selfishly walked out on her and dumped her, and she is fighting to stay alive, 'Oh, no. You're not going to get any money unless you go back to work.' Then you complain because the children are on the streets causing trouble all of the time and a lot of them commit suicide. They have no mother because the mother has to go out and work. That is what is being imposed upon people here. If you think child-care centres and the education system can raise your kids then have a look at your statistics. You have the highest male suicide rates in the world. Is there a single member in this place who does not have a complaint every single week about misbehaviour of the juvenile section of our community? That has always been there but it is infinitely worse now than it has ever been before.
The honourable member for Herbert has come in. He would be well aware, in the Townsville region, of the great battle that my own party is leading, and I disagree with one aspect of this. They say that the parents should be made responsible. The parents have no disciplinary powers whatsoever now. That is another reason potential parents are not having kids. You cannot control the kids. The kids control the parents now. You cannot impose this, and Justice Wall quite rightly drew attention to it. But I say to Justice Wall, even though I love and respect the man—he is a great bloke—that without the disciplinary powers we cannot go in that direction— (Time expired)
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:11): I rise to speak on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012. It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Kennedy. I hope that Hansard records and that, Madam Deputy Speaker Rishworth, you will be the witness to the $100 wager between myself and the member for—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Rishworth ): I have to caution the member about making wagers in the House.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I am sure that the member for Kennedy, at the change of government, will gladly give me $100 for my charity, for what was said. This bill is not about a schoolkids bonus; it is all about abandoning the education tax refund, which was a targeted program that provided genuine assistance to relieve education costs for parents. It has been replaced by nothing other than a free money handout.
Mr Katter: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I claim to be misrepresented. I never offered him $100 if they do it. I would not trust them to do it or not do it, but I most certainly accept his offer of $100!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I must caution members that the House is not a place for making wagers. I ask the member for Hughes to continue.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: This bill is about abandoning the existing tax education refund, which was a targeted program that provided genuine assistance to relieve education costs for parents, and replacing it with nothing other than a free money handout. It is a handout that has nothing to do with education. Everyone likes to give away free money. We have seen it before from this government, thinking they could buy popularity, but they should learn from their past mistakes—this only buys very short-term popularity. And it is certainly not free money when that money has to be borrowed and when that borrowed money creates an obligation to pay interest in the future and when that borrowed money has to be repaid. The free money handout that this bill will give will only further add to our nation's debt burden that will have to be repaid by future generations of Australians. So this bill would be far better if it were renamed as not the 'schoolkids bonus' but the 'schoolkids debt burden', because that is exactly what it is.
The last four Labor budget deficits have totalled a cumulative $174 billion. And even if last night's forecast $1.5 billion surplus is achieved—and I note that the online betting agencies are actually taking wagers on this and it is a very short-priced favourite that it will not happen, but let us give the Treasurer the benefit of the doubt and assume that last night's forecast $1.5 billion surplus is actually achieved—this will mean that Labor's legacy, the legacy of their last five budgets, the cumulative deficit that they will leave as a legacy to future Australians, will be $172½ billion. So, because of those last five Labor budgets leading to a cumulative $172½ billion in deficit, for years into the future, for future generations, before we have one cent to pay for the education of our children, before we have one cent to assist our children with disabilities, before we have one cent for aged care, for hospitals, for roads, for medical research et cetera—for everything that is important in this nation—we will now have to find $8 billion just to pay the interest bill on Labor's debt. And the majority of this $8 billion will actually have to be paid to foreigners, and will have to be paid year after year after year—forever, until we start paying down that debt that they have left us.
How long will it take to repay Labor's debt from the last four years' budget deficits? Again, let us give the Treasurer the benefit of the doubt and assume that the betting markets have it wrong and they will actually deliver the $1.5 billion forecast surplus. At that rate, a surplus of $1.5 billion per year, it is going to take no fewer than 116 years to pay off the combined deficits that Labor has rung up in just the last four years—116 years to undo the damage of just four years. To visualise just how much $172 billion actually is, imagine a stack of $100 bills; if you were stacking piles of $100 bills on a pallet and filling that pallet up with $100 bills as high as you could go, to reach that $172 billion, that pallet would be stacked no less than 2.4 kilometres high. That is the debt mountain that this Labor government is leaving future generations. A good question to ask is, 'Why is this legislation being rushed through the parliament today? Why is it being rushed through to rebadge the education tax refund?' We all know: it is simply about throwing money at people before they get hit with the world's largest carbon tax.
If you were really about helping future generations of our schoolkids, you would not be handing out free money to them. You would not be leaving them with a debt burden. The one thing that you would be doing would be protecting our nation's competitive advantages so that they could be passed on to our future generations, the schoolkids of today, so that they could enjoy the competitive advantages that we as Australians had as a nation in years gone past. As a nation, just as for a business, we can only succeed if we have a competitive advantage. A competitive advantage is our lifeblood. It is what creates opportunity. It is what creates prosperity. It is what we should be handing down to our future generations. It should be the sacred duty of every elected member of this parliament to do everything we possibly can to safeguard our national competitive advantage. For, although we may survive if we are just at competitive parity, if what was our advantage turns into a competitive disadvantage then as a nation we go backwards.
There are many things that we suffer in Australia as competitive disadvantages. We have high labour costs, and that is something we do not want to do anything to harm. We also have the competitive disadvantage of major distances to our major markets. We also have the competitive disadvantage of our large nation—the large distances between our cities. But one of our nation's greatest competitive advantages has been our low-cost electricity supplies. Abundant supplies of high-quality black coal generating low-cost electricity—that has been one of the true national competitive advantages we have had, and it should be our sacred obligation to hand that competitive advantage on to our future generations, the schoolkids of today, who will be running our businesses and our economy tomorrow. But this Labor government, in an act of sheer economic treason, has decided to surrender this one national competitive advantage that we have by imposing upon our nation the world's largest carbon tax—a mere charade that has nothing to do with controlling global temperatures and nothing to do with the environment but which will simply raise electricity prices and sacrifice our national competitive advantage.
Australians used to enjoy some of the lowest electricity prices in the world. But a recent study released by the Energy Users Association of Australia has shown that average electricity prices in Australia are now, unbelievably, amongst the highest in the world. And once the world's biggest carbon tax takes effect, Australian businesses and consumers will have the highest electricity prices in the world. Interestingly, in South Australia, where they often boast about having more wind turbines than anywhere else in the country, they can now also boast that they have the highest electricity prices not only in Australia but in the world.
Again, this schoolkids bonus will not be directed at education; this coming winter, many families will simply have to use this money, this cash handout, to pay for their increased electricity costs so that they can keep their heaters on during winter. Another question about this bill is: why does this money have to be shovelled out before 30 June? What is so important about 30 June? What is the rush? We have heard the excuse from the Prime Minister that it was needed for the winter school term. But, if we check the school holidays, at 30 June in almost every state our school kids are still finishing off their second term, in the first two weeks of July they are on a break and they do not go back to school for the winter term, the third term of the year, until late in July. So why isn't this money handed out in the first week of July, if that is what it is really meant for?
We know it has nothing to do with school kids. It is simply thrown in at 30 June so it comes in in the current year's budget and not in next year's budget, when we see an artificial surplus. So is it any wonder that we have seen the current year's deficit blow out from $22 billion? We had thought it was $37 billion but, as we heard last night, another $7 billion has been tacked onto it and we now have, in this financial year, an estimated budget deficit of $44 billion. So the reason is simply to bring that expenditure out so it sits in there: rack up the deficit for this financial year as much as we possibly can and bring all the expenditure forward to create that artificial surplus for the next year. This is one of the most blatant attempts we have seen of cooking the books to allow Labor to protect that artificial surplus for next financial year by simply paying the refund before 30 June this year.
The coalition knows that families with school-aged children do have large costs, but the best way to ensure the money is spent on their kids is through the now abolished education tax refund system. This was a successful regime that ensured taxpayers' money was given only to families who actually spent it on education costs. Compare the two plans. The coalition's plan would have provided for a rebate to families of $1,000 for secondary school-aged child and $500 for each primary school-aged child. In contrast, they are being short-changed under this bill because Labor's scheme only provides $820 for secondary school-aged children and $410 for primary school-aged children, leaving a family with two children—the typical Australian family with one child in secondary school and one child in primary school—some $270 a year worse off. This bill actually makes school kids and families worse off. The coalition's policy has more money, it is better targeted and it will go straight to families who need it most. In contrast, Labor continues to borrow more money. While parents might see a short-term benefit this year, it will be their children in the future who have to pay off Labor's debt.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (13:25): It is always good to follow on from my colleague the member for Hughes. I rise to speak on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012. This bill is about the government desperately trying to buy votes that it cannot afford, at the expense of good policy. There can be nothing surer than that. This bill allows for the removal of the education tax refund and replaces it with the Schoolkids Bonus: twice-yearly, lump sum payments of $410 for primary school students and $820 for high school students.
The education tax refund is a targeted program that provides genuine assistance to families paying off education costs. With this bill, Labor have abandoned this measure, opting instead for a cash handout that they hope will distract families from the world's biggest carbon tax. This is not offsetting education, and no-one should be fooled by that. As the member for North Sydney and shadow Treasurer so eloquently put yesterday or the day before, it is simply 'a sugar hit for families', a distraction from increased bills and costs that will rise just for going about their everyday lives. Unlike the now defunct education tax refund, there is no requirement that this education handout be spent on schooling needs. It is just as likely to go to Dan Murphy. Once again, the Labor government have opted for a vote grab instead of good policy.
On this side of the House we do support investment in a child's education and we do know that parents need better assistance. The coalition took a policy to the last election that would vastly expand the number of eligible school expense items and increase the rebate amounts. This plan would have given families a rebate of $1,000 for each secondary school child and $500 for each primary school child, some $270 more beneficial for families than what the government is proposing with this bill. Additionally, our policy was targeted to make sure that taxpayers' money was being spent where it was needed: on education costs. After its promise of a tough budget to get back to surplus, Labor's bill can be seen as nothing more than a cash-grab attempt to win votes, paid for by debt. While parents might get a handout today, it will be the children who are paying it off in the future, along with the rest of this Labor government's debt.
One of the things that I found most disturbing about this whole exercise of a cash grab is that during the whole budget speech not once was the word 'productivity' mentioned. Is this the best use of our taxpayers' dollars? Is this the best way we can hand out taxpayers' dollars—just splash cash out in every way, shape and form towards an electorate that is becoming increasingly cynical about the way that we operate here? Surely we have learnt our lesson from the stimulus packages and the flood handouts, that by and large the money is not going to the places where it is actually needed. What is wrong with having to provide receipts for genuine educational costs and claiming that on your tax? What is wrong with actually having to stump up and say: 'This is what I am spending on my child's education. Can you give me a rebate for it?' What is wrong with that? What we are doing now is just giving this cash out to anyone who has a school-aged child. As long as you qualify for it, the money just goes into your account and away you go. You can do whatever you want with it. There is no onus on you to do anything with it. Having kids is not cheap. I have got three of my own and I can tell you that when they are at school, it is probably the cheapest they will be! Wait until they get out of school and they start wanting motor cars and plane trips and things like that. That is when they start to get expensive. Are we going to go down the track where we start to hand out money because our teenagers want to stay at home, or because our 20- and 30-year-olds are still living at home? Are we going to start handing out cash because they will not move out of home? That is the way we are going with this government at the moment. Money is going everywhere. It is a splash for cash that just goes all about the place. We have to think about things that are more productivity based.
What are we doing with our taxpayer dollars? It was Kerry Packer who stood in that joint house committee inquiry and said that he had a fundamental duty to reduce the amount of tax that he paid because governments do not spend it wisely. If you are busting your backside out there, if you are making the effort to make a difference, to create wealth and to create employment, and you pay your tax and then you turn around and see a government of any shape or form just splashing cash all over the place, you have every right to stand there and say: 'What the hell is going on here? Why should I be paying tax? Why should I be in private enterprise? Why should I be a small businessmen trying to do the best for my family and for the people who work for me, when the government does not respect the money that we give it?'
My mum and dad have three boys. Two of us went to boarding school, because we did not have the option of going to a local senior high school, and my little brother went to school in Brisbane. It was not easy and it was not cheap. All the way through, my parents scrimped and saved to do what they had to do. It is the same with my kids. We have to make do with what we have. We have chosen an education system for them and we will do the best we possibly can for them because they are our children.
What we do not need is a government standing out there and setting an example to us as parents that says, 'If you just hang around long enough and you don't do anything then we, the government, will give you cash.' The government will just stand there and at some stage in your life you are going to be just sitting around and you will open up the mail and there will be a $1,000 cheque from the government—just because. Just because it is your turn. Do not do anything, do not get up off your backside, do not get out there and do the extra work, do not work hard, because that is not what you are after.
What we are after here at the moment is a free handout. We want free money. That is what the whole society seems to be jumping up and down about at the moment. What this budget says is that if you qualify—if you sit at home and you do not do anything—then you are going to pick up $2,190 for doing nothing. Whereas the men and women out there, and the small businesses, who are working 70-, 80- or 90-hour weeks are not getting the tax refunds, they are not getting the tax cuts, and they are not getting anything out of this budget. They are the ones that should we be feeling sorry for.
As a parent, you have to set an example for your children as to what it means to be a person. You have to set the parameters as to how they will behave. You have to start that very, very early. If, as parents, we allow our kids to just sit there and they see that they will be given stuff for nothing—if they do not have to do the dishes, if they do not have to clean up the yard or they do not have to clean up their bedroom—then that is the example that we set for them. As a government, we must set an example for the country. We are given a ton of money—we are given a lot of money in this place. We are taking a lot of money out of Australia and we must use it the best way possible. Handing out cheques to people all over the place is simply not the best way to do it.
Everyone knows that, all the way through, this is a cover-up for the carbon tax. This is a cover-up because the carbon tax is coming in. This is a cover-up because the world's biggest carbon tax is going to hit absolutely everyone. The Treasurer stood there last night and said: 'It is only the big emitters that pay it.' But it is not the big emitters that pay it, because they will just pass it on. It is the people who are at the bottom of the pile who will pay it. It is the ratepayer, it is the wage-earner, it is the pensioner and it is the sole parent: those are the people who will pay with this carbon tax at every level. Every time you turn an electric light on, every time you open your fridge, every time you buy something you will be using electricity—and it is a tax on electricity. If you want to compensate people, do it by getting rid of this toxic tax. In Townsville—and they are using the Treasury's own figures—it is going to cost the Townsville City Council $5 million in carbon tax to run the dump because of the greenhouse gases.
Mrs D'Ath: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has strayed significantly from the content of this bill and I ask that he be brought back to it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The member for Herbert will make his comments relevant to the bill before the parliament.
Mr EWEN JONES: Mr Deputy Speaker, my points are relevant. They go to the way that this money is being handed out and to the way that this government is throwing money around. They are therefore relevant. We have to look at the way we are teaching our children. We have to look at the way that we as a government and we as a parliament are handling money on behalf of the Australian community. To stand here in this House and tell people that the best way that we can use your tax dollar is to send cheques out in the mail is a slap in the face for those people who are trying their best. This is what it is about: we have to make sure that we as a parliament are working our hardest to justify the people's faith in us. Is there any doubt out there that we are held in such low esteem at the moment because of the way that we are handling money? Is this the most productive way of handling money? Is this the most productive use of taxpayer dollars? If this is the best that the government can do, then I suggest that it go back to the drawing board and start again.
This bill is a pox on both our houses. This bill is not good policy. This bill does not make sense. This bill is doomed to failure and this money will not be spent where it should be spent. I thank the Deputy Speaker for his indulgence.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:36): Mr Deputy Speaker, at 9.26 this morning, the Gillard Labor government introduced this bill, the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012. This policy was first announced in a preplanned, pre-budget leak only a couple of days ago by the Treasurer, the member for Lilley. The coalition supports Australian families, but we must consider today's bill in the context of the worst budget, the worst Treasurer and the worst government this nation has ever seen. Today, it can be plainly seen that instead of rushing this bill through for the benefit of Australian families and for the education of our children, the Gillard government seeks to rush it through for only the basest political reasons, which I will outline today. The coalition has a proud history of supporting Australian families. The family tax benefit system was itself reformed by the Howard government to support hardworking Australian families and to ensure that parents of school children received adequate support from the government to which they pay so much tax. The coalition under the Howard government made sure that parents with schoolchildren as well as parents with only one income earner were looked after. From 1 January next year, under this bill, families will receive $820 for each high school child and $410 per primary school child. These payments will go to families who are eligible for family tax benefit A. Under this program families will not be required to keep an account of what the money is spent on; indeed, they can effectively spend it on anything they like, whether or not it is related to education.
This bill would be completely unnecessary if Australian families had a competent government. Australians have a very important question for the Treasurer: where has he directed the hard earned tax dollars of Australian families in the four years that he has been Treasurer of this nation? We know that he has not directed it towards programs delivering effective outcomes for Australian families. Under the member for Griffith, and the current Prime Minister and the current Treasurer, hard earned taxpayer money has been spent on government programs which were failures from start to finish. These failures amount to billions and billions of wasted dollars—money which would have been better spent in the hands of individuals and families. I remind the House again of the pink batts fiasco, which resulted in the deaths of Australians. I remind the House of the Building the Education Revolution scheme, which directed funds to building school halls at schools already scheduled for closure. I remind the House of the hard earned taxpayers' money spent on an inefficient solar rebate program, which was not only economically inefficient but also did almost nothing for environmental outcomes. How can we forget the unnecessary and exorbitant cost of giving set-top boxes to pensioners at a cost higher than that of a whole new television? Nor have we forgotten the $900 in stimulus payment which was sent to both people living overseas and people who are dead. How can we have confidence in this latest effort at pork-barrelling?
Inefficiency is the hallmark of this government, and Australian families have suffered under its incompetence since 2007. As a result of its profligacy and incompetence, the Gillard government had even before last night introduced 19 new or increased taxes. This government has turned $70 billion of net worth into accumulated deficits of $167 billion and $136 billion of net debt. The figures are indeed alarming. In 2013-14 w will see net government debt climb to a record never before seen in this country. It will represent an increase of over $40 billion since last year's budget. This country and its economy will be struggling after four years of Labor debt totalling $174 billion. By 2015-16 the government will be spending over $8 billion a year—around $22 million a day—on interest payments alone. Considering the government's love of accumulating debt, these payments are more like a schoolkids mortgage than a schoolkids bonus. The Treasurer must think that he has an unlimited credit limit for which he requests an increase that is automatically provided. But Australian families know what it is like to be in debt—to struggle financially with an ever-increasing cost of living—and, although the government would like to claim that today's schoolkids bonus budget measures bill is supporting such people, as I previously said, it is merely a bandaid for the government's reckless financial mismanagement.
On the other hand, Australian families know that with a coalition government they receive strong economic management. They know that there would be absolutely no need for a bill such as this schoolkids bonus budget measures bill if the Gillard government were not imposing such a destructive, economy-wide carbon tax. This tax, finally included in the budget last night, is going to hit Australian families. It will hit jobs in this country and significantly harm investment. It will do nothing for the environment. The payments specified in this bill are an admission by the government that the carbon tax will hurt families more than the government is admitting.
Efforts to harm Australian families would be abhorrent at any time, yet the Gillard government is introducing this measure now, when the global economy is in complete dire straits and when consumers and businesses in this country are not sure what the future holds—so of course they are worried. We also heard last night of possibly one of the most ridiculous budget measures for decades: the increase in the pig slaughter fee—the bacon tax. The message to Australian families last night was: 'We're going to hit you. We're going to hit you hard and in ways you've never even thought of.'
It is clear that this bill is not introduced genuinely to support Australian families but is instead a measure to hide the disastrous effects that the carbon tax will have on the family budget. The government's own modelling shows that under the carbon tax there will be an immediate 10 per cent increase in electricity prices and a nine per cent increase in gas bills. Food costs will increase due to the electricity price rise and increased transportation costs. Be in no doubt that the basic necessities of life will cost more. If families cannot save through not buying necessities, they will buy less—less entertainment, less clothing and less generally from the already struggling retail sector.
Since 2007 Australian families have been struggling under incredible cost-of-living pressures. I list some of these increases in the cost of living to remind those on the opposite side of the House what has really been occurring for Australian families. From the December quarter of 2007 to the December quarter of 2011, electricity prices have increased by an average of 61 per cent across Australia. Gas prices have increased by an average of 37 per cent across Australia. Water and sewerage rates have increased by an average of 58 per cent across Australia. Health costs have increased by an average of 20 per cent across Australia. Education costs have increased by an average of 24 per cent across Australia. The cost of food overall has gone up by 13 per cent across Australia. The amount of rent people are paying has increased by 25 per cent across Australia. Australian families are struggling, and today's bill will do little to compensate these families for what has occurred under Labor governments.
The government earlier this year slugged tens of thousands of people with significant extra costs by reducing the private health insurance rebate. There are now tens of thousands of families in Ryan alone who will face higher premiums and more strain on their everyday cost of living if they choose to protect their own health with private health cover. Last night the government announced changes to the tax offset system for out-of-pocket medical expenses, so adding further misery to the lives of thousands of Ryan residents.
If you combine the carbon tax, the debt and deficit incurred by this government, the cost of the NBN, the reduction in the private health insurance rebate and everything else I have mentioned today, it is clear that this government is not committed to reducing the cost of living or to supporting Australian families. Moreover, if this bill was truly aimed at improving educational outcomes the government would have introduced it in a way that directly benefited educational outcomes. Instead, this payment is a free-for-all measure so that parents can spend the money in any way they please. Clearly, this government has given up any pretence that this bill is about offsetting education costs. Under this bill, the money given to parents of school children may be spent on the education of their children, but it is of great concern that it probably will not be. This government should come up with a targeted campaign to ensure that the money is spent effectively. We already had a program designed to do such a thing. It was called the education tax refund. But this government dumped it last night.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! It being 1.45 pm the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at another hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Lakes Entrance Primary School
Parliamentary Guides
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (13:45): I appreciate the opportunity to rise and pay tribute to the guides in Parliament House who bring our school groups around. On this particular occasion I would like to welcome the Lakes Entrance Primary School students who are in the southern gallery at the moment.
I think I speak for all members when I say that we deeply appreciate the work the guides do. In this case, Monique is showing the children from Lakes Entrance around and giving them a very good understanding of our democratic process. I think it is a very important role that the guides play in this House, along with the Parliamentary Education Office.
I think it is so important that young people in our community have the opportunity to come to our parliament and to perhaps see the positive side of the work we do as members of parliament, and also to see the rough and tumble of question time in just a few minutes.
I am sure that all members feel greatly honoured and privileged to represent their constituents in this place, and there is no better occasion than greeting a school group from your own electorate to get a sense of home coming to Canberra. I appreciate the children from Lakes Entrance's being here today and I welcome them in the public gallery and look forward to working with them into the future.
If I could have one message to the Lakes Entrance Primary School students who are here today, it would be to encourage them to take this opportunity in their educational life. Schools are a place where dreams come true. If you work your hardest and strive to be your absolute best, I am sure you can go on to achieve great things in life. I welcome you to Canberra and I hope you enjoy the rest of your visit.
Tasmania: GST Funding
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:46): Last week we saw that the Leader of the Opposition will say anything to any audience, but at Agfest on 3 May his noncommitment to current Tasmanian GST funding sent a shudder down the spine of every Tasmanian. I know it did for many constituents in my electorate of Bass, who raised the issue with my office. Mr Abbott's play for WA votes on 30 April revealed our worst fears; if elected he would tear more than $630 million out of the Tasmanian economy in GST revenue every year. This would devastate our state. His weasel words at Agfest in Tasmania did not offset his words in WA. Just to give people an idea, this means an equivalent loss of 800 doctors, 3,000 nurses, 500 allied health professionals and more than 100 child protection staff. It would mean losing seven out of every 10 health employees in Tasmania—a grave concern indeed. This is a despicable attitude by a person who is supposed to stand for all Australians instead of just his coalition mates. Now those opposite oppose the school bonus. This move shows how out of touch they are on the opposite benches. This along with the Victorian Liberals' port tax, which will cost business in Tasmania $74 million, is a kick in the guts by the Liberals and an attack on Tasmanians.
Anzac Day
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (13:48): I would like to take this opportunity to thank the residents and visitors to the Gold Coast who attended the many Anzac Day services that were held across the Gold Coast this year. In my electorate I am fortunate enough to have four RSLs: Burleigh Heads, Currumbin-Palm Beach, Mudgeeraba and Tweed Heads & Coolangatta. Each year, each of those RSLs conducts Anzac Day services to commemorate those who have served our country in the many conflicts we have participated in and to pass down the Anzac message to younger generations.
There certainly has been a surge of people in recent years coming out to pay their respects on Anzac Day, with crowds this year much larger than the year before. In particular, many thousands of people attended the service at the Currumbin RSL's dawn service, at Elephant Rock in Currumbin. It was also excellent to see so many young people and young families attending those services and commemorating the sacrifices of our Anzacs and celebrating the freedoms we enjoy.
I especially thank Ron Workman, OAM, the President of Currumbin RSL; Bruce Weir, the newly-elected President of Burleigh Heads RSL; Peter Franklin, OAM, President of Mudgeeraba RSL; Joe Russell, President of Tweed Heads & Coolangatta RSL; and their respective committees, for their hard work and commitment in organising this year's commemorations.
Petrie Electorate: Community Organisations
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (13:49): It is my pleasure to rise and acknowledge a couple of the community organisations and events I have recently been to. Firstly I thank ROPE, which is a respite centre for people with disabilities, who recently hosted the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers, Jan McLucas, and myself. We had the opportunity to talk to some of the clients and also to the staff and the volunteers about the great work they do. On the weekend, ROPE put on an art exhibition, which was a fantastic exhibition of art done by the clients. The day that the parliamentary secretary and I visited ROPE was also the day of the NDIS rally, which both the parliamentary secretary and I attended in the city. It was great to see so many familiar faces there supporting the NDIS.
I also acknowledge the Regional Community Association Moreton Bay, who last week held a candle-lighting ceremony for domestic violence. I thank them for putting on this service. A couple of the speakers were women who have been personally affected by domestic violence. As difficult as it was to listen to their stories, it is so important that we get those stories out so that people's awareness is lifted, so that we do not remain silent on domestic violence and so that we stand up and take action.
McClintock, Mr John
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:51): I rise to recognise the efforts of an amazing Bennelong volunteer, Mr John McClintock. John is not a man who will promote himself or his work. John is a retired gentleman who belongs to Bennelong and Surrounds Residents for Reconciliation, and is part of the JSA Early Intervention Aboriginal Literacy Project—a program that provides volunteers to schools in the northern Sydney region to read to Aboriginal children. John has been visiting Ryde Public School every week for the past four years and often visits three schools in one day. John also volunteers at the local community radio station, 2MBS, and in his local Neighbourhood Watch. He is a member of Bennelong Friends of Refugees and visits asylum seekers at Villawood Detention Centre every three weeks. Together with his wife, Beryl, John is proud of their four daughters, raised in the Ryde area, and was always an active P&C member when they were students. I am delighted that John and Beryl will be joining me for my Bennelong volunteer recognition event next week, where the unsung heroes in our local community—people like John McClintock—who make Bennelong a more caring community, can be recognised for their extraordinary commitment to our local region.
Gough, Mr David
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:52): Australia has lost a wonderful community champion in David Gough. Last week David passed away in a motorbike accident in Sydney. David campaigned for organ and tissue donation following the death of his daughter Melody in a car accident on Christmas Eve 2009. Melody was a multi-organ donor and she saved the lives of three people. Since that time, David has participated in riding around Australia to various rural, regional and remote centres in Australia. In February this year he embarked on his 8,000 kilometre ride during Donate Life Week. He travelled for 25 days and he visited more than 100 towns, spreading the word and raising awareness about organ and tissue donation.
I had the honour of meeting and farewelling David last year when he was embarking on his ride around Australia, and I also farewelled him this year from Old Parliament House. Each year he increased the level of support in the community for his ride and for organ and tissue donation. He was a great contributor to the organ and tissue donation cause in terms of raising funds but particularly raising awareness about the need for Australians to have the conversation with their loved ones about the need for organ and tissue donation and to make their families aware of their needs. (Time expired)
Surf Life Saving Northern Territory
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (13:54): I would like to share with the House that last week I was named Vice-Patron of Surf Life Saving Northern Territory.
Ms Ley: Lots of surfing up there.
Mrs GRIGGS: Yes, lots of good surf up there! Surf lifesaving has been an Australian way of life for more than 100 years. Swimming at the beach is a national pastime and Surf Life Saving Australia continue to make a positive contribution both on and off the beach to Territorians and the wider Australian community. So I was absolutely honoured when the organisation asked me to support them as their vice patron.
Established in 1983, Surf Life Saving NT is one of the seven affiliates of Surf Life Saving Australia. It has almost equal representation of both females and males in its 1,800 membership across the Territory. I have two surf lifesaving clubs in my electorate. They are the Darwin Surf Life Saving Club and the Mindil Beach Surf Life Saving Club. They are extremely active clubs; yet they could benefit with some more volunteers. Last year in the Northern Territory there were more than 22 rescues, more than 8,500 preventative actions and over 30 serious first aid cases. I would like to report that none has involved a crocodile—contrary to what the Northern Territory News would report every day. I look forward to supporting Surf Life Saving NT and ensuring that their good work continues.
Hunter Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (13:55): I would like to congratulate the Treasurer on a responsible and indeed historic budget, with great initiatives in health care, aged care and education and of course a National Disability Insurance Scheme. There has been some commentary in the Hunter that what was lacking was new infrastructure projects. I remind those listening from the Hunter that in recent years we have had record spending on physical infrastructure. Indeed, last night, there was $190 million to continue the Hunter expressway.
I also point out there are currently no shovel-ready projects to be funded—but there will be. That is why the mining tax is so important—returning the benefits of the boom back to the physical infrastructure in the region from which the money comes. But there is one big threat, and that is the New South Wales government, which is threatening to increase royalties to offset the mining tax—which means that the government would have to compensate the New South Wales government. That will be money taken away from Hunter region infrastructure projects to be spent on projects in and around Sydney. My community and communities generally in the Hunter region should reject the idea of the New South Wales government raising royalties and in so denying opportunities in the Hunter for funding for physical infrastructure projects which are so badly needed and so connected to the mining boom itself. Some of our highways are car parks because of the impact of and the growth in the mining sector— (Time expired)
70th Anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (13:57): It was a great honour for me to lay a wreath of the ceremony commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea on Saturday, 5 May in Newstead Park in the Brisbane electorate. The battle between allied and Japanese naval and air forces was fought between 4 May and 8 May 1942 in the Coral Sea, off the coast of Queensland. The allied victory stopped the Japanese from taking Port Moresby and threatening Australia. No Australians lost their lives in the battle but 543 Americans and 1,074 Japanese were killed or wounded.
I find these events very moving because they remind me of the sacrifice that so many people made so that we can enjoy the freedom that we do today. For me, one of the most touching aspects of the ceremony was meeting some of the five survivors of the USS Lexington. Harry Frey, Jerry Frey, Kay Burton, Cecil Wisell and Ruth Grizzell were all lucky to survive an attack on the Lexington. 'It is great to see so many people gathered together in honour of the men and women who fought during the Battle of the Coral Sea,' said Frey. US Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano read a letter from US President Barack Obama that said:
We will never forget their sacrifice and we will always honour the legacy of those who fought to keep us free.
It was a very memorable occasion for all of us who were there. (Time expired)
Roads: Ipswich Motorway
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (13:58): The shadow roads minister really does not have much of a clue when it comes to roads in Queensland. For example, the coalition has opposed the upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway for three federal elections in a row—and next week Minister Albanese and I, with the member for Oxley, will be opening the Dinmore to Goodna section of the Ipswich Motorway. But occasionally those opposite get it right. I see the member for Herbert is reported in the Townsville Bulletin of 5 March 2011 as saying with respect to the Bruce Highway:
I'll give Labor a pat on the back and say they have spent more in their four or five years on the Bruce Highway than we did before.
In fact, I think the shadow minister for roads, Mr Warren Truss, was there in the audience at the time. This is a guy that never seems to ask Minister Albanese any questions. Certainly in the nearly five years that I have been here, he has not asked him any questions in this particular chamber of parliament about the Ipswich Motorway—because the coalition would have put 10,000 jobs at risk on the Ipswich Motorway by their continuous opposition. Next week we officially open it—and those opposite should be ashamed of themselves for their failure to invest in the Ipswich Motorway.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Budget
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Treasurer's statement on radio this morning that Labor's plan to increase Australia's debt limit from $250 billion to a record $300 billion is 'no big deal'? Does the Prime Minister regard as 'no big deal' putting $50 billion more on our nation's credit card?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:00): What the Deputy Prime Minister was referring to this morning was the debt cap changes that the government is bringing to the parliament. This is to deal with volatility during the course of the financial year. Debt will remain below the $250 billion current cap at the end of financial years, but there is volatility during the year. What the Leader of the Opposition, who is obviously struggling to understand the budget—and there is no mystery about that given his lack of interest in economics, as the former Treasurer, Peter Costello, was known to remark on more than one occasion—has obviously not noticed in the budget is that it brings the budget to surplus in 2012-13 exactly as promised. It brings the budget to surplus because that is the right thing for our economy now. It is the clearest sign of a strong economy. It is giving us a buffer for the future. With the government doing the right thing—bringing the budget to surplus—we are giving the Reserve Bank the room to move, should it choose to do so, in reducing interest rates. We know from last week just how important interest rate reductions are to working families.
We have learnt something else today about the nature of the Leader of the Opposition and his approach to budgeting: he does not trust Australian families. That is the issue before the parliament today. We believe hardworking Australian families can be trusted—
Government members: Shame! Shame!
Mr Abbott: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: the Prime Minister was asked about putting $50 billion more on the nation's credit card and that is the question—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He will not use points of order for argument. The Prime Minister has the call and will be directly relevant to the question.
Ms GILLARD: I was indicating, to the Leader of the Opposition's question, the answer: the debt cap; the importance of the budget surplus; and the importance of staying in touch with and understanding the needs of working families and having a bit of respect for their ability to budget, manage and put their children first instead of spending the day insulting them the way the Leader of the Opposition has.
Budget
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (14:03): My question is to the Treasurer. How is the budget spreading the benefits of the mining boom?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:03): I thank the member for Blair for his question because this is a battler's budget that only a Labor government could deliver. We are proudly back in surplus—light years ahead of our peers. We are proud to be spreading the benefits of the mining boom right around our country, to many more Australians, giving them a stake in our economic success. We are certainly very proud to make room in this budget to provide for the most vulnerable in our community, like Australians with a disability. We are returning to surplus. We are building surpluses over the forward estimates. What we are doing is providing the maximum room for the Reserve Bank of Australia to adjust interest rates should it so decide. What this means is that the interest rate in Australia—the cash rate—is now lower than it was at any time under the previous government. If you have got something like a $300,000 mortgage you are now paying $3,000 a year less than you were paying under the previous government.
I know everybody on this side of the House understands how important it is to get into surplus, how important it is to stay in surplus and how important that is for the future of interest rates in our community. What we also understand is the importance of assisting low- and middle-income families in our community and spreading the benefits of the mining boom across as many of those households as we can. That is why we are proud to provide additional support to families from 1 July next year via the family tax benefit. We are also particularly proud to be introducing a new schoolkids bonus to provide more support for the cost of education for families—something that is very important. Our future is one that is intertwined with the region. It is not just about a resources boom and what it does here. Our ability to harvest the opportunities of the Asian century in the future depends upon the quality of education for our children. As a government, from day one, we have been investing in education. Another way to do it is to help those families with those cost-of-living pressures that come when the kids are going back to school or starting a new term, and that is why the schoolkids bonus is so important.
But we are doing more than that. We are giving important tax relief to small business with the instant asset write-off for up to 2.7 million small businesses in our community and by bringing in loss carry-back. All of these are very important ways of ensuring we strengthen our economy and look after low- and middle-income Australians.
Budget
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:06): My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer explain why there was no mention in the budget speech last night of the government seeking to increase the nation's credit card limit from $250 billion to a record $300 billion?
Government members: It's not a credit card!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! People are not assisting the Treasurer to be heard. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:06): This is a question that I take very seriously, because the government takes its $250 billion debt cap very seriously.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will not tolerate excessive noise while question time is underway. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr SWAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The budget papers show that Commonwealth securities on issue are under the existing limit at the end of each year. That is the fact. I know it is an uncomfortable fact and I know it is going to stand in the way of a massive scare campaign that those opposite want to run. I know they will go to any lengths to talk down our economy and to run it down in terms of its international reputation. But those are the facts. We have had a request from the Office of Financial Management to put a buffer in because we do have a challenge when it comes—
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will, if pushed, issue a general warning and there will be very few people left in the chamber. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr SWAN: We have been advised by the Office of Financial Management that we should have a buffer, notwithstanding the fact that at the end of each year we are within that cap. I know those opposite do not understand a lot about financial markets, so we will just run through a couple of the facts. First and foremost, in terms of Commonwealth revenues, they tend to come in in lumps and they tend to come in particularly towards the end of the year. What actually happens is that expenditure is evenly spread across the year. So we have an in-year financing challenge which is made worse by the fact that we have maturing bond lines and as they are maturing we are issuing new ones. That can mean we do go over the cap on a temporary basis but we stay within it at the end of the year. The point that the OFM has made is this, and I will quote from their memo: 'To manage these fluctuations in an efficient and effective manner it is critical that the debt management operations of the AOFM are not affected by short-term borrowing constraints such as a debt cap or a similar mechanism.' We reported in full in the budget papers what we were intending to do and why we were intending to do it. It is very sensible for Australia and I think that those opposite should just pause for a minute and not play politics with this issue.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:09): Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Treasurer, what is the dollar figure that gross debt will peak at and in what year will it peak?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If the member for North Sydney wants to see out question time, he can stop pushing it. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr Albanese: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I raise a point of order that the supplementary question must arise directly from the original question asked.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My understanding would be that the supplementary is in order. I will call the Treasurer.
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:10): I am very happy to answer the question, Madam Deputy Speaker, delighted. I will go through the percentages and I will go through the values and then I will go through gross debt,—
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for North Sydney is warned.
Mr SWAN: and I am more than happy to run through all of the tables. They are all there in the budget papers. I know those opposite are pretending they have never seen them before so we will just go through net debt, which peaks as a percentage of GDP at 9.6, runs through to 2015 at 7.3 in terms of the figure itself of 142 in 2011-12, and goes through 131. In terms of gross debt, 18 per cent of GDP, 265.8 in 2011-12, goes through to 281.3, which is the figure the member was looking for, and comes down over the next decade.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for La Trobe has the call and will be heard in silence.
Budget
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (14:11): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how will the budget spread the benefits of the mining boom while delivering a surplus and helping families to make ends meet?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:11): I thank the member for La Trobe for her question, and I know that she is concerned about families in her electorate who can struggle to make ends meet, to pay the bills when they come in and to pay all of the costs for getting the kids to school. In fact, in the member for La Trobe's electorate we have 10,300 families who will receive our schoolkids bonus because they are families with 18,150 school-aged children. That means the families in the member for La Trobe's electorate will see almost $11 million to assist them with the costs of getting the kids to school.
This is part of a Labor budget, a Labor budget where we have delivered for the economy to make sure that we are doing the right things to keep our economy strong. We have come out of the global financial crisis strong and we work together to achieve it. The government is playing its part with employers and trade unions to keep people in jobs. Now, as our economy returns to trend growth, is the right time to deliver a surplus, to give us a buffer for the future, to ensure the Reserve Bank has the room to move, should it choose to do so, and reduce interest rates.
As we have made the difficult savings choices to bring the budget to surplus, we have been determined to protect and support working families and their children. There is no better way of doing that than by assisting families with the costs of getting the kids to school. We know right around the nation that, whether it be the winter uniform, the school excursion, the new books, the new shoes and then needing to get another pair of shoes as the kids grow, that those bills, those costs, can put pressure on working families. That is why we are very proud that we will be delivering to them a schoolkids bonus—$820 per secondary student, $410 per primary student—and that they will see that money coming to them before the end of this financial year and then in following years in January and July.
We trust working families, we respect them and we know they are making the best decisions for their children. We know schooling costs them a lot more than $410 and $820. It is only those who are cosseted on Sydney's North Shore that could fail to realise that working families need relief, working families face the costs of getting kids to school, and we are intending to help them with those costs because we respect them and we want to support them. We will not spend our days offering cheap insults to their ability to look after their children.
Budget
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (14:14): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer confirm that if he was not shuffling at least $7½ billion dollars of spending out of 2012-13 and into the previous and later years, and if the spending on the $50 billion NBN was counted towards the budget bottom line, then the budget would show an actual deficit of at least $12 billion?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:15): This is the line that is being peddled by those opposite, who have a $70 billion hole, or crater, in their budget bottom line. Somehow they want to walk around and pretend that we have not done the hard yakka to bring our budget back to surplus, so they have come up with the great con, which is to claim that, if we had included all of the NBN accounting that they say we should, we would be in deficit. The truth is this: that we are operating under a Charter of Budget Honesty developed by those on that side. We are working within accounting standards that were followed by the previous government and we have accounted for the NBN in precisely the same way as bodies like Australia Post and EFIC have been accounted for forever and a day, and were accounted for by the previous government in that way. I reject the slur that comes with that question that somehow we would not have a surplus if the NBN was accounted for differently. We have accounted for the NBN in the same way as these bodies have been accounted for by previous governments according to the accounting standards and according to the Charter of Budget Honesty.
The second slur that they are throwing around is somehow that the moneys have been moved around. The fact is we have in this budget $33 billion worth of savings, and they find that very, very hard to cope with given they have a $70 billion hole in their budget bottom line. They cannot even find $70 billion. We have found $33 billion worth of savings in this budget and that is why we are coming back to surplus, and if you have a look at the figures you will see that we have payments at record lows—well below anything that we have seen for a four-year period since the early 1980s. What that shows is considerable expenditure restraint right across the forward estimates, so let us just dispatch with this slur because those on the other side of the parliament cannot make their budget numbers add up. What we know is that the auditors they hired to look at their books at the last election have been found guilty of misconduct. No wonder there was an $11 billion black hole in their estimates at the last election campaign. So they come to this with very dirty hands and they have no credibility when it comes to budget accounting.
Budget
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:18): My question is to the Treasurer: now that the budget reflects the Greens' position not to give tax cuts to big business there is an extra $16 billion available to the public purse over the next decade. Why isn't that money being used for long-term reform that would secure our economy after the mining bubble bursts, for example, by boosting school funding as recommended by the Gonski review?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:18): I thank the member for Melbourne for his question, because in this House the company tax cut has been opposed not just by the Greens but by the Liberal Party. That is why the government has not been able to get its proposal through—they have made it very clear well in advance that they would not support a cut in the company tax rate. Indeed, they have been in the opposite position: they have a policy to increase company taxation, not to cut it—quite extraordinary.
The member asked me about what we are using the revenue for and why we have chosen to invest in the families of Australia, particularly those on low and middle incomes. We on this side of the House absolutely understand how important it is to give a bit of extra support to low- and middle-income families in our community and we make no apology for the fact that we are spending some of that money to boost the purchasing power of low- and middle-income families in this community who deserve to have a bigger stake in the mining boom, spreading the opportunities of that right around our community.
We understand that for many small businesses, particularly in the patchwork economy, there needs to be business tax reform, which is why we are moving forward with the instant asset write-off—a very big boon for small business in our community—and proceeding with the loss carry-back as well. These are two important reforms to make small business more competitive, to give them a helping hand whilst, at the same time, making sure that we give a fair go to low- and middle-income working families. On top of all of that, we are putting in place fundamental reforms, such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and putting in place additional support to help people with dental care. All of these things, plus a huge aged-care package, demonstrate that if you can make big savings in your budget you can bring it back to surplus and make room for important new priorities.
Budget
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (14:20): My question is to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and for Disability Reform. How will the budget spread the benefits of the mining boom to Australian families; why is it important that this support is delivered quickly to those who need it; and what would be the impact if it is not?
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (14:21): I thank the member for Petrie very much for her question. The Treasurer last night delivered a Labor budget that is going to bring this country back to surplus and that spreads the benefits of the mining boom. This is a budget that gives back to families, a budget that in true Labor style makes sure that families get the benefit of this boom.
Today I have introduced legislation into this chamber to deliver Australia's schoolkids bonus, a bonus that will see 1.3 million Australian families getting more help to make ends meet. Families would receive $410 a year for each child they have in primary school and $820 a year for each child they have in secondary school, and this would be paid before the start of term 1 and term 3. The fact is that 80 per cent of families were missing out on their full entitlements under the education tax refund. This new schoolkids bonus will make sure that one million Australian families get more money.
On top of that, this budget delivers to 1½ million families extra funding through their family payments from the middle of next year. Families on the maximum rate will receive $600 extra if they have two children or more. That is what this government is delivering in this Labor budget to help families make ends meet.
The member for Petrie asked this question. There are 9,700 families in the electorate of Petrie who are going to benefit from the schoolkids bonus.
Today the Liberals confirmed that they are going to oppose the schoolkids bonus. We found out just before question time that they are loading up the list of speakers for this afternoon because they are trying to avoid bringing on the vote. They are so ashamed of their position.
I say to the member for Riverina that I noticed in the Wagga Daily Advertiser today a lady— (Time expired)
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (14:24): I ask a supplementary question in response to the minister's answer. Can the minister advise how families in my community and across northern Brisbane will benefit from this support?
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (14:24): I thank the member for Petrie for her supplementary question and for her advocacy for families in Brisbane's north. As I indicated, there are thousands of families in her electorate, and of course many more across Brisbane, who will benefit from the schoolkids bonus. In fact, we heard on ABC Radio this morning a Brisbane family in the electorate of Dickson who spoke about the benefits of the schoolkids bonus. Jude and her husband, Bruce, have four children, aged four to 11, and they make it very plain that they think this new schoolkids bonus is a great thing. They are going to be getting a significant bonus from this Labor government. Has the member for Dickson had the guts to ring Jude and Bruce and tell them that he is going to be opposing a schoolkids bonus? He is going to try and stop Jude and Bruce getting this extra money.
The member for Dickson, like everybody over there, thinks he knows better than the parents of Australia how to bring up their children. While this Labor government wants to make sure that we give Jude and Bruce—and the families in Wagga and all the other people around Australia—the funding that they need, all you can do is say no.
Mr McCormack: The people in Wagga are really looking forward to paying the carbon tax because of you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The member for Riverina will leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Riverina then left the chamber.
Budget
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (14:26): My question is to the Treasurer. Isn't it the case that, if the government was not artificially bringing forward scheduled 2012-13 local government financial assistance grants worth over $1 billion in this financial year, and artificially bringing forward payments of the government's new schoolkids cash splash from July into June, your projected 2012-13 surplus would be a deficit on these two adjustments alone?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:27): No.
Budget
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (14:27): My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. How will the budget support schoolchildren across the country, and what are the obstacles to this support?
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (14:27): I thank the member for Kingston for her question. Labor has delivered a budget that not only provides for the vulnerable in our community but also, importantly, provides families that have kids at school with the assistance they need with the costs that they face. This comes on top of the significant additional investments in education that this Labor government has made over its term. We nearly doubled spending in education compared with those opposite. We are serious about education and we understand the challenges and the cost-of-living pressures that families face, and that fact was recognised in this budget.
So we are now delivering a schoolkids bonus. As the Prime Minister and the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs have said, it is $410 for primary school students and $820 for secondary school students, and it benefits over one million families. They will really welcome that support.
I am asked this question by the member for Kingston. In her electorate, 11,200 families are expected to benefit; nearly 20,000 kids are eligible for this primary or secondary schoolkids bonus. All parents know that there are costs—whether for school uniforms or excursions—that come with raising a family and getting them off to school. The fact is that there is now greater flexibility for those parents as they manage those costs.
I am asked by the member: what are the obstacles to this support? The obstacles to the schoolkids bonus are sitting on the other side of the House in this parliament, opposing this measure for Australian parents. It seems that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for North Sydney do not really trust any Australian families with extra money. The Leader of the Opposition is sending a message to Australian parents: he does not trust you with the way you run your family budget. In fact, the shadow minister had a press release out just before we came into the parliament. He has just written it off altogether and calls it a 'sugar hit'. What a massive insult to Australian parents, who every time the school term starts have got to think about where they can find those additional resources for the new uniforms, the new school shoes, the new backpack and the like.
The fact is, this will make a difference to parents who are serious about education, in the same way that the other investments this government has made have made a difference to schools right around this country. Whether it is the new facilities, whether it is teacher training support, whether it is helping kids with their literacy and numeracy, whether it is bringing a national curriculum into play or whether it is understanding that supporting education is the most important thing that we can do for the future of our country, we get it and they do not. That is why this schoolkids bonus is solid, strong Labor policy.
Budget
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (14:30): My question is to the Prime Minister. How does the Prime Minister justify a cash giveaway to some Australians, designed as a schoolkids cash splash, while at the same time putting future generations of Australians further into debt by raising the debt ceiling to $300 billion. Why should Australians believe the government can competently deliver this cash giveaway when its $900 cash bonus was paid to dead people, horses, cats, dogs and Australians living overseas?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:31): To the member for Menzies, I say that is the arrogance of the opposition on display. It shows just how out of touch it is with the needs of working families. I hope that the member for Menzies contacts the 5,000 families in his electorate who are eligible for the schoolkids bonus and explains to them why he is coming into this parliament and voting against them getting that bonus. To the member for Menzies, let me say this: it is only members of the opposition who apparently fail to understand that families face cost-of-living pressures. Not one of them gets it; they are all going to vote against relief for working families. Not one of them understands Australian families and their needs today.
It is only members of the opposition who apparently imagine that you can send a child to primary school and somehow that costs you less than $410 a year, and that you can send a child to high school and somehow that costs you less than $820 a year. People who live in the real world—that is, people who are not members of the opposition—know that educating a child costs thousands of dollars. What this bonus is for is to provide a bit of relief to working families who are doing it tough. It is for families who are eligible for our family tax benefit system, families who are eligible for that relief because we know that they need it to make a difference to the cost of the winter school uniforms, to the cost of the shoes and to the cost of the excursions.
What have we heard back from the opposition to try to justify their position in not supporting the schoolkid bonus? The Leader of the Opposition was asked what the difference is between this and the baby bonus, because he supported the baby bonus. In a masterstroke in Australian politics, his answer was, 'Well, look, they just are'. And then, the shadow Treasurer, when asked what the difference is, said, 'there is a vast difference'. 'What?', he is asked. 'Well, you have to have a baby to get the baby bonus', he said. Apparently the shadow Treasurer does not know babies grow into school children! That is what happens: they grew into school children! And then you have the cost of sending the kids to school. How out of touch can these people be? How cosseted from the real world are they? How insulting of Australian families.
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I put it to you that the Prime Minister would be directly relevant if, in fact, the schoolkids bonus was paid for education expenses but, in fact, it is not.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Points of order are not to be abused. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for illustrating my last point. These arrogant, cynical people think Australian families do not care about their kids. They think 1.3 million Australian families are going to take this money and not use it for the benefit of their families and their children. They are contemptuous of working children. (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (14:34): Before I call the member for McEwen, I inform the House that we have present in the gallery members of the Vietnamese International Youth Cooperation Development Centre's 16th delegation to Australia, led by Ms Hai. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation. Hopefully you will not go home with too many bad lessons from what goes on here.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Budget
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen) (14:35): Not from this side, anyway! My question is to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for the Status of Women and Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development. Minister, how is the budget delivering vital support for Australian families and women?
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Community Services, Minister for the Status of Women and Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development) (14:35): I thank the member for McEwen for his question because we know that this budget is really and truly putting low- and middle-income Australians first. It is a Labor budget that is delivering support for the cost of living for 1.5 million Australian families like the 12,800 families in the seat of McEwen who will be eligible to receive this government's new schoolkids bonus. These 12,800 families will receive $820 a year for high school students and $410 a year for every primary school student. We are ready to provide these 12,800 families in the seat of McEwen, and the 1.3 million Australian families around Australia, with this year's bonus payment in just a few weeks time. That is more than $13 million in support for kids' education that families in McEwen alone will receive. I know the member for McEwen will be standing up for his families in his electorate. He knows how important it is to get that support out to the mums and dads and kids in his electorate and right around Australia.
It is particularly important for the member for McEwen because in his home state of Victoria the Liberal government has just cut back on family support. In its budget, the Baillieu Liberal government cut its School Start Bonus, meaning 40,000 families in Victoria will be losing payments because of Liberal Party cuts. Now we have this Leader of the Opposition standing in the way of helping Australian families just trying to do the right thing by their children.
These are ordinary working Australians and they are in the electorate of every member over there. Like the member for Leichhardt: will he be standing in the way of the 12,500 families in his electorate receiving the payment? Or the member for Forde: will he be supporting the 12,000 in his electorate or will he be stopping them from receiving more than $12 million in just a few weeks time? What about the member for Maranoa, the member for Parkes, the member for Ryan, the member for Longman and the 46,000 eligible to receive this payment in their electorates? Will they be standing up for them?
No matter where they are in Australia, we know that coalition governments cut services and payments for families. But this is not just about payments. It is not just about blocking the cash to these families. They are actually refusing to trust Australian families. The Leader of the Opposition is saying, loud and clear, to parents that he does not trust them with their own family budgets. This is an insult to all Australian parents. It is an attack on their ability to look after their own kids. We know that parents make decisions every day, every week, about their children. But the coalition do not think they can be trusted with some extra cash. (Time expired)
Budget
Mr ROBB ( Goldstein ) ( 14:39 ): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the blow-out in interest costs on the government's net debt to $8 billion a year by 2015-16. Treasurer, is it not the case that if these $8 billion were applied to the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme it could be introduced immediately, for all 400,000 Australians with a disability, rather than the 10,000 in 2013-14 contemplated in this budget?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:39): I thank the shadow minister for his question, and it is a very important question. It gives me the opportunity to address debt and it gives me the opportunity to talk about why we are coming back to surplus and paying down debt.
When the global financial crisis hit we moved with a powerful stimulus to support our economy. Because we did that, hundreds and thousands kept their jobs and hundreds of thousands of small businesses kept their doors open. The consequence was that we, almost alone amongst developed economies, avoided a recession. Avoiding that recession is why we are in such a strong position now amongst developed economies in the world compared to just about anybody else. We avoided a recession. That is one of the reasons we have unemployment at 5.2 per cent and a strong investment pipeline and why opportunities are so big for our country into the future.
When that hit, it hit our revenues. Our revenues have been written down by $150 billion over five years. Those opposite expect the Australian people to believe that if they had been in our position they would not have done anything other than accept that revenue hit and they would not have moved to support our economy. The consequence of that would have been higher deficits, higher debt and higher interest payments, today. If they had been in power during that period of time, we would be sitting here looking at higher unemployment, higher debt and higher interest payments.
Mr Robb: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance: my question was about the blow-out in interest rates in the future—2015-16—not three years ago.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The member for Goldstein has made his point. The Treasurer is answering the question.
Mr SWAN: We are coming back to surplus because we have a strong economy. We walk tall in the world and as a consequence of that we have the capacity to accumulate surpluses and, over time, pay down debt. That is precisely what we should be doing and that is exactly what we are doing. That is the reason we have put in place $33 billion worth of saves in this budget. The weight will be on those opposite because they have a $70 billion crater in their budget bottom line and every save of ours that they knock back will add to that $70 billion crater. That is the contrast between that side of the House and this side of the House. We take fiscal policy seriously. Those on that side of the House had their auditors found guilty of professional misconduct during the last election campaign. They could not be trusted to run a chook farm.
Budget
Mr CHAMPION ( Wakefield ) ( 14:42 ): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Why is it important to get the budget back into surplus and how will the budget spread the benefits of the economy to hardworking Australian families and to businesses?
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (14:43): I thank the member for Wakefield for his question. The member for Wakefield knows that the clearest sign of a strong economy is a surplus and that is what this government is delivering. A surplus is the best defence we can provide against any future shocks in the global economy but, importantly, it is also a means by which we can provide the Reserve Bank with all the room that it needs in order to cut interest rates, if it chooses to do that, and to pass on the benefits of that to families right around our country.
The member for Wakefield asked me about how we are spreading the benefits of the economy through this budget. We are doing that in many respects. But we are a government that understands that whilst we are experiencing a mining boom there are many families—and many businesses around our country and our communities—that are not receiving the benefits of that boom. That is why we are determined to spread the benefits of the boom and that is what this budget does. When it comes to the position of those opposite in relation to these matters, we have already seen that, apart from the fact that they cannot accept that Labor will deliver a surplus, they now find themselves in the situation where they are standing between us and the families right around this country that we want to deliver a schoolkids bonus to. We know that they are very unhappy about the budget and the return to surplus, because that is bad for them politically; it is good for the country but it is bad for them politically. But we also know that they now say that they will in fact support the increases to the family tax benefit part A; they say that—even though they have consistently maintained the position that they will oppose the mining tax and oppose any of the benefits that are yielded by that. In fact, the member for North Sydney is on the record, consistently, saying:
The Coalition is opposed to the mining tax. We can’t make promises that can’t be paid for.
We will rescind this tax in government and we will unwind the expenditure linked to it. This is fiscally prudent. It would be irresponsible to keep the expenditure without the supporting revenue.
Then they say they are going to support measures linked to the mining tax—and they have just exposed the fact that they have no capacity to pay for them. By their very own words they are damned. They have a $70 billion crater and it just keeps getting bigger. They keep digging and digging and digging. If this black hole got any deeper, we would need a Stephen Hawking documentary to try and uncover exactly what was inside of it.
When it comes to their black hole, the day of reckoning is approaching. In two days time, or tomorrow night, the Leader of the Opposition will have the opportunity to spell out exactly what savings he will make. If he does not take that opportunity, we know his black hole will only get bigger. (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (14:46): I want to welcome and acknowledge in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Dr Stephen Martin, a former speaker of this House.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Member for Dobell
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:46): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the comments on the ABC's AM program this morning when she said:
… let me say I never want to see a dollar that a worker gives a union used for any purpose other than the proper purposes of representing that union member's best interests.
What steps did the Prime Minister take, prior to the publication of the Fair Work Australia report into the member for Dobell, to assure herself that no member of her team had ever received a personal benefit from a trade union or trade union official?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:47): To the Manager of Opposition Business, No. 1, I say: how remarkable that they cannot sustain a debate on the budget for even one question time—so little interest in our economy, in jobs, in the cost of living pressures on working Australians. They just do not care about working Australians and their prospects and their future, and do not have the intellectual ability or economic capacity to sustain a debate on the budget.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Prime Minister will come to the question.
Ms GILLARD: Then, in relation to the Manager of Opposition Business's question, let me say this to him: I have been completely frank about all matters involving the member for Dobell. As to persons with unanswered questions in this parliament, the Manager of Opposition Business is one; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is another; the Leader of the Opposition is a third, on the Ashby-Slipper matter. And wouldn't we all like to know what Mal Brough has got to say?
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. He is going to relevance, and I will ask the Prime Minister to be relevant to the question.
Ms GILLARD: So, on questions to be asked and answered: I hope they are. On the Manager of Opposition Business's question, what I said on radio this morning is of course my view and I have stated it before. Overwhelmingly, in our nation, the trade union movement is professional. It is decent. It is hardworking. It is representing working Australians. To the extent that any dollar is ever used in a way which is not for—
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a very specific question about what steps the Prime Minister had taken to assure herself that no member of her team had ever taken a personal benefit from a trade union or trade—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will be relevant to the question.
Ms GILLARD: As I said on radio this morning, every dollar collected by trade unions should be properly used for the benefit of members. That is my view. That is the Labor view. That is the Labor way. I understand that the Manager of Opposition Business is going to come in here and try and chuck around unfounded allegations and smear, because he does not know anything about education or anything about working people, or supporting them. If he has got an allegation to put, he should put it. If he does not have an allegation to put then he should at least pretend for one question time that he has got one concern about schools in this country. I have never seen him exhibit any interest in what he is supposed to be doing in this parliament, which is taking an interest in Australian schools—not once, not ever—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will return to the question.
Ms GILLARD: And, of course, that lack of care and concern for working Australians characterises this opposition, and no more so than today.
Infrastructure
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (14:50): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the minister outline how the government is continuing to deliver record investments in infrastructure for the future while returning the budget to surplus?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:50): I thank the member for Page. The member for Page is a great supporter of infrastructure in her electorate; in particular, the Pacific Highway, where she got to open the final stage of the Ballina bypass—a great project announced by this government, funded by this government and opened by this government.
Last night the Treasurer delivered a Labor budget that builds on our nation-building agenda, a budget that returns to surplus but not at the expense of investing in our productivity and the infrastructure that we need for the future. Since we came to government we have doubled the roads budget and increased investment in rail tenfold. We have reformed the way that we plan, finance and build infrastructure by establishing Infrastructure Australia, and in last night's budget we committed funding for the final projects that were on the Infrastructure Priority List produced by Infrastructure Australia after its national audit in 2008.
We have now funded every single project, because last night we provided $232 million for the Goodwood and Torrens Junctions project that will improve the movement of freight and ease traffic congestion in Adelaide. In addition, we confirmed funding for the Majura Parkway in the ACT. This is about delivering on Infrastructure Australia's agenda. We also, of course, put into the Nation Building Program an additional $3.56 billion, subject to matching funding from New South Wales, to complete the full duplication of the Pacific Highway by 2016—promised by the Howard government, but they only contributed $1.3 billion over 12 years. This will take our contribution, if New South Wales matches its rhetoric before the election with action in its next budget, to over $7.7 billion. It will improve productivity; more importantly, it will improve road safety.
There has been some comment from New South Wales today about the funding arrangements. I table a press release from Wendy Machin from the NRMA confirming that it was the Howard government that set the fifty-fifty funding split for the Pacific Highway from 2006, and the NRMA has supported this approach since day one. I also table from the Sydney Morning Herald a front-page story of 7 March 2009 headed 'Rees bungle costs state $50 million', where, because New South Wales Labor were not delivering on their Pacific Highway promises, I took action against them. This needs to be above politics. The New South Wales government needs— (Time expired)
Member for Dobell
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:53): My question is again to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of her statement just a week ago that the next election will be about 'whether you stand for the privileged few or whether you stand for working Australians'. How does the Prime Minister reconcile that statement with her protection of the member for Dobell for the last three years instead of standing up for the 77,000 members of the Health Services Union?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:53): To the member for Sturt, the Manager of Opposition Business, can I say: if he wants to get into a debate about who stands up for working families in this parliament and who stands up for a privileged few, no better day to have it than today—a day on which we are standing up for 1.3 million families around the country; a day on which those on the opposition benches are going to use their vote, their reckless negativity, to try and get in the way of working families getting the Schoolkids Bonus, some basic support, to help with the costs of getting the kids to school.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): There is a lot of preamble.
Ms GILLARD: Madam Deputy Speaker, I was asked a very general question and I am intending to answer it. We also, in this response by the opposition to the budget, could not see a more clear example of who stands up for working people and who stands up for a privileged few than on the question of family tax benefits. We have decided, because of the reckless negativity of the opposition in stopping the company tax reduction, to share the benefits of the boom with working families through a family tax benefit payment increase: $300 for families with one child, $600 for families with two or more children. When the Leader of the Opposition has been asked who he stands for in relation to this proposition, who does he stand for? As I was asked by—
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister has been answering the question for a minute and a half and has yet to actually mention the 77,000 members of the Health Services Union. I ask her to answer that question.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. There was a large part of preamble to the question that would have allowed the Prime Minister a significant amount of wriggle room, and I will say she has been answering the question that you asked. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was asked basically about who stands for the many and who stands for the privileged few, and I am answering that question. I am answering it very specifically in relation to family tax benefit because we have decided to take the benefits of the mining boom and benefit working families around the nation. We have decided they are the people we stand for; not the Clive Palmers, not the Gina Rineharts, but working families. The Leader of the Opposition, when asked about this this morning—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will return to the question.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the question of the many and the few, the Leader of the Opposition, when asked this morning whether or not these payments would be continued if he was ever Prime Minister, said Australian families would just have to wait and see. That is code for him and Clive and Gina turning up on their doorstep and demanding the family payments back. That is what that is code for.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will return to the question.
Ms GILLARD: The party of the privileged few; the party of working Australians: the contrast could not be clearer, Madam Deputy Speaker. Day after day after day, the opposition show who they stand for: a privileged few. Of course, in standing for working Australians—
Mr Abbott interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will not give a running commentary during question time.
Ms GILLARD: we stand for well-run, decent trade unions. That is the Labor way.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:59): I have a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister: if she really wants to demonstrate her support for working Australians, will she ask the New South Wales Labor Party to repay the $267,000 of Health Services Union members' money that Fair Work Australia confirms was used for the Labor Party campaign in Dobell at the 2007 election?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House on a point of order.
Mr Albanese: The question is out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My understanding would be that the question would be in order.
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker, there is much precedent in this House whereby leaders of parliamentary parties cannot be asked questions about the internal affairs of the political branch of their party. This is a matter for the New South Wales branch general secretary and is not within the ambit of the Prime Minister.
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: the point of the question arises out of the Prime Minister's answer that the Labor Party is standing up for working families. Health Services Union members are working families and therefore I am asking if she is going to stand up for them.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. On advice—I will be honest; this is my second day doing question time—I would rule the question out of order.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have taken advice from the Clerk. I am not putting the clerks in the middle of this argument but I did pause to seek some guidance as I could not, off the top of my head, remember everything from Reps Practice. The member for Throsby has the call.
Budget
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (14:59): My question is to the Minister for Health. Would the minister inform the House of the government's plan to improve frontline services, like dental health, under the budget?
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (14:59): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to compliment you on the job that you are doing under very difficult circumstances. I thank the member for Throsby for his question. When I was down visiting him recently—
Government members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! Members on the government side are not helping the minister. The minister has the call.
Ms PLIBERSEK: I was very pleased to meet with the Illawarra Dental Health Action Group and their head, Alice Scott. They have been working with the member for Throsby for many years and they worked with the previous member for Throsby, Jennie George, as well. She mentioned them nearly a decade ago in this place when she presented a petition about the abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program by the Howard government in their first budget. I must say that the measures in last night's budget restore much of the damage done by the Howard government during their term in office.
This $515.3 million package includes $345.9 million spent delivering services that will reduce the backlog on public dental waiting lists around the country. It includes other measures, such as workforce measures, relocation and infrastructure grants to encourage dentists to relocate and practice in remote areas, oral health promotion and other very important measures. This will be vital for the 30 per cent of Australians who cannot currently access the dental care they need. It is proof that good economic management is not in opposition to strong social objectives. Indeed, it has been very well received by people in the health community, including the Australian Dental Association President, Dr Shane Fryer, who said:
The provision of funding to bolster the public dental services will help to reduce the waiting lists that cause some Australians to wait years for access to a dentist
Carol Bennett, CEO of the Consumer Health Forum, said the package was addressing years of neglect. She said:
We are pleased that the Federal Government has recognised that teeth are part of the body and that dental care should be part of the health system.
The CEO of the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association, Prue Power, said the package was 'an extremely important step' that will greatly improve the health of Australians on dental waiting lists and 'their quality of life, as well as improving productivity and reducing hospital admissions.'
This is a measure that will make a great deal of difference to hundreds of thousands of Australians, not only improving their dental health now but also offering preventive care for years in the future. That means that people will be able to have fillings instead of tooth extractions when they are visiting the public health system. After years of neglect, this builds a renewed focus on our public dental systems.
Member for Dobell
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (15:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall her statement:
… question time is supposed to be one of our key accountability mechanisms. If there is a big scandal or a corruption allegation, you are supposed to be able to get to the matter in question time …
If the Prime Minister still believes in those principles, will she detail what events occurred between now and when parliament last met that caused her to accept the member for Dobell's offer to suspend himself from the caucus?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:03): I certainly do recall that statement and I endorse that statement. It requires a competent opposition that can get their questions in order, but in a parliament where we had a competent opposition, that would be exactly how question time worked. In this parliament where we have an opposition that cannot sustain a debate on things like the budget then we get these kinds of questions.
In answer to the member's question, I detailed at the press conference that I conducted on a Sunday all the details about my discussions with the member for Dobell which led to him now sitting on the crossbenches. Those details are available and I will send the member the transcript.
Budget
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Lowe has the call. My apologies, the member for Reid has the call—we have got to stop changing the names of seats!
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (15:04): My question is to the Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform. Minister, how will the budget deliver greater choice and better access to services for all older people, and make sure the aged care sector is sustainable into the future?
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide—Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform) (15:05): I thank the former member for Lowe and the current member for Reid for his question. In the lead-up to the last election, this Prime Minister promised that aged care reform would be a priority for this term of government. Last night's budget delivers on that commitment.
A little over a fortnight ago, the Prime Minister and I announced the most sweeping changes and improvements to aged care in almost 30 years, transforming a system that was built in the 1980s around nursing homes to one that is built around supporting older Australians to stay in their own homes for as long as possible and, if at all possible, for the remainder of their lives. In designing our reforms, we listened closely to the Productivity Commission and to the aged care sector itself, but most importantly, we listened directly to older Australians. The overwhelming message to us was that what they want from an aged care system is support to stay in their own homes.
Over the next five years, we will expand home care by two-thirds, taking the total expansion of home care under this government to around 110 per cent. Home care will shift from being provider centred to being truly consumer directed and consumer controlled. A fairer system of residential care financing will not only stimulate new investment but also put an end to the excessive bonds that too many families have to pay, amounting to almost $2.6 million in some cases, just to get entry to a facility. Better wages and better work practices will help underpin more sustainable workforce arrangements that will allow us to grow the workforce to the size that we need. Significant new investments will be made in areas like dementia and palliative care, investments that have been warmly welcomed by groups like Alzheimer's Australia and Palliative Care Australia. The government's package allocates $3.7 billion over five years to new initiatives to improve access, choice and quality of care and does so in a way designed also to improve the sustainability of our aged-care system. With aged-care spending this year around 70 per cent higher than it was five years ago, we have unashamedly redirected some of that money from old priorities into these new initiatives. We have also made some new changes to co-contribution arrangements that kick in after July 2014, with robust caps and strong protections for full pensioners, and we have been able to do all of that while still maintaining protections around the family home.
The government's package has received very, very broad support from the aged-care sector and from the community, but they have also told us that they want support for aged-care reform across the parliament. To that end we all look forward to the Leader of the Opposition tomorrow night telling the nation where he stands on the future of aged care.
MOTIONS
Member for Dobell
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:08): Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion. It is:
That the House requires the Member for Dobell to make a statement to the House immediately, for a period not exceeding 10 minutes, about the matters arising from Fair Work Australia’s inquiry into the Health Services Union that relate to him.
Leave not granted.
Mr PYNE: I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Sturt moving immediately—That the House requires the Member for Dobell to make a statement to the House immediately, for a period not exceeding 10 minutes, about the matters arising from Fair Work Australia’s inquiry into the Health Services Union that relate to him.
In question time today, the Prime Minister again turned her back on the members of the Health Services Union and instead stood up for the member for Dobell. We know that she could have announced today that she would ask the New South Wales Labor Party to pay back to HSU members $267,000 of their money that was used in the campaign for Dobell in 2007. But we know that she will not, because, at this particularly precarious time for her leadership, while people like the minister for workplace relations and the member for Griffith are breathing down her neck, she will not take on Sussex Street.
Standing orders should be suspended today because the most urgent matter facing the parliament is its integrity and its reputation, and right now sitting in this chamber is a member—the member for Dobell—who has continued to fail to explain to the parliament his side of the story in one of the most tawdry matters that this parliament has ever had to witness or to deal with. Eight months ago, on 9 September 2011, the member for Dobell said, 'I will make a comprehensive statement in the near future.' He said that he would make a comprehensive statement in the near future, and now—eight months later—we are still waiting to hear it. We have moved on six occasions suspensions of standing orders to allow the member for Dobell to make a statement in this House so that we as members of parliament can be informed of his side of the story, and on six occasions the Labor Party and the crossbenchers have combined to defeat those suspensions of standing orders. Standing orders must be suspended so that we can debate this motion and pass this motion and so that the member for Dobell can keep his promise that he would make such a statement.
The Prime Minister has ducked and weaved on this issue faster than the full forward of the Western Bulldogs. We know now that the member for Dobell in fact excused himself from the caucus and that it was the member for Dobell who offered to suspend his membership of New South Wales Labor Party, and yet the Prime Minister in her statement to the press that she referred to in question time today insisted that in fact she had taken action. We know now that the Prime Minister was being her usual tricky self—tricky Julia.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Manager of Opposition Business will withdraw, and he will refer to the motion before the House.
Mr PYNE: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker. The reason standing orders must be suspended and this motion debated is that the parliament has a right to know why we should not have suspended the member for Dobell yesterday. He needs to be given the opportunity today in this parliament to speak for just 10 minutes to put his side of the story so that we know as members of parliament that we should not have suspended him yesterday—a motion that was defeated by the Labor Party, who yet again sided with the member for Dobell, as the Prime Minister did today. It will give the member for Dobell, if this motion is carried, the opportunity to explain that fabled line that must be crossed—a line that the Prime Minister could not explain and that Jason and the Argonauts would find difficult to find should they seek to look for it. The Prime Minister said on 30 April, and I referred to this in question time:
… I can tell you very clearly now what that election will be about. It will be about who you stand for, whether you stand for the privileged few or whether you stand for working Australians and their families.
The member for Dobell can explain in this House today whether he is one of the privileged few that the Prime Minister is standing up for or one of the battlers—one of the battlers in the HSU; one of the 77,000 average members of the HSU who get paid something like $500 a week while this member for Dobell raked in $500,000 of HSU members' money over a period of time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Sturt is shouting, and there is no need, and he is straying greatly from the suspension.
Mr PYNE: The reason that standing orders should be suspended is that the allegations which have been made against the member for Dobell and the findings that have been made by Fair Work Australia about the member for Dobell are so serious that they must be tested in this parliament and he should be required to make a 10-minute explanation to this parliament, because these are the most serious allegations that a member of parliament can face. They are allegations of corruption. They are allegations of the misuse of HSU members' money. They are findings of Fair Work Australia.
He needs to explain how it is that, when he was the national secretary of the HSU and when he was negotiating for his members to receive a meal allowance of $11.40 a day, he was using the HSU credit cards to pay $550 for meals at Forty One in the Sydney CBD and spending thousands of dollars of members' money. While they are on their meal allowances of $11.40, he is spending their money on overseas travel, on escort agencies, on fine dining and on personal items. We as members of parliament have a right to know his side of the story which so besmirches the reputation of this parliament. He needs to explain how it is that while he could find $276,000 of HSU members' money to spend on his own election in Dobell he was facilitating an agreement so that his workers could clean bedpans in aged-care facilities and hospitals at $500 a week. All members of the HSU would have liked to be the member for Dobell if they had known they could have found $276,000 of their own money to campaign for it, but no. He was lucky enough to be the national secretary and a favoured son of Sussex Street. Consider this. This is the reason that the suspension of standing orders should be carried so that he can explain himself to the House: it would have taken an HSU member 12 weeks of cleaning a hospital to pay for the escort services that the member for Dobell is alleged to have paid for—according to findings of Fair Work Australia—with their union dues in just one night.
To vote in favour of this motion would be a demonstration of support for the 77,000 members of the Health Services Union. To vote against it is a vote for continuing the protection racket that exists around the member for Dobell and that has protected him in this place through three years of questioning from the opposition. If the Prime Minister truly believes that the next election will be about who stands for the privileged few and who stands for working Australians, she would want to stand up for working Australians today and direct her caucus to support this motion. Why wouldn't she want to do that? Why wouldn't the crossbenchers and the Labor Party caucus vote for a motion that simply calls on the member for Dobell to have 10 minutes to explain his side of the story in one of the most tawdry episodes ever to besmirch the parliament? To vote against this motion—to vote this motion down, if that is the decision of the Labor Party and the crossbenchers—will mean essentially a continuation of the protection racket of the member for Dobell. What is the motivation for that in the Labor Party? He is no longer a member of their caucus. Why would the Labor Party stand up today and argue against a motion that asks an Independent member to explain himself to the parliament? The truth is that he is not an Independent member at all. He is as much a member of the Labor caucus today as he was 10 days ago. The Labor Party continues to accept his vote. They know that he is as much a Labor man today as he was 10 days ago. Nothing has changed except that the Prime Minister found out about the Fair Work inquiry report—when it was coming out and what was in it—and she did everything she could to try to dispatch this tar baby which has so damaged her government.
I cannot imagine anyone in the House wanting to turn their back on the 77,000 members of the HSU by voting against this motion, and I cannot imagine some of the members of the Labor Party caucus of good conscience seriously wanting to see their vote recorded as part of the continuing protection racket that protects the member for Dobell. The member for Banks is a good man; he knows in his conscience that it is wrong to continue to protect the member for Dobell, and I have known him for 20 years. He knows that members of the HSU deserve better than that, and I call on him and other members of the caucus to stand with the opposition and require an explanation. If they do not, they will confirm what Mark Latham once said— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:18): I second the motion. Standing orders must be suspended, because the allegations contained in the Fair Work Australia report go to the heart of the integrity of this parliament. The report has found, amongst other things, that the member for Dobell misused the funds of the Health Services Union to support his election to this parliament. This is a very serious allegation. Let me be clear. A member of this parliament has been accused of a serious fraud that underpins his presence in this place. That is why standing orders must be suspended, because this finding alone surely calls into question the member's legitimacy in this chamber. We are not talking about trivial sums of money. We are not talking about small amounts of union resources. Fair Work Australia has found that the member for Dobell misappropriated around $270,000 for the purposes of his campaign for the 2007 election so he could take a place in this chamber.
There must be serious doubt about whether the member for Dobell would have been successful in his preselection and in the 2007 general election had he not misused those union funds, as found by Fair Work Australia—the government's own creation. This is not a matter that can be swept under the carpet or ignored, and that is why standing orders must be suspended, because the Prime Minister has repeatedly vowed her personal support for the member for Dobell. Recently she claimed that a line had been crossed that necessitated the suspension of the member for Dobell from the Australian Labor Party—although the Prime Minister is yet to answer the question as to whether Labor is still paying his legal fees.
The Prime Minister also claimed that she understands that 'matters concerning Mr Thomson have caused Australians to become concerned about standards in public life'. The Prime Minister said that Australians are 'seeing a dark cloud' when they look at this parliament. If we conclude—and for the sake of this debate let us assume the Prime Minister's version is truthful—that the Prime Minister judged the investigation and the findings of Fair Work Australia sufficiently serious to render the member for Dobell unfit to attend meetings of the federal Labor caucus, how is it that the Prime Minister believes that the member for Dobell is fit to continue to take his place in the parliament?
He is unfit for the Labor Party room but the Prime Minister believes that somehow he remains a fit and proper person to take his place in the parliament and to continue to provide his vote in support of this government.
It is important to note that the member for Dobell has consistently proclaimed his innocence. As recently as 29 April the member for Dobell said: 'I am confident that in a reasonably short period of time the truth will out and I will be vindicated.' It is worth noting that that statement was prior to the release of the Fair Work Australia report—and, rather than being vindicated, the member for Dobell has been subjected to dozens of damning findings of alleged serious misconduct during his time as the National Secretary of the Health Services Union. The fact that these allegations are crucial elements of the circumstances involving the election of the member for Dobell to this parliament, necessitates an explanation from the member to this House.
Standing orders must be suspended to provide the member with the opportunity to explain why he considers the Fair Work Australia report to be a 'joke' and why it found that he had illegally used $200,000 of HSU funds to employ staff to work on his election campaign and $70,000 to directly support his election campaign, $103,000 of unexplained cash withdrawals and dining, entertainment and the procurement of prostitute expenses of more than $80,000. It is a matter of the gravest importance for the parliament for one of the elected members to have been found by an independent government authority of having fraudulently funded their campaign to gain admittance to our national parliament. Those of us elected into parliament are greatly honoured to have the opportunity to serve our electorates. I respectfully urge the members of the crossbench to support this motion; otherwise, the dark cloud will be a dark winter of discontent. (Time expired)
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:24): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr Abbott interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Leader of the Opposition will stop constantly interjecting across the table. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr ALBANESE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is happy to interject but was not happy to be associated with this motion to suspend standing orders before the House today. Just like yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition thinks that he can allow the opposition to get down into the gutter day after day and somehow it has nothing to do with him—distancing himself from it. But the fact is we know that there is no process, no convention, no tradition and no institution that this Leader of the Opposition will not trash in his pursuit of power.
What we see day after day—now for the 53rd occasion—is an attempt to suspend standing orders. This is the day after the national government has handed down our budget. It is a significant budget that returns the budget to surplus whilst providing support for wealth creation and opportunity. Today we had one question about the budget from the shadow Treasurer and one question from the shadow finance minister about the budget, and that is it—nothing else to say on the day after the federal budget. Surely, that is unprecedented in Australia's history?
What this motion is really about is trying to ensure that time is taken up rather than getting on to the substance that we should be dealing with arising out of the budget produced last night. This morning on the schoolkids bonus budget bill debate, we had two opposition members down to speak—just two. But as the day went on the list grew. Up to 19 speakers from the opposition are now on the list, dragging out debate because they do not want the TV news tonight to show them saying no to families. That is what they want to do. That is their priority. The fact is that that is the issue that we should be getting on to after we have the MPI from the opposition—which is of course also about the budget.
The opposition come in here day after day and want, in terms of their motion to suspend standing orders, this parliament—they have backed off from yesterday's motion but it is still pretty consistent—to determine what are quite rightly legal matters. We do have a separation of powers. Indeed, their rhetoric is completely inconsistent with what they said prior to their own issues. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, in speaking about Mary Jo Fisher, said:
The matter is now before the courts where I understand it will be contested and she should be extended the presumption of innocence.
That is what he said on 24 July 2011. And then of course we know that he went on to say that she did not vote on anything, even though we know that she voted on everything, including the clean energy bills.
Indeed, Senator Robert Hill had this to say about Mal Colston: 'We should not forget the rules of natural justice in this matter.' John Howard had this to say about Mal Colston:
... at the moment he’s been treated worse than anybody else who’s charged with a crime. I mean nobody else has been treated like that. He is, at the moment, being denied the presumption of innocence.
But you do not need to go any further than the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition had this to say on 9 March 2007 about Mr Laming:
The matter is really now before the police and perhaps the Criminal and Misconduct Commission in Queensland, and let's let those authorities make their investigations and come to any conclusion.
He's a backbench member of parliament and I think he's entitled to stay in the parliament until these bodies have come to their conclusions.
Indeed, in 2007, former Prime Minister John Howard said about those same issues that using parliamentary privilege to make allegations against political opponents is 'the cheapest game in the book'.
The member for Dobell has indicated that he will make a statement in his own time and he should be left to do that. That is what the member for Dobell has said and that is entirely appropriate given the circumstances. Craig has said he will make a statement; he should be left to do that. That is what we would expect under all circumstances. But if we go down the road of trying to present this place as judge and jury then we destroy the separation of powers and the balance between political representatives and the judicial wing, which is a very dangerous step indeed. When the member for Sturt got on his feet and asked for leave to move a motion, for a second there I thought about letting him do it. I thought about granting him leave and then amending it so that he could explain to the parliament his association with James Ashby and what went on in the Speaker's office that evening and in subsequent liaisons between Mr Ashby and various members of the coalition.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will return to the suspension motion.
Mr ALBANESE: The fact is we should not go down the road of saying that this place should replace appropriate judicial processes, or pass resolutions calling upon people who have legal rights and who are entitled to get legal advice which is not prejudiced by any decision of this parliament. I said yesterday that if any of the allegations—which are serious—against the member for Dobell are proven, then he should face the full force of the law. But it is not up to this parliament to determine what those circumstances are. It is not up to this parliament to make judgements about a whole range of issues or legal actions which are before the court, whether they concern members of the government, members of the opposition or crossbenchers—either the member for Indi or any other member of parliament. It is not up to us to go down that track.
I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition understood that, given his history of understanding the importance of independent judicial processes, rather than assuming that allegations, once made, are proven. That is why we should reject the suspension of standing orders. The member for Dobell has indicated that he will make a statement before the parliament; it should be left at that. Think about the consequences of a majority government being able to make decisions in their tactics committee about doing things which change the democratically elected balance of a parliament. Think about the consequences of that. That is why this suspension motion should not be supported.
Mr CRAIG THOMSON (Dobell) (15:34): Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek the call on indulgence.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): You have three seconds.
Mr CRAIG THOMSON: I would like to indicate to parliament that I will be seeking to make a statement, probably in excess of 10 minutes and closer to 15 minutes, on the next occasion parliament sits.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Dobell has been given as much indulgence as I can give but, if everybody wants this, then I will obey the will of the House. I will allow the indulgence for the member for Dobell.
Mr CRAIG THOMSON: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The next sitting week is when I intend to make a statement. There has been a comprehensive and very long Fair Work Australia report of some 1,100 pages, which we did not have access to until late Monday night. It is appropriate that I have time to go through that so that I can make a comprehensive statement to parliament, which is what I intend to do. This week is an important week, being budget week. It is a week when families around Australia are looking at what this government could do and that, quite frankly, is what this week should be spent on. But I indicate to parliament that I intend to make a statement in the next sitting week.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Ms Gillard: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
The House divided. [15:39]
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke)
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:43): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
International Labour Organisation—Submission report on ILO instruments—Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189) and Domestic Workers Recommendation, 2011 (No. 201).
Medibank Private—Statement of corporate intent for 2011 to 2014.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Regional Australia Committee
Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry Committee
Membership
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:43): I move:
That:
Mr C. R. Thomson be discharged from the Standing Committee on Regional Australia and that, in his place, Mr Fitzgibbon be appointed a member of the committee;
Mr Crook be discharged from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry; and
Mr Crook be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry for the purpose of the committee’s inquiry into the Role of Science for Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the committee’s inquiry into the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012.
Question agreed to.
Selection Committee
Report
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:44): I present the Selection Committee’s report No. 50 relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 21 May 2012. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard and the committee’s determinations will appear on tomorrow’s Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 8 May 2012.
2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 21 May 2012, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network
Final Report
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10:20 a.m.
Speech time limits —
Mr Melham—5 minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
2 Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit
Report 429: Review of the 2010-11 Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects Report
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10:30 a.m.
Speech time limits —
Mr Oakeshott—5 minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
3 Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit
Report 430: Review of Auditor-General's Reports Nos. 47 (2010-11) to 9 (2011-12) and Reports Nos. 10 to 23 (2011-12)
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10:40 a.m.
Speech time limits —
Mr Oakeshott—5 minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR ROBERT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, and for related purposes (Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill 2012). (Notice given 20 March 2012).
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.
2 MR GEORGANAS: To present a Bill for an Act to establish a Do Not Knock Register, and for other purposes (Do Not Knock Register Bill 2012). (Notice given 20 March 2012.)
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.
3 MRS D'ATH: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Australia's economy is strong, resilient and out-performing any comparable nation;
(b) Australia's unemployment rate of 5.2 per cent is historically low when compared to Europe and the United States;
(c) the International Monetary Fund ranks Australia's 2011 per capita GDP as sixth, ahead of 176 other nations; and
(d) Australia's government net debt as a percentage of GDP that peaked at 8.9 per cent is extremely low when compared to nations such as Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and France;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) living conditions for Australians are the best in the world;
(b) Australia was ranked second in the 2011 United Nations Human Development Index; and
(c) Australia was ranked first in the 2011 OECD Better Life Index; and
(3) the Australian economy is becoming a knowledge economy with the finance sector accounting for more of the total economy than mining or manufacturing. (Notice given 13 March 2012)
Time allotted—60 minutes
Speech time limits —
Mrs D'Ath—10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes
Next 8 Members speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (8 to 9.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Orders of the day
1 Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2] (Mr Hunt): Second reading (from 19 March 2012).
Time allotted—80 minutes
Speech time limits —
Mr Hunt—15 minutes
Next Member speaking—15 minutes
Next 2 Members speaking—10 minutes
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 15 mins + 2 x 10 mins + 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Notices—continued
4 MS A. E. BURKE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) under current State and Territory legislation, a coroner does not have the statutory and judicial authority to investigate stillbirths, nor does the legislation (except in Queensland) indicate that coronial jurisdiction extends to stillbirths; and
(b) there are discrepancies amongst State and Territory legislation over the definition of 'person' and 'death';
(2) recognises that:
(a) approximately one per cent of babies born every year in Australia are stillborn (cited from a SA stillbirth report); and
(b) for many parents, the need to understand the cause of death and further prevent other incidences occurring in the future is important; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) adopt policies and protocols that are consistent amongst the States and Territories and which specifically outline the circumstances in which a stillbirth should be investigated by a coroner; and
(b) adopt policies which:
(i) provide clear and consistent definitions of 'person', 'death' and 'stillbirth', and extend this to other relevant legislation such as the births, deaths and marriages Acts;
(ii) promote the need and development of perinatal specialists in investigations as has been recommended by independent groups such as the Australian and New Zealand Stillbirth Alliance, Perinatal Mortality Group, and Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand;
(iii) offer parents the opportunity to have a full and timely assessment of the factors relating to their baby's death, whilst still respecting their rights;
(iv) allow for public coronial inquiry to assist in identifying clinically important lessons from the death and contribute to research on the topic of stillbirths and early infant death; and
(v) enhance provisions that provide support and appropriate care for parents. (Notice given 21 March 2012.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 9.30 pm
Speech time limits —
Ms A. E. Burke—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (approx 11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Orders of the Day
1 HEALTH INSURANCE (DENTAL SERVICES) BILL 2012 (Mr Dutton): Second reading (from 19 March 2012).
Time allotted—70 minutes
Speech time limits —
Mr Dutton—15 minutes.
Next Member speaking 15 minutes
Next 2 Members speaking—10 minutes
Other Members—5 minutes each
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 15 mins + 2 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Notices
1 DR LEIGH: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the important role played by the Australian Public Service in upholding and promoting our democracy and its key role in ensuring stable government;
(2) commends the Australian Public Service on continuing to be one of the most efficient and effective public services in the world; and
(3) condemns plans by the Opposition to make 12,000 public servants redundant. (Notice given 13 February 2012.)
Time allotted—40 minutes
Speech time limits —
Dr Leigh—10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day—continued
2 family law and child support system: Resumption of debate (from 19 March 2012) on the motion of Mr Wilkie:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the large number of mothers and fathers with serious grievances with family law and the child support system;
(2) notes that there has not been a comprehensive review of the child support system since the 2005 review In the Best Interests of Children—Reforming the Child Support Scheme;
(3) calls on the Government to undertake a comprehensive review of family law and the child support system; and
(4) recommends that the Terms of Reference of this review be formulated to ensure that the safety and well being of children are paramount.
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to approximately 1.30 pm
Speech time limits —
First 2 Members speaking—10 minutes
Other Members—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (6.30 to 9 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices—continued
2 MR FRYDENBERG: To move:
That this House rejects calls to reduce funding to non-government schools to 2003-04 levels that would put at risk the financial viability of many non-government schools and leave many students disadvantaged. (Notice given 13 March 2012.)
Time allotted—60 minutes
Speech time limits —
Mr Frydenberg—10 minutes
Next 3 Members speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
3 MS HALL: To move:
That this House:
(1) congratulates the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, and Minister for Social Inclusion, on the Aged Care Reform Package he announced Living Longer, Living Better Age Care Reform;
(2) acknowledges that the reforms will make it easier for older Australians to stay in their own home and that the package will improve safety, security and quality of aged care, and simplify aged care for older Australians and their families; and
(3) calls on all Members to support the reforms. (Notice given 8 May 2012.)
Time allotted—60 minutes
Speech time limits —
Ms Hall—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 12 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
4 MS BURKE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) food allergy affects approximately 1 in 10 children and 2 in 100 adults, and anaphylaxis is the most severe form of an allergic reaction, most commonly food associated anaphylaxis; and
(b) the number of hospital admissions for anaphylaxis has doubled in the last 15 years and there have been increased incidences of anaphylaxis predominantly in infants less than 5 years of age, with studies indicating that increases have been up to five-fold;
(2) recognises that current State and Territory policies related to food allergy management in schools are not properly legislated, except in Victoria;
(3) acknowledges that an anaphylactic reaction should be treated as a medical emergency and a simple medical procedure is all that is needed to treat it, prevent loss of life and provide the necessary time to transport the victim to hospital for further medical attention;
(4) calls on the Government to introduce legislation, devised through COAG, to ensure all preschools, primary and secondary schools:
(a) utilise programs that aim to help educate school children on the cause, effects and treatments of anaphylaxis;
(b) have necessary policies and procedures to provide effective response to a student who experiences an anaphylactic reaction, such as the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy action plan;
(c) ensure staff members are appropriately trained to support life in the event of an anaphylactic reaction; and
(d) have an anaphylaxis management program for each student developed in consultation with the student's parent/carer and physician;
(5) recognises the great work of Murdoch Children's Research Institute and Asthma Victoria in the 'Schoolnuts' study which aims to determine the prevalence of true food allergies in children and provide educational seminars to schools following research; and
(6) recognises there is further need for coordinated studies of food allergy in Australia to ascertain risk factors and help guide public policy. (Notice given 8 May 2012.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 9 pm
Speech time limits —
Mr Hunt—10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Budget
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:45): Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to properly manage the budget.
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—
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (15:45): Last night the Treasurer introduced his fifth budget, which he was proud to say stayed true to his Labor ideals. I have to say it was a true Labor budget. It was confused and full of deceit, made promises and broke promises, and failed to mention that it was increasing tax and increasing debt. This will be remembered as the carbon tax budget—except there was no mention of the carbon tax in the budget speech. It will raise $24 billion in this budget.
Importantly, it is also the case that the handouts that the government announced last night, which were dressed up as student tax rebates or increases in family tax payments, are all about the carbon tax and have nothing to do with the proclaimed intention. Equally importantly, it was a budget that had no coherent economic strategy to drive growth in the economy, to lift productivity or to create jobs.
Australia is crying out for leadership to restore confidence to get its economy performing at its very best. Economic growth under Labor has been very poor, averaging 2½ per cent or less in its first three years. This is an underwhelming record at a time when Australia is benefiting from the highest terms of trade in several generations and record demand for its exports from overseas. Productivity has stalled. GDP per hour worked in the final quarter of last year was lower than two years earlier. And what about jobs? In 2011, there was no growth at all. It was the first time in 20 years that no new jobs had been created.
So what has the Treasurer done to restore stronger growth, kick-start productivity growth and lift job creation? The answer is that he has set the bar pretty low. He has promised that the economy will grow by 3¼ per cent next year. That is on the upside of trend, and we would be able to generate growth of at least trend or even higher after years of below-trend growth if we created the conditions for businesses to invest, grow and take on more workers. Clearly the Treasurer has no confidence that he has the skills or the policy to do that. His track record suggests that he will undershoot even his relatively low bar. In last year's budget he forecast growth this year of four per cent. He has now revised that down to three per cent. But even this looks too strong given the weak growth in the first half of the year and market estimates for another tepid quarter of growth in March.
Certainly the Treasurer's ambitions for job creation suggest he really expects only modest economic growth. The unemployment rate is now expected to increase from the current 5.2 per cent to 5.5 per cent and remain there for two years. On the morning of budget day—just yesterday—the Treasurer said, 'It makes sure we support jobs.' I remember last year, when he said the budget was all about 'jobs, jobs, jobs' and he forecast growth in jobs of 500,000 over two years. Not only has he failed to reach that target; he is nowhere near it, with an expected and revised estimate of just 200,000 jobs being created. His track record suggests that we should be sceptical even of that more modest ambition.
And yet the Treasurer wants us to believe it is a 'jobs budget'. Of course, he has had many descriptions. It started off as a 'tough budget', but he does that every year. Then he said it would be a 'responsible budget'. Then he said it would be 'a budget that will whirl the economy back to a fiscal surplus'. Then he alluded to the fact that it was a 'Robin Hood budget'. And then it was 'battlers' budget'. This, of course, is the way the Labor Party does it. They use that invective to try to describe something that they cannot describe themselves.
The biggest flaw with this budget is its reliance on the continuation of the mining boom. It assumes that the terms of trade will stay close to highs so that company tax receipts and mining tax receipts continue to be high. The terms of trade assume a decline in 2012-13 of 5.75 per cent, and 3.25 per cent the following year. However, the government's own sensitivity analysis confirms that a fall in the terms of trade of around four per cent would reduce the underlying cash surplus by $3.4 billion in the first year and $7.1 billion after that. A relatively small decline in the terms of trade from record highs is going to wipe out the government's claimed surpluses. This just shows how critical the mining boom is to the government's fiscal strategy and how precariously balanced the budget is.
I could compare this government's lack of vision with the coalition's strong agenda to drive economic growth, productivity and employment. Our first step in government will be the restoration of sound public finances by cutting the waste, reducing the spending and paying down public sector debt. Secondly, we will lower taxation to enhance the rewards for effort and to reduce the fiscal drag on the economy. Thirdly, we will have a strong productivity agenda with higher labour force participation, reduced red tape and the facilitation of further restructuring of industry. Fourthly, we will facilitate even stronger engagement with our trading partners, with a particular focus on Asia. The coalition has clear plans to grow the economy and create jobs. We have done it before and we will do it again.
As I said, the Treasurer claimed at first that this would be a tough budget, as he does every year. First, of $33.6 billion of so-called savings over the forward estimates, more than half are increased or new tax measures. There are six new or increased taxes in the budget, taking the grand total since the government came to office to 26 new or increased taxes. The government always reaches for the tax lever in order to fill a budget hole. Second, spending this year will be $100 billion higher than when the coalition left office, and yet Labor said that the Howard coalition was a big-spending government. At no stage in the last few years, or over the next four years, does the government get anywhere near the levels of the last year of the Howard government in terms of percentage of GDP in expenditure. This is not a tight budget. How can it be when there has been an alarming deterioration in the numbers over the past year? Last year's budget forecast was an underlying deficit of $22 billion for this year. That has now doubled to $44 billion, the third highest deficit on record. The cumulative deficit under Labor since they have been in office is $174 billion.
What is worse is that the tiny surplus of just $1.5 billion that they are claiming they will deliver next year has clearly been manufactured. First, it relies on a $39 billion surge in revenue, of which $34 billion is tax. Second, they have shuffled money out of 2012-13 into the current financial year. We first identified this in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, but the government have dreamed up new measures. These include the schoolkids bonus, shifting around $662 million from next year into this year, and $1.2 billion of financial assistance grants to local government that has been brought forward from July to June in order to avoid next financial year. Of course, the government have raided the hollow logs, taking $750 million extra out of government business enterprises next year as a special dividend, including from the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation and the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation.
The heart of the deceit in this budget is that the debt continues to rise even though the government claim it is going to be in surplus. How can that be? The Treasurer had a rather awkward moment in question time today when asked about how much gross debt is going to be. When it was related to the debt limit that is imposed by this parliament, predictably he got the figure wrong by responding with market value instead of face value. That is what you would expect from this Treasurer. He does not understand the markets. He accuses us of not understanding them, but he does not understand them. What we do know is that, if projects like the National Broadband Network and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation were included in the budget bottom line, on his own numbers the budget would remain in deficit to 2014-15. That is one of the reasons that net debt continues to rise next year and the year after to a peak of $145 billion, the highest on record. That is why the government have flagged that they will need to increase the debt limit from $250 billion to $300 billion. What is it with the Labor Party and credit cards? Whether it be a credit card from a union or a credit card from the Australian people, they cannot help but smoke the credit cards. In this case, they are doing it with taxpayer money.
They are indifferent to the impact of that sort of challenge. Last year the Treasurer called the increase in debt 'tiny'. He went on to say, 'It's very low,' minutes later on 2GB. Later on Sky News he was asked the peak debt level and he did not know the answer. I can assure the Treasurer that the taxpayers of Australia think debt is a very big deal. Repaying the debt is a big task, and the Treasurer claims he will pay it off by the end of the decade. I said earlier today on radio, 'Pigs might fly'—although I concede that pigs are more likely to fly these days, because last night they increased the pig slaughter levy, which is another hidden tax increase. To pay off the debts the government will have to deliver surpluses bigger than one per cent of GDP for the next six years. The cost of interest is $8.2 billion a year to 2015-16—that is, $22 million a day that Australian taxpayers have to find just to pay the interest on Labor debt.
But what about the broken promises? The government not only made new promises last night but broke the promises they had already made. The one that is ringing in our ears is the commitment to company tax cuts. The Prime Minister herself said only two months ago in this House:
If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth. If you are against economic growth, then you are against jobs.
On over 70 occasions the Treasurer has said that he would be introducing legislation to cut company tax. We are waiting for it. The Greens have already indicated that they would support company tax cuts for small business. But no: the Treasurer is trying to lay it on us by blaming us for not passing it. The legislation never came to the parliament. It is like the Malaysia solution. We are still waiting for the legislation the Prime Minister was daring us to vote against. We are also still waiting for this company tax cut legislation which the Prime Minister says we voted against. We have not even seen the legislation. I thought the government had abandoned its plan to cut company tax, paid for with another tax, but the budget is still warm—delivered only last night—and the Prime Minister was on Sky News's Agenda saying: 'We're open to company tax cuts. We'll engage in further discussion.' So she is changing the budget. Normally under Labor the budget lasts from Lateline to lunchtime, but it did not quite make it past the clock on this day.
What we find is that Labor are playing and fiddling with the numbers. They are shuffling money about. The education tax rebate now has nothing to do with education and the family tax benefit part A and the allowance increases have nothing to do with giving people a fairer share of the mining tax. They are all about compensation for the carbon tax, the tax that dare not speak its name in the budget or in the budget speech. There is no clear, articulate strategy to grow the economy. There is nothing that reduces the cost of living for everyday families and there is nothing in the budget that creates jobs. There needed to be an economic strategy that Australians could believe in, that helped to give Australians confidence that the volatility offshore is not going to affect their everyday lives. Instead it was a budget that had handouts but claimed to be tough. It was a budget that has left Australians confused. It was a budget to save Julia Gillard's job instead of the jobs of everyday Australians. (Time expired)
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (16:00): It gives me great pleasure to rise to contribute to this matter of public importance. The matter before the House goes to the question of the government's economic management. I am very proud to stand here just the day after the Treasurer handed down a budget that will return to surplus. We all know that there is no greater symbol of the strength of an economy than being able to demonstrate that a budget is returning to surplus. That is something that we are very proud of.
It is interesting that the member for North Sydney's contribution today had a lot of huff and puff and the usual bluster that you get from him. It is his modus operandi. But when it came to actually putting some facts on the table, there was not a lot happening. He squibbed the central challenge that the coalition have to face on the question of a surplus because the central question that has to be answered by those opposite is whether or not they are committed to a surplus. That is the point that he did not address. It is an important point, a point whose answer I believe the Australian people have a great and strong interest in knowing. Are the coalition committed to a return to surplus?
An opposition member: Well why?
Mr BRADBURY: I hear the member opposite say, 'Well why?' Perhaps his colleagues can take him aside and give him a lecture in economics 101. I am sure the member for Dunkley would be able to simplify economic principles in such a way as to explain to the member opposite the importance of returning the budget to surplus.
But on this question of a return to surplus, those opposite have been a bit shifty and very inconsistent. Let us have a look at some of the commentary that we have seen from them. When asked this question of whether or not the coalition would return the budget to surplus, the member for Goldstein—who is with us in the chamber—said, 'Well, it just depends.' So there we have it from the member for Goldstein. It just depends. When the member for North Sydney—who has just left the chamber—was asked the question, he said, 'Maybe.' Then when the Leader of the Opposition was asked the question, he said, 'Well ,we will do it as quickly as possible.' But then when Senator Abetz was asked the question, he said, 'Look, we're not in the business of making extravagant promises.'
The promise that Senator Abetz says is extravagant is exactly what this government has delivered—a surplus budget. We will return the budget to surplus. We have done that in the budget was handed down. But we have heard the various mixed messages from those opposite on this question of whether or not they are committed to returning the budget to surplus.
Mr Robb: Defending your budget.
Mr BRADBURY: The member for Goldstein says he is defending our budget. That is nice of him to do that. But contrary to the already conflicting messages from those opposite that I have just stated, I note that on 18 April 2012 on ABC 24 the member for Hasluck said, 'I'm not totally supportive of finding a surplus at this point in time,' just to add even more confusion to the picture. The member for Goldstein raises his eyebrows as if to say the member for Hasluck is not a contributor to the economic team, but they could not do any worse, so maybe they should give him a seat at the table when it comes to being a contributor to the economic team.
On the question of economic management this government has a very proud track record. The member for North Sydney alluded to the question of jobs. Let us talk about jobs. Let us talk about the very significant role that government played in intervening and investing in supporting jobs through the global financial crisis. Since we have come to power, 750,000 jobs have been created in this country. At the same time, through the global financial crisis, 27 million jobs have been shed across the global economy. Those opposite do not want to hear this. They do not want to hear about the jobs that we have saved, working with the Australian people, working with the business community, investing in the skills and the labour of those who are actively participating in our workforce. They do not want to talk about that because they are not interested in the jobs of hardworking Australians.
In fact, when we handed down the stimulus package, when we came into this place and we voted for the package, the Leader of the Opposition did not even bother to turn up. He missed the vote. When he was quizzed about why he missed the vote, it became evident that he was up in the parliamentary dining room having a few drinks with, amongst others, the former Treasurer and he fell asleep. He fell asleep and missed the vote on the stimulus package. This is the package that we have heard those opposite seek to discredit so much, what has been one of the most effective responses to the global financial crisis. People all around the world are looking at what has been achieved in this country and the fact that today we are looking at an economy that has grown significantly from the economy that existed pre-GFC. Many economies around the world are struggling to return to pre-GFC levels, yet Australia has gone well and truly above that. At the same time we have low unemployment, we have contained inflation and the benefits of contained inflation were recently passed on in the form of a cut to the cash rate. The member for Goldstein is in the business of giving the green light to the banks to jack up interest rates. He is the No. 1 cheerleader when it comes to making the case for rate hikes. He might have been pulled into line. He went suspiciously quiet for a couple of weeks. I did not hear any response from him when the Reserve Bank did cut the cash rate. He was missing. We could not find him anywhere.
I want to talk about our record. That 50 basis point cut and the interest rate cuts that have been passed on to working Australians mean that a family in Australia today with a mortgage of $300,000 is paying $3,000 a year less in repayments. So, if you are the average family out there in Australia, you are paying less on your mortgage today than when those geniuses opposite were in office. Let's look at taxation. Those opposite make the allegation that we are the highest-taxing government. Taxation, as a proportion of GDP, is lower today than it was when they left office. In fact, if you look right across the forward estimates, taxation as a share of GDP—that is, overall levels of taxation—are lower under us than they were when those opposite were in power. So, when they talk about the new taxes, that is all good and well, but look at the tax base. Look at how much tax is being collected as a proportion of the economy. When you look at that you will see that this government is a lower-taxing government than that which preceded it. From 1 July, someone on $50,000 a year will be paying $40 a week less in tax. We have established that we are paying less on mortgages because interest rates are lower. We have established that people are paying less tax because tax is lower today than it was when we came to office.
Let's have a look at pensioners. What is the position of a single age pensioner? Let's have a look at that. As a result of the changes that we made—a historic increase in the pension—a single age pensioner today is receiving $4,000 a year more than they were in 2009. You can go back even further to when those opposite were last in office and it is an even bigger increase. But from 2009 to today, a single age pensioner has $4,000 a year more than they had in 2009.
Those opposite talk about management of the economy. Let's talk about the things that we have done that impact on the lives of working men and women around this country. Let's look at the education tax refund, which we have sought to refine and put into a form that delivers an even greater benefit to a greater number of people. Those on the other side did not support the education tax refund in the first place. It was not their idea, and if it is not their idea they will not support it. But now we have decided that there is a better way to deliver it, and they want to stand between the Australian government and the Australian people to block people getting that relief. They talk about cost-of-living pressures, and there are many cost-of-living pressures that families are facing out there, but when it comes to providing genuine, timely and targeted relief in the form that we are proposing, they want to vote against it. How can you justify coming into this place and voting against delivering cost-of-living relief to families? How can you do that? They should go back to their electorates and look the families in their electorates in the eye. They should be ashamed of what they are doing. They know no bounds with their inconsistency.
Those opposite came into this place day after day opposing a tax cut for business. I see the shadow minister for small business is sitting opposite. He is hanging his head in shame. I can appreciate the shame that he feels. When it came to supporting a tax cut for business, the Liberal Party—historically, at least allegedly, the party of business and small business—said no. They said, 'We can't support a tax cut when the revenue has come from the mining tax.' That is their principle. They are very principled people on the other side. They say, 'If the revenue comes from the mining tax, we don't care what you spend it on—even if it's a company tax cut—we can't support it.' That is what they say. We say, 'If you're going to block the company tax cut, we'll redirect the revenue that we collect with the mining tax and we'll deliver cost-of-living relief to families.' And what do those opposite say? They say, 'We think that's a good idea.' As much as I applaud them supporting the government's measure, there is a significant inconsistency there. The inconsistency is that they said that they would vote against the MRRT and would vote against all the expenditure measures, but now they are saying that they will support the expenditure measure.
When you have a $70 billion black hole—
Mr Robb interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: The member for Goldstein intervenes. He does not want to talk about the black hole, although it was $70 billion. The member for North Sydney passed around a few different details. He told someone it was $50 billion, he told someone else it was $60 billion and he told someone else it was $70 billion. When the $70 billion figure was released and leaked, he knew that it was the member for Goldstein. That is the inconsistency and the division that exists in relation to economic management on the other side. They will not commit to a surplus.
The member for Goldstein is going to go to the dispatch box shortly and he will tell us whether those opposite are committed to a surplus. In fact, last night he was saying, '$1.5 billion—that's not a surplus. $15 billion is a surplus.' So, when are they going to deliver a $15 billion surplus? They have a $70 billion black hole, which, as a result of the member for Goldstein's interview last night, has just become an $85 billion black hole. Our $1.5 billion surplus will increase over the forward estimates. The member for Goldstein says, 'Well, that ain't a surplus.' The challenge for the opposition is that tomorrow evening the Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to come into this place and set out an alternative plan. It is important that he does that because he has some work to do. There is a $70 billion crater—they know it, and they are hoping that they skate into office without telling people about it. That alone would be a terrible thing to do if that were where their plans ended, but, unfortunately, that is not where their plans end. They have already announced a so-called commission of audit. We know there is a $70 billion black hole—or $85 billion according to the interview of the member for Goldstein. They set up this special commission of audit so that, if they get elected, they will come forward and rip the guts out of services, rip the guts out of payments and rip the guts out of benefits that hardworking Australians around this country rely upon. (Time expired)
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (16:15): Wasn't that pathetic! This is the Assistant Treasurer of Australia. This is the deputy to the Treasurer in the construction and the implementation of this budget. On the afternoon after they presented a budget he had 15 minutes to speak and he spent no time defending the budget. The matter before the House is 'the failure of the government to properly manage the budget' and we have seen absolutely no time spent defending it. So you should walk out; that was a most pathetic performance. Go and read the budget papers and come back and tell us something about it.
The member for Lindsay also said that this government has presided over Australia being the leading country after the global financial crisis. We did get through the global financial crisis in much better shape than other countries because of the state of the economy when that crisis hit. There was no debt; in fact, there was $70 billion of net assets and the unemployment figure had a 4 in front of it. That is why we got through that crisis the way we did. By the time this government started to spend, spend, spend, the economy was already raging out of that crisis because of the exchange rate, which fell to 60c in the dollar and saw us with the biggest trade surplus in our history in that first quarter of 2009, and because the Reserve Bank of Australia lowered interest rates by over three per cent. Those factors are why we got out of that crisis. It had absolutely nothing to do with the stimulus spending which subsequently occurred and pushed up interest rates, costing Australian workers billions and billions of dollars since because of the way this government has run the economy.
The Assistant Treasurer, again, should be across these things, but the International Monetary Fund just a few days ago released the state of the books of countries around the world on a comparative basis. Of course, six developed countries are reported to have structural surpluses today. A structural surplus is something that the Treasurer would salivate over, but, of course, Australia still has a significant structural deficit. If the prices come off commodities anytime in the next year because of all sorts of things that might happen outside of our control, this government has left us deeply vulnerable. This budget has done nothing—it has provided no strategy to pay down the debt; it has provided no strategy to grow the economy, create and protect jobs, and restore confidence. Nothing in this budget will address those issues. That is why we still have a structural deficit, unlike six other developed countries that have structural surpluses today. We are not coming out of this global financial crisis better than the rest of the world; we are being led by others now that went into it with much bigger debt levels than we had.
Last night, the Treasurer said that this is a Labor budget 'to its bootstraps'. I do not know about old Labor, but this certainly is a new-Labor budget to its bootstraps. It is a budget you cannot trust. It is a budget riddled with deceit. It is a budget of deception by omission. It is a budget which cooks the books. It is a budget that increases debt. It is a budget where many of the so-called savings are in fact tax increases. Can you believe it? They are parading them as disciplined savings, but they are tax increases. It is a budget which resorted to bribes—grubby bribes to try and cover up the biggest carbon tax in the world. It is a budget with broken promises. It is a budget that makes many promises but at the same time breaks many promises. It is a budget which has the world's biggest carbon tax at its heart. It is a budget devoid of any strategy to pay down debt, to grow the economy, to create jobs and to restore confidence. It is a budget motivated by politics, not genuine economic principles. It is a budget motivated by political survival. That is all it is. It is a budget for this week and next week and the week after; it is not even a budget for the next six months. It is a budget to keep the Prime Minister in the job of Prime Minister while those behind her try and sort out who might replace her. It is nothing more and nothing less than a political document. This truly is a new-Labor budget: no trust, deceit, more spending, more taxing and more borrowing.
Let me explore a couple of those points a little more. It is a budget you cannot trust. Of course, my colleague pointed out the fact that there have been five different levels of deficit anticipated and forecast over the last 18 months, up from $12 billion to $44 billion—and, of course, the year has not even finished. I bet we will find by September that it is even bigger than $44 billion. How can people trust this government to get a $1.5 billion surplus after all of the fiddles that it has done and after all the moving of cash here, there and everywhere off budget? How can the community trust this government when the deficit this year has gone from $12 billion to $44 billion with five different estimates through the last 18 months and the government has gotten everyone of them wrong?
Also, how can Australians have any confidence in the revenue?
I say today, the total revenue could not possibly go up by 11.8 per cent. That is impossible yet they expect people to believe it. This whole budget depends on that 11.8 per cent growth estimate. Welfare will grow by more than 3.8 per cent because of this budget. The Australian dollar, coal prices and resource share prices are all forward indicators and they are all going down. Add to that two new socialist governments in Europe. Unemployment is tracking up again in the US and we have a totally dysfunctional government.
This is a government which is divided in so many respects. Everyone is reporting that the Prime Minister's office cannot talk to the Treasurer's office. You have this deep division. You have people grouping as possible pairs to run for the leadership in the next few months. This is a deeply divided government and it is why they are making so many errors of judgment. It is why they are so dysfunctional. There can be no trust. Just today we saw the consumer confidence figures released. Consumer confidence, despite the Reserve Bank reducing interest rates by half of one per cent—a very significant amount and more than what was anticipated by most commentators—today has dropped a further 2.1 points. What all this says is that people do not believe this government. They do not trust this government. It is why we have a crisis of confidence amongst households and why we have a crisis of confidence amongst businesses.
Now we turn to the debt situation, one of the most outrageous things. Australia has a high debt in terms of what is good for Australia. I am sick of people saying, 'Why don't you compare yourselves to basket cases in Europe?' What we need to do is apply a measure against Australian standards. We have a high debt in terms of what is good for Australia because we need in Australia—and always have needed—a debt relatively small compared with the rest of the world. We are a small, open economy which is influenced heavily by commodity price movements; not the US, not big companies in Europe—they have large domestic economies. We need a low relative debt.
We have seen in this budget an increase in the debt ceiling to $300 billion. This is a government which knows nothing but spending and borrowing and taxing. We have seen it again in this budget. The Office of Financial Management confirmed that it has lost confidence in the government because they have asked the Treasurer to increase the debt ceiling to $300 billion as a buffer.
This is truly a new-Labor budget to its bootstraps: no trust, deceit, more spending, more taxing and much more borrowing. (Time expired)
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (16:25): It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Goldstein because he always delivers such nuggets. Just a few moments ago we heard 'this government spends, borrows and taxes' like no other government does that. What is it supposed to do? They tax, they spend and they occasionally borrow. That is the way governments all over the world operate. And now we are being lectured about budget management from those opposite.
I do not quote Paul Keating much. I should quote him more but I do not. He had a great mind. When you look at the figures in this budget, they are truly a beautiful set of numbers. Look at the economic stats in this budget and what we have been able to deliver. Growth is at 3½ per cent—most other countries in the world would love to have the growth that we have. Our economy is 16 per cent bigger than what it was at the start of the GFC. Not many countries can boast that. Inflation is contained, interest rates are lower than what we inherited and we had the member for Lindsay and the Assistant Treasurer indicate what impact that has had on households. We have a AAA rating only a short space of time after one of the world's largest economies, the US, was unable to maintain its rating. We have three agencies giving us a AAA rating, and investment is at $450 billion.
I am particularly proud of jobs growth. Seeing more jobs created, especially in western Sydney—my part of Sydney—is absolutely critical for the people that I and others represent. There were 750,000 jobs created as a result of the economic policies and the economic climate that we put in place. There is five per cent unemployment here and 10 per cent in the Euro zone.
The most critical point is the budget surplus of $1.5 billion. We said we would do it and we did it. We said we would deliver it and we have managed it. People will talk from time to time, regardless of which side of politics is in government, about a budget bounce. Budget bounces, frankly, are illusory. The big thing about this is that we delivered a critical economic objective in reaching a surplus. We can now give the Reserve Bank the room to provide the type of stimulus that is now required because we have gone through an economic period that needed fiscal stimulus. We have gone through that phase and it is now about being able to loosen up monetary policy and see business make investment decisions which cost less to finance; that is why that is so important.
We have seen taxation as a proportion of GDP at some of its lowest levels. It is now 22.1 per cent, down from the 23.7 per cent that we inherited. And we have done that effectively while swimming with one hand tied behind our backs. There is $150 billion in revenues. Tell me a government that would be able to survive having $150 billion of revenue sucked out and still be able to deliver a budget that is in surplus? We delivered a surplus, we targeted spending and we still have tax lower than when those opposite were in government.
Look at those opposite. Every time there is a bad economic statistic, they relish it. They lick their lips at any bad economic statistic. And they shrink away from good economic statistics like Dracula from sunlight—Count Hockular. They are up there all the time avoiding any good economic statistic such as higher growth, lower inflation or lower interest rates. Their first response on any occasion is to try and undermine confidence, bag out what has gone on, distort facts and ignore reality, but they are also continuing a tradition: in government, when were those opposite ever able to cut expenditure? In fact, in their last five years of government spending continued to increase at four per cent on average. They were unable to cut expenditure. They are coming here today and talking to us about the need to be able to manage the budget, but they were unable to even cut spending and kept increasing spending in those last four years. We have cut it: $33.6 billion—$100 billion of savings delivered by us. They could not then; they could not now.
They, for example, reckon they can find $70 billion in savings themselves. In a simple test last year, we were trying to help Queenslanders recover after the worst floods that they have ever experienced. We proposed a one-year levy that those opposite opposed bitterly. They said that we should not be spending on helping out Queenslanders via a levy. They resisted it every step of the way and said they could find the savings themselves; they could find savings to the tune of $6 billion. A number of deadlines were set, but they were never able to identify the savings and achieve them. That is on $6 billion, and they reckon they will find $70 billion of savings.
The member for North Sydney talks about this being a confused budget. I think it is wrong that he is trying to shift his confusion of numbers and numerical literacy over to us. When you look at it, take their form: they call for help for manufacturing workers and cut $500 million from industry assistance; they call for costs of living relief and are now opposing the schoolkids bonus; and they call for tax relief and have opposed the corporate tax rate cuts that we put forward. There is no confusion on our side. We know what needs to be done, but every step of the way we are opposed by them. They claim they have the ear of corporate Australia. They claim they represent them, but they have thrown corporate Australia under the bus the minute they could because they put their own political interest first instead of supporting a cut to corporate tax.
Confusion—today, in this debate, the member for North Sydney talked about how the Greens supported a tax cut for small business and was suggesting that those opposite would have supported that, a differential in corporate tax rates. Having tiered corporate tax rates is what they were talking about.
Confusion—look at our ERC and what it has been able to deliver. Our ERC is delivered as surplus ahead of most other economies. We have performance and growth way better than other economies. Our ERC has been able to operate like that. Their ERC operates like an entrapment exercise: handing out dodgy figures to see who will leak it to the media first to get that 'gotcha' moment. That is their ERC—their ERC operates like an entrapment exercise where the member for Goldstein is not trusted by the member for North Sydney, and they are overseen by a man, the Leader of the Opposition, who even his own colleagues describe as 'not having a real good feel for economics' or 'economically illiterate'. This is their ERC.
Confusion—the Leader of the Opposition bags out the economy here but trips over to London and says, 'Our economy has genuine bragging rights.' What is it with long-haul flights and the opposition? Their feet do not even touch foreign soil before they are in their own mouths. Then you have the member for North Sydney going on and suddenly having this thought bubble: 'We should have a welfare system like Asia. We should look at Korea. We should have a welfare system that is just like the Korean welfare system.' I am sure that that would be a cracker of an argument for all those people who get carers support, the people who need that type of assistance—unemployment support and Austudy—and all those people who, when you look at the complexity of our system, would just love to know that we should model it on Korea and effectively cut out $90 billion in one swoop.
Confusion—today Joe Hockey was asked, 'What is the difference between you introducing a baby bonus and the schoolkids bonus?' You could not make this stuff up. I think it is important we read back in the Hansard what was said today. On 3AW the host asked, 'Are you being critical of the schools bonus?' This is directed to Joe Hockey: 'What is the difference between the baby bonus that you introduced and the schools bonus?' The member for North Sydney says, 'There's a vast difference,' And the host says, 'What?' The member for North Sydney says, 'You have to have a baby.' This is the piercing logic that we have from those opposite, who tell us we should manage the budget better, and the Leader of the Opposition was also challenged on this point today: how is the schools bonus any different to the baby bonus, for example? The Leader of the Opposition says, 'Look, they just are; just accept it.' These are the geniuses among those opposite, who are lecturing us about budget management and cannot get it right themselves. I am grateful that they brought this MPI up, because we need more laughs in this place. I am very thankful that you have been able to bring that to the House. (Time expired)
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (16:35): Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, I am wondering if you can help me find this budget. We have had two speakers from Labor supposed to be talking about the government's ability or otherwise to properly manage the budget, and it turns out it is like flared pants: it was out of fashion before it even started. We have had two speakers unable to turn their minds to a budget that is not even 24 hours old. This is quite a remarkable spectacle where the government has rolled out the member for Lindsay, one of the leading lights—Admiral Bradbury, as he is known by his friends—to talk about it. He is part of the Expenditure Review Committee. He could not even talk about the budget. Then the member for Chifley comes out—I always enjoy following the member for Chifley—talking about tiered tax rates. He has forgotten already that the government actually promised a tiered tax rate in relation to company tax reductions—a tiered tax rate for an earlier introduction for small business—but that promise disappeared before it was even enacted.
What has happened to the budget? Has someone pinched this Labor budget? Has someone stolen it, so that the Labor members dare not speak the name of the budget that is not even 24 hours old? We hear this fiscal fiction being talked about, but not in terms of what is in it, not in defending the parameters and not in explaining those herculean assumptions about revenue projections that invariably never get met, resulting in revenue write-downs. They live in this la-la land where they think they are going to have these enormous growths in revenue—the fiction that underpins these so-called budget projections—and then they are not met, and the government and Treasurer go around wringing their hands saying, 'We have had these revenue write-downs.' He has been hit by reality. You can only maintain this fiction for so long. You can only keep talking about a surplus that keeps going further and further away.
It was 1989 when Labor last delivered a surplus. The No. 1 hit of the year was Mick Hucknall's—Simply Red's—If You Don't Know Me By Now. The Australian public know Wayne Swan by now. They know this Treasurer and they know this government. They know that they can talk a great game about a surplus but you never get to see one. They can forecast the most extraordinary revenue projections that never materialise, and then they wring their hands saying, 'We've had revenue write-downs,' and, 'We've been hit by reality.' That is the problem with this government and their budgeting: they get hit by reality. You can only hide from it for so long.
But the fiscal fiction gets worse. You would be as astounded as I was if you saw Monday night's Lateline Business. It was less than 24 hours before the government delivered its budget speech and the Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness and Minister for Small Business was asked a fairly straightforward question. The presenter said, 'Let's look at the Sensis small business survey.' It found that 92 per cent of small businesses do not think that government policies are helping them. Do you know what his answer was—less than 24 hours before the Treasurer's budget speech? He said:
… we've done some recent things already by announcing the cut in the small business company tax rate from 30 to 29 cents …
This was less than 24 hours before the Treasurer came in here and spoke about the company tax cut disappearing. And this was someone who is on the government's Expenditure Review Committee. Isn't that extraordinary? Was he intentionally trying to create a distortion of reality or does he have NFI—'no fiscal idea' whatsoever? Is that what the problem was? He was on the Expenditure Review Committee and he could not even work out what was in the government's own budget.
What is not in the budget and what we should be discussing is how it is going to contribute to growth, how it is going to nurture business confidence, how it is going to support job creation and how it is going to enhance economic security for Australian people. What does the government talk about? None of those things. In this budget the small business community was looking for something that would give it half a sense that the record 48 per cent increase in small business insolvencies in the last 12 months might be turned around; that the 300,000 jobs that have been lost in small business might begin to be recovered; and that the 14,500 small businesses that were employing people at the time Labor was elected, but now are not, might be able to have the confidence and courage to re-engage and employ Australian men and women. That is what the small business community was looking for and it got none of it. It got absolutely none of those things.
Labor says it is 'truly a Labor budget'. I agree with them, because everybody knows that Labor loves to throw money into the wind. It has failed to do that effectively and I fear they will again fail to do that effectively with this budget. But that does make it a very Labor budget. What would have made it a good budget would have been some practical measures that would have supported growth, confidence raising, job creation and economic security and would have restored small business hope, reward and opportunity. But there was nothing in there about that.
Not only did the small business minister who has been spruiking the great influence he has within government not even know what was in the budget less than 24 hours before it was delivered, but all we could see was that there was a reheating of old commitments—nothing new. But what do small business know they are going to get? They are going to face the world's largest carbon tax. They are shaking in their boots about the world's largest carbon tax at a time when the economy that small business men and women and family enterprises are facing is already very challenging, when they are getting cost increases forced upon them and when nervous consumers are demanding discounts. Consumers want savings. They are demanding the sort of frugalness from small business that they would love to see from their government. Margins are thin. Foreclosures are happening. Insolvencies have increased 48 per cent on last year. There are empty shops in the main streets of Australia. Small businesses are looking for something to break the trajectory the government has put them on—government policy has driven small businesses into a ditch. They got none of that in this budget.
Labor once again proved it is no friend to small business. The budget has got broken promises which will hurt small business and will hurt local employment. There was no relief from the world's largest carbon tax. It is going to whack their viability, their profitability and their capacity to employ like no other measure. There is no feel within this budget that the government has any sense of the struggling, the challenges and the difficult economic climate that small business is facing. There is no sense that cash handouts will change the economic paradigm, where people will think: 'Gee, there is an ongoing change in my circumstance. I feel more confident about making longer term decisions and about re-engaging in things that put me in a financially exposed situation but where I am more confident of my capacity to deal with them.' There is none of that whatsoever. There are none of those things that would bring about a change. Instead we have a few reheated announcements of sweeteners that are supposed to soften the burden and the pain, the harm and the hardship of the carbon tax—sweeteners that those in small business know in many cases offer them no assistance whatsoever.
In this budget the government confirmed that 370,000 of our smallest businesses face higher tax on their income—not just companies, which seem to be the only kind of business Labor wants to talk to, but those self-employed people, those partners, those operating through trust and those men and women who are trying to create wealth and opportunity for their communities, their country and themselves. They used to get encouragement through an entrepreneurs tax offset. There used to be a 25 per cent reduction in income tax paid on those smallest businesses up to $50,000 and then a tapering of that benefit. That is completely gone.
We then see the issue around accelerated depreciation. The government comes in here and says, 'Isn't this great!' Small business know they have to have cash ready to spend that money on eligible assets so they can get some cash-flow benefits at some stage down the track. Then the government comes in here and says to those 400,000 smallest businesses that used to get the ETO, 'You can go and buy a ute.' They need thirty grand of ready dollars to go out and buy a ute so 18 months later they might get a couple of thousand dollars of cash-flow benefit. Spend thirty grand for a couple down 18 months later. That is the kind of cash-flow logic that small business look at. They hear the government mouthing these words and they think, 'They really have no idea whatsoever.' Then there is the issue of the loss carry-back. Do you remember that the coalition proposed that? The coalition proposed that as a response to the global financial crisis and was ridiculed and condemned by Labor. But now they want to bring it back in.
Mr Dreyfus: So will you be supporting that?
Mr BILLSON: I am grateful to the member for Isaacs, who is conceding what we all understand—that is, the carbon tax represents a greater threat to small business than the global financial crisis. The global financial crisis was not providing a sufficient challenge for small business to have a loss carry-back scheme introduced, but the carbon tax represents a far greater challenge and that is why the government is now looking at it. We know this government has no interest in, and no commitment to, small business. If you want to see any evidence of that, just have a look at this budget and go back to the Minister for Small Business, who either has no idea what is going on or has intentionally been out there misleading the small business community. The small business men and women of Australia deserve much better than that.
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (16:45): I am very pleased to contribute to the debate this afternoon. We on this side, when we consider the management of the budget and the management of the economy, have a very clear understanding for whom we are managing the budget and the economy. We have a very clear understanding that we come to this place representing families—families with children at school—who today we are prepared to support financially, and those opposite very clearly have said they will not. They have said it in a way that is demeaning to ordinary Australians, such as the 10,300 ordinary Australian families in my electorate who stand to directly benefit from this initiative proposed and supported uniquely by this side of the House.
We have a very keen understanding of the people who we manage the economy and the budget for when we come to this place and make a financial commitment to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I really do hope for the future of people who suffer with a disability and for people who care for them that the rhetoric of those opposite stands up when they need to make financial commitments at a state level and, potentially at some stage in the future, at a federal level. I really do hope that those people stand up for the NDIS in the way that we have quite clearly stood up for the launch of the NDIS in this place and in this budget—that is, ahead of time and fulfilling the initial expectations of those people who have campaigned so strongly for it.
We know that we come to this place managing the economy and managing the budget for working Australians. We manage the economy and the budget for people who may find it difficult to get access to dental care, which is why we have made a significant commitment of $500 million in this budget to ensure that we provide adequate responses to people who are on waiting lists around the country. We provide them with dental care, which will enable them to have a better quality of life and which will perhaps enable them to participate more fully in employment—we all know that dental difficulties present people with confidence issues and difficulties in securing and maintaining employment.
We know that we come to this place and make a commitment to working Australians when we manage the economy and when we manage the budget. We also know that those opposite, while they profess to support families and they have professed so many times to support business, come to this place and oppose measures that practically assist families and assist business. In this budget we have indicated our support for business, notwithstanding the opposition coming to this place and opposing the company tax cut that we have endeavoured to put in place to try to support people who they regard as members of their constituency. Although we have been unable to secure that given the opposition from both the Greens and the Liberal Party—an unusual alliance—we have endeavoured to provide small business with some relief in this budget through the loss carry-back arrangements.
We have been very clear in this budget about the way that we want to manage the economy and about the way that we want to manage the budget for ordinary people, people who are not in the fast lane of the mining boom. Unfortunately the opposition come here with not even a piecemeal plan for the economy and for the budget of this nation. In fact, when you look back at the budget reply from last year it was extraordinary and really quite commendable because it did two things that I thought were impossible: it neither looked at the budget, nor was it a reply to the budget. So once again the Leader of the Opposition did the unthinkable, the unimaginable, and came into this place and spouted off. In fact, a member of my family remarked that it was not so much a budget reply as an interpretive dance, something titled 'How the budget made Tony feel'. I suspect that we are going to see the same again this year with lack of substance and, frankly, a lack of interest in families, in business, in ordinary Australians and in anything and anyone other than mining magnates in this country. We have a very clear picture of the opposition on this and it will be revealed, I am sure, on Thursday night as we all expect that the priorities of the opposition will be revealed again in their budget reply and they will indicate exactly who they stand for in this country.
It is very important to reflect on the circumstances that we came to office to find because it really was a scorched earth situation on so many fronts. We came to office at a time when the Howard government had presided over 10 interest rate rises in a row. For people who have a $300,000 mortgage today, that means that practically you would be paying around $3,000 less per annum than you were under the years of the Howard. When John Howard left office and we came to office, tax as a proportion of GDP was running at 23.7 per cent. As a result of this government's efforts, in the next year it will be at 22.1 per cent. That amounts to $24 billion less tax that Australians are paying. We see an opposition come to this place and talk about themselves as being pro-business, pro-family and pro-company. They have opposed the company tax cut and they are opposing measures that we are putting in place to practically respond to the needs of families and the cost-of-living pressures for people who are sending their children to primary and secondary school. They come into this place and we find that, in fact, they have been a higher taxing government on the last occasion that they were on these benches than we have been. It is quite revealing to have a look at not only the priorities of this government in its budget, but also the legacy of those who left us with very little when we came to office. They left us with very little that means anything to Australian working people: very little in education, very little in housing very little in health. I will have a look at each of these in turn. We inherited an education system that was chronically underfunded when we came to office, particularly in trades training. It was an education system which had not benefited from meaningful, capital investment for decades. We responded. We have now completed the biggest program of capital investment in schools in Australia's history. It stands to the benefit of those who are in those schools and learning. It will stand to the benefit of future generations.
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms SMYTH: It has stood to the benefit of those workers who are engaged in construction of those projects and I do note members of the opposition laughing and interjecting throughout this. It reveals to me their sense of priority, both for workers and for participants in our education system—people who we hope, on this side, will go on to secure jobs and have a valuable future in the Australian economy and the Australian community. Unfortunately it is not a priority that is emphasised by those opposite.
We are building trade training centres; we have made a significant commitment to that and will continue to do so. We know that those opposite chronically underfunded the education system and that their proposals now are to strip money out of the education system, specifically in trade training.
Mr Craig Kelly: You closed the TAFE colleges!
Ms SMYTH: Those commitments have been publicly indicated. For the edification of those opposite who are interjecting, you may choose to have a look at that, maybe on Google. It seems you continue to object to our trade training centres and our other proposals just as you continue to object about our computers in schools arrangements. We inherited a health system which the Leader of the Opposition had de-funded and run into the ground.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): The member for Hughes will listen in silence.
Ms SMYTH: We faced a GP and nurses shortage and Australians know that we have responded by investing heavily in things like hospitals, GP superclinics and regional cancer centres. We have invested in the training of GPs, we have invested in the training of nurses and we have done so because we came to office at a time when all of these things had been undermined or left wanting by the Howard government and, in many instances, by the same people who are sitting on opposition benches today.
We inherited a housing and homelessness crisis when we came to office. We responded swiftly. We responded in one way with the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which is intended to increase the supply of affordable rental housing by 50,000 dwellings across the country by June 2014. That is us taking the lead, to give people affordable housing, making sure they do not have to worry about that, making sure that they can carry on productive lives, making sure that they are supported and their families are supported. Those are the kinds of financial priorities that we have and have had since coming to office. Those opposite may like to note that we have made a continued commitment. We have made a commitment of $3.6 billion in the 2013 budget alone, delivering record investments in affordable housing and in investments to address homelessness.
Once again, we carry on our commitment in managing the budget and managing the economy for ordinary Australians who have the kinds of needs in education, health and housing that Labor people know need to be responded to. It is the reason we have put together a budget against the backdrop of very difficult financial circumstances. They are circumstances where we have faced continuing global financial instability, which the opposition continues to wipe out of its memory, and where we have faced natural disasters around the country, which the opposition continues to wipe out of its memory. We have managed to maintain these objectives and make financial commitments that make a difference to the lives of ordinary Australians for whom we are managing the budget. I hope to see exactly for whom the opposition is managing the budget tomorrow night.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (16:55): I rise to add my contribution to the discussion on this matter of public importance—in particular, the failure of the government to properly manage the budget. This budget comes down to who you trust. As a nation, who do we best trust to run the economy? What we have been hearing is rhetoric from the government with reference to a delivered surplus or delivering a surplus. Guess what? The reality is, with reference to this delivered surplus, it is a budget with a forecast next year for a budget of $1.5 billion. They have not actually delivered a budget, but that is the rhetoric and the spin. The spin doctors of Labor are better than ours. They will have you believe, through some of the speakers, that they have actually delivered a budget. In the next couple of weeks we will get to see the effect of Labor's forecasting, with the real deficit they will produce.
I will take you back a little bit, to the 2010-11 MYEFO. In the next couple of weeks, the Labor government forecasted that they will be looking at a $12 billion deficit. In 2011-12, in the budget, they revised those figures to $22.6 billion. That was just 12 months ago. Then we had the MYEFO budget, six months ago, for the 2011-12 MYEFO. They revised their deficit figures again to $37 billion. Who knows what the deficit is going to look like? I would say it will be well in excess of $40 billion.
When you look at the government's capacity to accurately forecast a figure into the future, be it a surplus or whatever, you need to look at their credibility and track record of effectively being able to forecast. On those figures, when it comes to dealing with the deficit or potential surplus, they do not—they could not hit the side of a barn with a forecast. You will also hear the Labor government make the comment about having the fastest fiscal consolidation in history. With the four largest record deficits that this government has produced, I use the analogy that with the fiscal consolidation—for those of you who do not understand what it is, it is the capacity for a government to pay down debt—what you are going to see is similar to a contestant going on the Biggest Loser and whacking on 50 kilos before they go on the show, in order to rip it down a lot quicker.
The amount of spending that this government has undertaken, and which has left us with a massive debt, is going to assist the government when talking about its fiscal consolidation. But it comes back to trust. This budget is about trust. It is about whether or not the nation can trust this government. It is whether or not the people of my electorate can trust this government. It is the hardworking mums and dads who are suffering under the cost-of-living pressures. It is the business houses that are struggling under 26 new taxes. And the government says it is representing families and has given a budget for families. If you want to help families, get your hands out of their pockets—stop taxing them. There are 26 new taxes. This is unprecedented. Farmers are copping it as well, and I have a number of them in my electorate. Then the government goes on and asks us to trust them with their assumptions as to their forecast $1.5 billion surplus. When you make your assumptions on the top of a resources sector peak and commodity prices are starting to come off, you leave yourself vulnerable as a nation on trying to find the coin. If you go back and have a look at this government's track record, the way they will try to create the illusion of a surplus—which I really do not believe will happen—will be through a process of cooking the books.
But when it comes to trust, who can forget the Prime Minister of our nation, before the last election, staring down the barrel of a camera and saying, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'? Who can forget that? And when you are working out who you can trust, ask: can you trust this Prime Minister?
But do not let the Treasurer, who has put this budget up, get off scot-free, because within days of the Prime Minister making that comment, he was also asked about the carbon tax and his comment was:
We have made our position very clear. We have ruled it out.
So here you have a Treasurer, with a track record of not being able to be trusted, walking into this parliament, delivering a budget which talks about some hypothetical surplus in the future and trying to convince the nation that they are worth trusting. Well, I implore this nation to think very hard about who they trust when it comes to the management of the economy.
I want now to speak briefly about the off-book expenditure and the tricks that this government will use to try and create the illusion of a surplus. I will try to bring it back into a business context. One example of off-budget expenditure that the government are using is the NBN—around $36 billion—and another is the clean energy fund, which is about $10 billion—$2 billion a year over five years. So when you look at the way they are doing it, it would be the equivalent of someone in a family budget not eating—showing on their balance sheet that they did not eat for the whole year but that they bought a big wodge of groceries and stuck them in the pantry for the first half of the year and then saying that in the second half of the year they will go and do another grocery run. It is accounting trickery and it is deceit shown by this government.
The government talks about the cash rate and says that it was lower under Howard. I want to make the point as a business owner: I encourage Labor to go and talk to their businesses and go and talk to those people with mortgages. I would be surprised if you did not find out that no-one can borrow money at the cash rate. So while you make the point that the cash rate may have been lower under Howard, what we need to really focus on is the spread and what the variable rate is; and I can assure you that the variable rate under this government does not come anywhere near what we had it at under Howard.
As to spending ratio, as a percentage, to GDP instead of the tax to GDP: again, these are just tricks—
Mr Dreyfus: What—tax to GDP is a trick?
Mr BUCHHOLZ: No—spending as a ratio of percentage to the GDP instead of tax. The point I want to draw your attention to is your spending—spending to GDP.
The Assistant Treasurer recently made a comment on Sky that running the budget was not that dissimilar to running a household budget. With the full record deficits, could you imagine buying an $800,000 home, not making a payment on it for the first four years and then going in in the fifth year and saying, 'Listen, I would really like to service some of my debt, and I've got $2.60 to give you,' because basically that is what it comes back to as a percentage when you start looking at the $1.5 billion potential surplus that may eventuate in the future—to start drawing down some of these record deficits that this government is continuing to bash us around the head with.
I cannot lose the opportunity of speaking about the increase in the debt ceiling from $250 billion to $300 billion. Today we were advised in the House that, 'We just need to have a buffer.' Well, did we need to have a buffer when we took it from $150 billion to $200 billion? Did we need to have a buffer when we took it from $200 billion to $250 billion? But guess what? They are saying they are not going to draw down on that. They just need it there as a buffer. When you go and have a look at the budget forecast, they have actually taken a provision for the interest to service that debt into the future. In 2015 they are making provisions for the interest on that debt, which they try and tell you that they are not going to draw down on. Who can you trust? When it comes to this government, when will they learn that you cannot tax and legislate a nation into prosperity?
In closing, I just want to make a quick comment on the AAA credit rating. When Standard and Poor's and Moody's give credit rating assumptions for nations around the world, they give us a thing called a comparative rating. Why is it that, when we were in government and had money in the bank, and no debt, and now here we have a nation with unprecedented debt and very little capacity to service, with structural deficit—
Mr Dreyfus: This'll be good! You never got a AAA rating while you were in government!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Order! The member will be heard in silence.
Mr BUCHHOLZ: With comparative credit rating, as other nations around the world soften, by default, Australia ends up with a AAA credit rating. It is unprecedented, unthinkable, that this government would blow their own horn to say that they are managing the economy when they are producing record deficits. I will make the point that they are structural deficits.
In closing, I would also make this point: electricity prices under this government are up 66 per cent since Labor was elected, gas prices are up 39 per cent, food prices are up 11 per cent, petrol prices are up 11 per cent, education and health costs are up 25 per cent. My message to the government is: get your hands out of the pockets of mums and dads; get your hands out of the pockets of businesses and let them flourish. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The discussion is now concluded.
BILLS
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Disability Support Pension Participation Reforms) Bill 2012
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 2) 2012
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that the bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary, Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innnovation and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (17:07): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that the bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary, Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innnovation and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (17:08): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Schedule 4) Bill 2012
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that the bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary, Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innnovation and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (17:08): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 2012
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that the bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary, Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innnovation and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (17:09): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (17:11): I move:
That the question be now put.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The question is that the question be now put.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that this bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [17:15]
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms Burke)
The House divided. [17:23]
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms Burke)
Third Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (17:26): I seek leave to move that the bill be now read a third time.
Leave not granted.
Mr ALBANESE: I move the contingency motion as it appears on the Notice Paper:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the remaining stages being passed without delay.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The question is that the contingency motion be agreed to. I put the question.
Mr Pyne: I was moving to the dispatch box and the Deputy Speaker was looking down.
Mr ALBANESE: For the benefit of the Manager of Opposition Business, if you read the Notice Paper you would know that it must be moved without delay. I had moved it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I was waiting to see if there was a notice on the paper. There is a notice on the paper. It is to be moved without delay. We are going to the question. The question is that the motion moved by Mr Albanese be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I refer you to page 291 of House of Representatives Practice, which refers to the contingent notice and requires that the minister is to move that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay. The Leader of the House did not move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay. But, should he do so, it will require an absolute majority.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My understanding is that the provision of the Notice Paper provides for the action being taken at the moment.
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, the motion that he moved was not 'that so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended'. He simply stood up and said, 'I move the contingency motion,' which is not the correct—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion in the Notice Paper covers the concerns the member for Sturt is expressing.
In division—
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: from page 290 to page 291 of House of Representatives Practice you will find that there are four different contingency motions that could have been moved—which are on the Notice Paper, as you point out.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Sturt has the call and will be heard in silence.
Mr Pyne: There are four contingency motions on pages 290 and 291. The minister did not indicate which contingency motion he is moving.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am happy to state the motion to clarify, but the Notice Paper has provided, over many years, the contingency motion that is being put by the government at this point. I am of the opinion that the contingency motion being put covers the concerns raised by the member for Sturt.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Madam Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: it provides that there are four contingency motions, which are normally on the Notice Paper, that are put there by ministers for this sort of purpose although they are very rarely used. I think we need to check the Notice Paper to see if there are four on the Notice Paper. If so, he has not correctly moved the motion, because each one is different and is for a different purpose.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am happy to restate the question on the contingency motion, but the Notice Paper, as you rightly point out, is designed to cover this issue and I am of the belief that the Notice Paper will cover this issue.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Could the Deputy Speaker read out the motion that is on the Notice Paper.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am happy to. Sadly, I do not have a Notice Paper. When I get one, I am happy to read it.
Mr Andrews: Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a further point of order. The minister did not specify which of the contingency motions listed on pages 36 and 37 of the Notice Paper he was moving. Therefore, it is not possible for the parliament now to be voting on what is doubtful as to which of those contingency motions is being moved. Had the minister moved that he was moving contingency motion No. 1 or No. 2, or read the motion out, then you would be in a position—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Menzies, I understand the issue—
Mr Andrews: With the greatest respect, Deputy Speaker, you cannot guess—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Menzies is correct : I cannot guess. But, at the end of the day, the Notice Paper is correct. We can go through all this again and take another division if that is what you want, but the outcome will be the same.
An honourable member: You do not know that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I do not know that. I am saying that we can go through this all again if you would like to place it again , but, for the convenience of the House, I will read from page 37 of the Notice Paper :
Contingent on any bill being agreed to at the conclusion of the consideration in detail stage: Minister to move—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.
And that is what is before the chair. That is the question I have put and that is the vote that is being taken.
Mr Melham interjecting —
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Banks should know better.
The House divided. [17:32]
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms Burke)
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (17:39): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Reference
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (17:40): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed development and construction of housing for Defence members and families at Weston Creek, ACT.
Defence Housing Australia, DHA, proposes to develop an 8.3 hectare prime property in Weston Creek, Australian Capital Territory. Land is in reasonably short supply in Canberra, and the rezoning of land to residential in the Greater Molonglo area, of which Weston Creek is a part, has opened up an opportunity for DHA to secure land and develop new housing which meets Defence standards in Canberra.
The site is located approximately two kilometres from the Australian Defence College, within 12 kilometres of the Canberra CBD and has quick access to the Tuggeranong Parkway. The proposal is for DHA to develop the site for residential construction, consistent with the approved Weston Creek Estate Development Plan. Following the site development, the proposal envisages construction of 50 dwellings for the Department of Defence over a 12-month period. The remaining sites will be sold for complementary development.
The development of the site involves the provision of infrastructure of 73 single-dwelling lots, of which 50 will be used by Defence families, plus three multi-unit sites which are expected to yield up to 47 dwellings. The first stage will provide this infrastructure and involves the design and construction of roads, stormwater drainage, sewer, water, natural gas, telecommunications and electricity. Once the infrastructure is completed, construction of the 50 dwellings for Defence will be undertaken.
The project costs of $39 million, inclusive of GST but excluding cost of land, will be met by DHA and recovered through the sale of surplus lots and the sale and leaseback program. Subject to parliamentary approval, sewer construction is expected to commence in January 2013, with dwellings construction to be completed by December 2014. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
Reference
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (17:42): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: development and construction of housing for Defence members and their families at Lindfield, New South Wales.
Defence Housing Australia, DHA, proposes to develop a 13.8 hectare prime property abutting Lane Cove National Park in Lindfield, New South Wales. The site is about 3.5 kilometres from the Chatswood commercial centre and 14 kilometres from the Sydney CBD.
This site has been used for tertiary education purposes since its development by the New South Wales government in 1969 for a teachers college. When colleges of advanced education were amalgamated into universities it was transferred to the University of Technology Sydney, UTS, and became known as UTS Kuring-Gai. DHA purchased the land by public tender from UTS in March 2011. The DHA development is adjacent to UTS Kuring-Gai and will complement the area.
This proposal will involve road and civil infrastructure development, followed by the construction of 345 dwellings for an integrated residential community for the Department of Defence and other families. Following site development, construction will be undertaken to deliver 345 dwellings in five precincts. The site will provide housing for families of personnel posted to Fleet Base East, to major Defence establishments in the Sydney CBD and to other units and formations scattered around the Greater Sydney area. The site's close proximity to Chatswood, the Macquarie Centre and Macquarie Park also provides Defence families with opportunities for employment, entertainment and shopping.
The project costs of $202 million, inclusive of GST and escalation but excluding cost of land, will be met by DHA and recovered through the sale of surplus lots and the DHA sale and leaseback program. Subject to parliamentary approval, civil construction is expected to commence in November 2012, with dwelling construction to be completed by November 2016. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
Reference
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (17:45): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Integrated fit-out of new leased premises for the Australian Taxation Office at the site known as 913 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill, Victoria.
The Australian Tax Office—ATO—proposes to undertake an integrated fit-out of new leased premises at 913 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill, Victoria. The ATO has a substantial presence in the Box Hill region and is currently located in a building at 990 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill, which has a lease in place that expires on 30 June 2014. It is expected that relocation into a new building will provide the ATO with considerable advantages in terms of building design, operational performance and operating cost efficiencies, and long-term viability through improvement in building infrastructure. The estimated out-turn cost of the proposal is $36 million plus GST. The developer will commence building works on site in June 2012, with demolition and excavation for the basement areas being the first tasks. Subject to parliamentary approval, the proposed integrated fit-out works are scheduled to start in May 2013 and be completed by 1 April 2014. The ATO is expected to commence occupancy of the building in April 2014. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Report
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (17:46): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012, together with the minutes of proceedings.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mr CHAMPION: by leave—This bill was introduced on 16 February 2012 by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and the unanimous decision of the committee is to recommend that this legislation be passed. I note that the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee is also looking at this legislation via an inquiry.
This bill proposes amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. Specifically, it allows for the introduction of body scanners at Australia's international airports. The aim of this is to enhance Australia's aviation security. This enhancement has been brought about due to the security risk identified by the so-called 'underwear bomber' who attempted to detonate an explosive on a flight between Amsterdam and Detroit in 2009. That device was not metallic and so therefore did not trigger an alarm. It is useful to note that in the last week or so another plot to use a similar device on an American airline has been foiled. The proposal is that body scanners be introduced to deal with this threat. That is the heart of the bill, alongside other security measures. This bill also removes the opt-out provision. Currently, passengers can decide to opt out of a body scan and have an alternative screening, which is a frisk or a pat down. It removes that option and people will no longer have the opportunity to opt out. It is worth noting that there was a seven-week trial of this technology in both Sydney and Melbourne airports and some 23,000 scans were conducted.
The issues identified by this inquiry were the nature of the technology used, any health impacts of such technology, security effectiveness, the removal of the opt-out provisions and the privacy implications. The technology that will be used in Australian airports is active millimetre waves, which are emitted by an L-3 ProVision device. The scan has a two-second duration, which causes less exposure to radiation than the average mobile phone call. Other types of body scanning, including backscatter X-ray technology, will not be used in Australian airports, even though they are used elsewhere in the world. According to expert advice from the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, there is no evidence of any health risk to the public from body scanners, including to those persons with implanted medical devices. Indeed, the committee heard that many people with those devices will opt to use these scanners rather than the metal ones because they do not detect metal hips and the like.
With regard to security effectiveness, there were some submissions that said that this might not be the most effective way of screening passengers. The committee accepted the advice of the department, and the privacy impact assessment, that the only alternative method of detecting these sorts of explosive devices was an enhanced frisk search—and one can imagine that would have to be pretty enhanced to detect devices! These scanners offer the greatest chance of detection because they can detect and pinpoint the location of metallic and non-metallic items within or underneath a person's clothing.
In regard to privacy implications, and these are obviously of concern to the public, it is important for the public to understand these scans are not like a virtual strip-search. They will not generate body-scanned images of individuals; rather, they produce a generic, gender-neutral figure that simply identifies where there might be items that may be explosives. They do not have a dramatic impact on anybody's privacy. Most importantly, images will not be stored, transmitted or printed.
I conclude by saying the committee decided it was not its job to go through the inquiry processes that led to this legislation being introduced to the House. There was a long period of discussion and, as I said, there were trials in Sydney and Melbourne airports. It is not our job to replicate that process. We simply looked at some of the concerns raised and considered them, and have no problem recommending that this bill be passed.
Economics Committee
Report
Ms OWENS ( Parramatta ) ( 17:52 ): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics I present the committee's report entitled Advisory Report on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012, incorporating supplementary remarks together with the minutes of proceedings. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Ms OWENS: by leave—The Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012 continues the government's superannuation reforms and consolidates aspects of the tax system. The passage of this bill will: simplify superannuation consolidation; give individuals relief from the excess contributions tax; increase the information about superannuation contributions on payslips; pause the indexation of the superannuation concessional cap; and provide the ATO with the discretion to withhold high risk tax refunds.
Schedules 1 and 2 represent technical amendments which ensure that the goods and services tax is not paid on certain supplies and activities. Schedule 1 ensures that a supply made by a healthcare provider to an insurer, government entity or compulsory third party scheme operator is GST-free. Schedule 2 restores the policy intent that the non-commercial activities of government related entities funded through appropriations are not subject to GST.
Schedule 3 pauses indexation of the superannuation concessional cap in 2013-14. This will lead to fiscal savings of approximately half a billion dollars over the forward estimates. This temporary measure will strengthen Australia's fiscal position.
Schedule 4 will protect individuals from being subject to the excess contributions tax. Individuals who inadvertently exceed the superannuation contributions cap by up to $10,000 will be given the option of withdrawing the money from super and including it as personal income for tax purposes. Through this schedule the government is providing targeted relief to taxpayers.
Schedule 5 will allow the ATO to provide super funds with details necessary to find members' lost accounts. Currently, there are five million lost superannuation accounts worth $20 billion. Members will provide their consent to the ATO prior to the disclosure of account details. This measure will help people find and consolidate their super accounts.
Schedule 6 allows the government to make regulations which improve employees understanding of their superannuation. Employees will receive clear information on their payslips about their superannuation. The regulation initially requires employers to provide the amount and expected date of a super payment, with the longer-term aim of providing the actual date of payment. The committee has suggested that it would be more efficient to have a single commencement date which would provide for the reporting of actual contributions. Therefore, the committee has concluded that, if the industry could meet the 1 July 2013 deadline for introducing the reporting of actual contributions, then the government should cease plans for interim reporting. However, if the industry cannot meet the proposed 1 July 2013 deadline for actual reporting, then, in this case, interim measures should be considered.
The remainder of the bill deals with other tax matters. Schedule 7 provides the ATO with the discretion to withhold and review tax refunds for as long as is reasonable. The committee believes allowing the ATO to withhold potentially high-risk refunds provides the appropriate balance between taxpayers' needs and revenue protection.
On behalf of the committee I thank the organisations that assisted the committee during the inquiry through submissions or by participating in the hearings in Canberra. I also thank my colleagues on the committee for their contribution to the report. I commend the report to the House.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (17:56): by leave—Opposition members of the committee made supplementary remarks to the report with respect to the Advisory Report on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012. I rise to speak in respect to a number of schedules of the bill. In many respects the schedules to the bill are technical in nature. There were, however, for coalition members, and in particular for Liberal members on this committee, specific concerns that we sought to highlight through our supplementary remarks to the report. In particular I would like to focus on them. Primarily among them was schedule 3, which sees the government pause the indexation of the concessional superannuation contributions cap.
In our supplementary comments we make the point that, as a consequence of the pausing of the concessional superannuation contributions cap, the government will effectively be charging an extra $485 million in tax. The policy rationale put forward by the Labor government and by Treasury officials as to why this was happening was 'to improve the government's fiscal position'. It is worth noting, as Liberal members of the committee made very clear and as the evidence from committee members made very clear, the reason this was necessary to improve the government's fiscal position is that the government's fiscal position has deteriorated so much.
That is the consequence of $485 million being slugged from Australians, who are building to provide for their own retirement, in order to prop up this government. That is why Liberal members of the committee went to some length to highlight the evidence which made it crystal clear that, had there not been such a rapid deterioration of the government's fiscal position, there would not be a need to raise this $485 million in tax. The point that is made explicitly in the document, in the report that the committee has put forward and in the supplementary remarks from Liberal members, is that had we not—and this is but one example—seen this government waste $1 billion on Building the Education Revolution there would be no need for this measure. The net position would have been a $515 million improvement for the Commonwealth's position. That is just one very straightforward example that Liberal members of the committee made in the report.
In addition to that, the Liberal members of the committee also dealt with schedule 4, the excess contributions tax refund. We looked at the testimony that was put forward by witnesses with respect to the government's rationale for the $10,000 limit and the requirement that there is effectively only one opportunity to breach the cap without penalty. It was the view of Liberal members of the committee that the rationale for this remained opaque and that there should in fact be from a policy perspective additional opportunities provided. It is very clear based on the evidence that came from witnesses that there is opportunity, as a consequence of the reporting periods, for members to inadvertently breach the cap without any intent. That was another point that Liberal members of the committee made in our supplementary remarks. I will confine my comments to those two schedules. We did not oppose the passage of the bill; however, we felt that with the improvements that were outlined in the supplementary remarks overall the bill could have been improved.
Appropriations and Administration Committee
Report
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (18:00): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration, I present the committee's report entitled ReportNo. 3: Budget Estimates 2012-2013 for the Department of the House of Representatives.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Ms MARINO: by leave—I am pleased to present to the House the third report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration entitled Budget estimates 2012-2013 for the Department of the House of Representatives.
The report addresses the requirement under standing order 222A for the committee to provide to the Speaker for presentation to the House the amounts for inclusion in the appropriation bills for the Department of the House of Representatives.
The total appropriation to be approved by the parliament for the Department of the House of Representatives in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2012-13 is $22.691 million compared to $23.253 million in 2011-12.
The committee is pleased to see that additional funding has been provided to support the new statutory role for the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in overseeing the Parliamentary Budget Office; however, funding for a number of other support services has not been provided.
The committee notes with concern that the impact of the increased efficiency dividend will see that in the longer term the department's budgetary position will become more difficult. The committee will be assessing the position following further advice. I commend the report to the House.
BILLS
Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (18:02): This tax law amendment bill was introduced into this place on 21 March by the Assistant Treasurer. I will say at the outset that the opposition will not be opposing this bill. It has five schedules. I will very briefly run through each of them as the minister did during his introduction back in March.
The first schedule disallows a deduction against rebatable benefits from 1 July 2012. This relates to a 2010 High Court case that held that study expenses incurred in gaining student Youth Allowance were able to be deducted from assessable income. In summary, that case changed what had been the previous law and practice prior to that decision. It was the position not only of this government but of previous governments, including the Howard government, that study expenses not related to employment were not tax deductible. Following the High Court decision, the government announced in the 2011-12 budget that it would disallow deductions from 1 July 2012, although it would allow them for 2010-11 and prior income years in line with the court decision. This change restores the tax position to what it was prior to that High Court decision or what the understanding of it was.
The second schedule relates to limited trading stock exemptions for superannuation funds and removes the trading stock exemption to the capital gains tax primary code rule for certain assets of a complying super fund. The Assistant Treasurer outlined this schedule in some detail in his introductory speech.
The third schedule is a tax exemption for ex gratia payments to New Zealand non-protected special category visa holders. Essentially, it exempts income tax ex gratia payments to New Zealand non-protected special category visa holders paid in relation to the floods in January of this year. This schedule is necessary for consistent treatment with other previous natural disasters and payments in this regard and is non-controversial.
Schedule 4 enacts a decision that the government announced, I am pretty sure, in the MYEFO with respect to the phasing out of the dependent spouse tax offset.
The final schedule, as is always the way with these tax laws amendment bills, is a series of miscellaneous changes to address what are always termed 'minor technical deficiencies'. In this case, it is in the MRRT legislation, we are told, and a series of other drafting issues that are necessary.
As I indicated at the outset, we will not be opposing the bill. Of course, as we have pointed out, the MRRT bills as passed were legislatively flawed—and the government knew it when they put them forward—and schedule 5 deals with very technical issues. Each of the four unrelated schedules relate to fairly technical tax issues and, as is almost always the case, the coalition comes to these debates wanting to see improvements in the technical aspects of the tax legislation, and this is no different.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (18:07): Tax reform is continuous because it is essential that the government of the day ensures that our taxation system is fit for the purpose. Included in those purposes is regulating and encouraging activity, raising revenue and, in certain circumstances, discouraging certain activity, such as smoking cigarettes and the like. The measures contained within this series of bills go to each of those points. In most respects, they appear to have the support of all members of this House—and that is welcomed, because there have been instances where legislation intended to reform the tax system has not enjoyed support on all sides of this House—and it is probably why the Treasurer was able to stand up in his budget speech last night and deliver a budget which is going to return the budget to surplus in 2012-13 and at the same time provide additional funds for much needed social purposes. This is in complete contrast with those on the other side, who have a gaping $70 billion black hole in their budget. The reason there is a $70 billion black hole in their budget is that they are not willing to do the hard yards—in particular when it comes to putting in place responsible savings measures.
There are five schedules in the Tax Law Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012; the first of which has the intention of putting in place amendments which will restore the intended operation of the GST law. This was made necessary because of an adverse decision in the Department of Infrastructure and Transport case. It will ensure that the supply by a healthcare provider paid for by an insurer or a government entity is treated as GST-free supply, where the related supply from the healthcare provider to an individual is GST-free health supply. The amendments avoid increased compliance costs arising for taxpayers in the multiparty arrangements involving suppliers of health related goods and services, and have been supported by industry.
The second schedule also deals with GST treatment of appropriations. The amendments again restore the policy intent of GST law following another adverse decision in 2009 of the full Federal Court in the TT-Line case. The amendments will ensure that payments under a government appropriation relating to the non-commercial activity of government related entities are not subject to GST. This was the understanding of the law prior to the TT-Line decision. The amendments will ensure that there is no increase in compliance or cash-flow costs for government entities and that the Commonwealth, states and territories will not need to change their budgetary processes.
Schedule 3 of the bill is a savings measure. Schedule 3 goes to the superannuation concessional contributions cap. It attempts to put back the indexation that would otherwise have applied for the concessional contributions cap. It was expected that the indexation would increase the concessional contributions cap from $25,000 to $35,000 per annum in the year 2013-14. The pause in indexation essentially means that the cap will not now increase until 2014-15. As the higher concessional contributions cap for individuals aged 50 and over and the non-concessional contribution cap only move with changes in the general contributions cap, these contributions caps will not change in 2013-14. They are expected to generate savings in the order of $485 million over the forward estimates period. It is an important savings measure and again one that enables us to deliver a budget which will return to surplus.
The fourth schedule goes to the situation where taxpayers either accidentally or inadvertently make contributions in excess of the concessional contributions, thereby attracting a greater tax upon those contributions. The measures in this bill will enable the tax office to refund—on the request of the taxpayer, without attracting any more than the marginal tax that would otherwise apply to those superannuation contributions—those excess superannuation contributions as if they had not been paid as superannuation and are just taken as any normal form of income.
The fifth and sixth schedules go to the disclosure of superannuation information. The sixth schedule in particular is important because it places an obligation on employers to advise when the superannuation guarantee contributions are going to be made to their employees. This is important. It works hand-in-hand with the Fair Work legislation because it sends a trigger to the individual employee enabling them to check that their superannuation contributions have been made.
The ATO reports that the vast majority of employers are paying in accordance with their obligations their superannuation contributions on behalf of their employees. But the 2010-11 annual report reported that there were in excess of 17,000 individual employee complaints in relation to suspected non-payment of superannuation entitlements. Nearly $269 million in unpaid superannuation entitlements was collected and deposited into employee superannuation accounts as a result of these complaints and the investigations by the tax office, and there were around $140 million in penalties. Whilst it may only be one per cent of the employer population that is not complying with their obligations, the impact on employees is profound, and that early signal to the employee, which enables them to check if they fear their superannuation contributions are not being made, saves a lot of heartache for the employee. It ensures that their entitlements are paid in full and on time and alerts the tax office, as well as the employee, to other issues that may be going on inside the firm. I am very pleased that each of these schedules is enjoying the bipartisan support of all members in this place—as indeed they should. I commend this legislation to the House.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (18:16): It is my pleasure tonight to rise on the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012. This bill is an important part of the government's economic reforms—a set of economic reforms that are laying the foundation for Australia's prosperity. It is a set of reforms that recognise we are here not just to help in solving immediate problems but also to put in place long-term solutions. I see the Assistant Treasurer in the chair here, and I would note in particular the aged care reforms, a set of reforms that are long overdue and that recognise that for too long the Howard government put bandaids on an aged care system that really needed root and branch reform. I commend him for his work on aged care reform.
In the area of tax laws, this Labor government is committed to improving the tax schedule. We put in place the Henry review—a comprehensive review in the spirit of the 1975 Asprey review—which really looked right across the tax code at reforms that were needed. One of those reforms was the abolition of the dependent spouse tax offset, and this bill continues that. In an earlier bill, this parliament chose to abolish the dependent spouse tax offset, except for taxpayers with a spouse born on or before 1972. Now that date is taken back to 1952. That is an appropriate change, recognising the change in our society since the dependent spouse tax offset was put in place. It recognises that a dependent spouse tax offset was a measure that might have been appropriate in a day when most men worked and most women were homemakers, but is not appropriate in modern Australia.
In the same spirit, we are continuing to modernise a range of different tax measures. Today this House has been debating the abolition of the education tax refund and its replacement with the schoolkids bonus. That again was an updating of the tax and benefit system, and it was an updating that recognised that the education tax refund was not being claimed by one million of the 1.3 million Australians who were eligible for it. Those opposite in the debate today were arguing that the one million out of 1.3 million Australians who were not claiming the tax refund in full somehow did not want the money. Well, they would have been the first to have met an Australian who did not want $410 for a primary school child and $820 for a secondary school child. What is more likely, and the reason that we reformed that particular provision, was that Australians were simply too time poor and busy to be able to keep the receipts necessary to make those claims. One of my staff related to me a conversation she had had with friends of hers who had three young children and who were simply unaware of the education tax refund. They were on family tax benefit part A: they were doing it tough and they needed the money, but they did not know about the provision and they were not getting those benefits.
As John Maynard Keynes once said: 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?' We on this side of the House looked at the facts and they were incontrovertible. One million out of 1.3 million Australians were not claiming the education tax refund. It just was not good enough, and we replaced it with the schoolkids bonus—a measure which goes to all Australians. Those opposite are concerned that the schoolkids bonus will not be spent on education expenses, but it is very clear when you look at Australian families that they are spending substantial amounts of money on their children's education.
It is unusual to see those opposite arguing that money going to families should be tied. If you like, it is a conservative notion, not a liberal notion. If you are a small 'l' liberal, then you believe in putting money in the hands of families. You trust them to do with that money what is best. If you are a conservative you do not trust families. It is the spirit of conservatism that gave rise in the United States to the food stamp system, a notion that you cannot just give poor people money, you have to give them tied money—money that is tied to spending on food. We in Australia have not had things like food stamps because we have trusted low-income Australians to do the right thing with money that is given to them by the government. That is the same spirit that embodies the schoolkids bonus. It is a spirit that says if you put money in the hands of parents of school-aged children they will do the right thing with that money, but it is not necessary to tie that money to educational expenditure to get a better outcome. Those opposite, taking the conservative path, distrust low- and middle-income Australians to do the right thing by their kids. We on this side of the House are taking the small 'l' liberal approach, the market-based approach—as on so many issues—by taking the view that Australians will do the right thing with money that is placed in their hands. We have seen the clear contrasts in this budget process. We have seen the strong recognition from the IMF of Australia's fiscal position and a broad recognition across economic commentators that Labor has a lower tax-to-GDP ratio than the Howard government did—that it is Labor that delivered real spending cuts. It is a real contrast, in that sense, with what happened in the Howard government under mining boom mark 1. The Howard government never had to face the tough decisions. It saw the money roll in and it just rolled it out the door.
It is Labor which has made tough decisions about what we are not going to continue funding. The government is about values, priorities and making choices for things you are not going to do. That is a great Labor tradition, with finance ministers Peter Walsh, Lindsay Tanner and now Penny Wong. What it chooses not to do marks out a party as much as what it chooses to do. But in this budget we are choosing to invest in critical areas of the economy—in skills and training, in a national broadband network, in spreading the benefits of the mining boom, in putting a price on carbon and in returning the budget to surplus in 2012-13.
Those opposite are like deer in the headlights. That is probably a little unfair to deer. Let us think about fish out of water. They are flip-flopping like fish out of water. We saw this in the famous budget reply of 2010. The Leader of the Opposition said that he would identify savings, and then the member for North Sydney said that he would identify savings and then the member for Goldstein was going to do it. Finally, the fish flopped here and there and was just left with an adviser at the back of the room shaking his head.
We saw it with the $70 billion black hole. The member for Goldstein and the member for North Sydney went to-and-fro on talk show after talk show on whether or not the $70 billion black hole was a real figure. Sometimes they said: 'Yes, it's our figure. It's a big target to meet.' Sometimes they said, 'That's a Labor hoax.' They were flip-flopping like a fish out of water. We have seen it in the question of entitlements. When we look to means-test benefits, such as family tax benefit part B, the baby bonus and the private health insurance rebate, those opposite say we are playing the politics of envy. They say that we are engaging in class warfare when we put in place means tests at $150,000. The shadow Treasurer went overseas and said, 'We'd like to have a Hong Kong style welfare state.' That is a pretty substantial cut to benefits, one would think. Then the Leader of the Opposition came out immediately and said: 'Oh, no. The coalition won't be cutting benefits.' They are flip-flopping like fish out of water.
When it comes to economic policy there is really only one member of their frontbench who does not look like a fish out of water and that is the member for Wentworth. He delivered a very thoughtful speech at a Melbourne institute event I attended here in Canberra. He spoke about his views on a sovereign wealth fund. I disagree with his conclusion that Australia needs a sovereign wealth fund but he put, quite provocatively, the argument that under the Howard government spending had sometimes got out of control, and argued that this could be the case for other governments. I can imagine his colleagues afterwards, saying: 'What were you doing up there on the surface? Surely you should be down here with us, down here swimming in the warm waters of populism.'
We know what their view is on costings. We have had very clear statements that the coalition are now going to eschew the parliamentary budget office—the same parliamentary budget office that Senator Joyce and the member for Higgins said they would back. They backed off that because they realised how deep their budget crater is. They realised the problem they got themselves into last time, when they went to the election and were later found to have an $11 billion black hole in their costings.
In response to Treasury finding the $11 billion black hole we saw the member for Mackellar and the member for Goldstein traducing the reputation of Ken Henry, a great Australian who was appointed Secretary of the Treasury by Peter Costello. Their response to Ken Henry finding that the coalition costings did not add up was a bit like the rich kid whose maths teacher finds a mistake in his homework—he immediately goes to the principal and asks for the maths teacher to be fired. They were in here attacking Ken Henry and attacking the Department of the Treasury for what they said was politicised work. It was nothing of the sort. The Department of the Treasury engaged in the same costings process for the coalition that it has engaged in for other political parties.
The coalition have now moved to an audit commission. That audit commission is simply a phrase to disguise the fact that their costings will not be audited this time. Why will they not be audited? It is because when they went to the last election they discovered that audit has a legal meaning. If you want an accounting firm to audit your costings, it must afterwards say that they have been audited. I spoke yesterday in this place about the shadow Treasurer's attempts to suggest that there was such a thing as a small 'a' audit and that somehow the coalition could engage in a small 'a' audit rather than a large 'A' audit. Unfortunately, there is no such thing.
That is where we find ourselves, with the coalition, at the moment: all promises to special interests but an inability to make the hard decisions that government requires. Government does require often unpopular decisions to be made. Certainly we would not be claiming that every decision made by this government has been greeted with universal acclaim by the Australian people. But that is true of all the major economic reforms in Australian history. Great reform is not invariably greeted with cheering in the streets. It requires steady argumentation. It requires engaging the Australian people in a long conversation about why reforms are necessary.
You can imagine the Leader of the Opposition had he been leader when Australia was to float the dollar. He would have immediately engaged in fearmongering about foreign speculators. We know those opposite have engaged in fearmongering on foreigners. We see that with foreign ownership debates. 'What are foreign currency speculators doing determining the level of our dollar?' the Leader of the Opposition might have then said. In fact, we know he opposed the floating of the dollar as late as a decade after the dollar had been floated. But we now know that that was an enormously important economic reform. It acted like a shock absorber for the Australian economy. When international shocks come along, a floating exchange rate is enormously important to the prosperity of Australians.
Can you imagine if the Leader of the Opposition had been leader when Australia put in place substantial tariff cuts—tariff cuts that halved the price of a pair of kids' school shoes, tariff cuts that puts thousands of dollars in the pockets of Australian households? They were tariff cuts which could, all too easily, have been demonised by a populist looking for short-term gain. You can imagine what the Leader of the Opposition would have done— (Time expired)
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (18:31): I rise to speak, very quickly, in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012. This bill is another step forward in the Gillard government's mission to reform the tax system and make it fairer for all Australians. It brings in 2011-12 budget measures aimed at fostering a prosperous and even-handed taxation system—an improved system that supports all Australians.
Australian Labor governments continue to lead the way. We have led our country through global economic uncertainty to today, where it stands as a powerhouse economy on the world stage, the envy of Europe and the OECD, as acknowledged by the leader opposite—when he is in Europe.
We have ensured our fiscal position remains strong despite the global financial crisis. Unlike many other nations, we have successfully avoided recession and prevented serious job losses. This alone is a record of which to be proud. But not only did we safeguard our budget position and Australian jobs; we oversaw outstanding employment growth and a record investment pipeline of $456 billion, as I heard from the Treasurer today, despite the gloom and doom predictions of those opposite of what would be happening in the minerals sector when we brought in the MRRT.
More than 750,000 jobs have been created since the Labor government was first elected. Obviously there is more to be done. It is a patchy economy; we know that. While others pause we push ahead in the interests of the Australian people, and that is what this legislation is all about.
A key Australian value is the concept of a fair go. This bill moves to correct inequity in the tax system created by the High Court decision in the Commissioner of Taxation v Anstis case. It simply is not fair that taxpayers with the same level of income will have different deduction entitlements depending on whether they receive a taxable government assistance payment. The Anstis decision violates the basic principle that expenses incurred in generating income that is effectively tax-free should not then be deductible—that is, no money into the public purse should prohibit you from taking money out of the public purse. Overturning the High Court decision is the right thing to do in order to make the system fairer for everybody.
The Gillard government is committed to helping Australian students on income support, but this must be done efficiently and effectively. Providing assistance via the transfer system is more targeted and timely. The university students of Australia have not been forgotten by Labor governments. I stress that. After a decade of underinvestment by the Howard government, Australian universities were in a dire state when Labor came to power in 2007. That is why we increased funding to universities by more than 50 per cent.
Griffith University is one of Australia's most innovative tertiary institutions and its Nathan campus is located right in my electorate; I drive past it every day when I go to work. I have spoken of Griffith University many times in this chamber, and I am very proud of its numerous achievements. Many students at Griffith are already well supported by the Gillard government's measures. For example, we provide start-up scholarships worth $2,100 to students receiving youth allowance, Austudy and Abstudy living allowance. We have lowered the youth allowance age of independence and we are helping many first-year students who must live away from home to study with relocation scholarships worth up to $4,000. This assistance, plus $1,000 in subsequent years, will go a long way to making sure that Moreton students who can no longer live at home get the best start to their tertiary education. I thank the Gillard government for its focus on nurturing tomorrow's leaders.
Another function of this bill is to remove the ability of complying superannuation entities to treat certain assets—primarily shares, units in a trust and land—as trading stock. This measure will reduce present ambiguity around the application of the trading stock provisions.
Another aspect of this bill which speaks to the fundamental principle of fairness in Australia is tax exemptions for payments to individuals impacted in recent flooding in New South Wales and also in my home state of Queensland. The Gillard government is making ex gratia payments to New Zealand special category visa holders who have been impacted by the 2012 floods exempt from income tax. This is in line with the payments' counterparts, the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payments, which are also exempt. We made these payments exempt for eligible New Zealand residents during the summer of sorrow in 2010-11, and again for those struck by Cyclone Yasi in February last year. New Zealanders living in western Queensland need our help to cope with the financial hardship wrought by the 2012 floodwaters just like their Australian neighbours.
Natural disasters have rocked Queensland in recent times but have served to show the world the compassion and resilience that exists in Australian communities. This spirit was evident in the faces of many people in my own electorate who were hit hard by the 2011 floods. I welcome all measures to help everyone affected by this most recent natural disaster, as my community is only just starting to get back on its feet.
On a different note, but still on the theme of doing the right thing, this bill extends the phasing out of a truly outdated tax offset, the dependent spouse tax offset. This relic of the tax system is better placed in a black-and-white television show than in modern-day Australia. The dependent spouse tax offset was introduced at a time when a husband was expected to maintain a spouse, even without children, and there were limited employment opportunities for women. Considering that the leader of our country and our head of state are women, this is definitely no longer the case in modern Australia. Our action to phase out this offset is based on a recommendation from the Australia's Future Tax System Review. Actions such as this are vital as we update the tax and transfer system to better align with community expectations. It is important that all Australians who can work do so. However, we know it can be unreasonable for a spouse who has been out of the workforce for a very long time to be expected to find work. That is why we are keeping the current system for spouses who were born before 1 July 1952. In the 2011-12 budget the Gillard government introduced the carer spouse and invalid spouse tax offset to ensure that taxpayers who maintain a spouse who is unable to work because of their invalidity or carer obligations are not affected by these long overdue changes. We have also taken the limited employment opportunities in regional areas into account, making sure that taxpayers eligible for the zone tax offset will not have their entitlement affected.
Finally, this bill makes miscellaneous amendments to the taxation laws. These changes are part of our commitment to look after the tax system. Such changes are made from time to time to correct technical or drafting issues, remove anomalies and correct unintended outcomes in the tax legislation; in this case the changes address minor technical issues which have been identified with the minerals resource rent tax legislation. Such bills have been aimed at delivering practical measures to support individuals, families and small businesses across Australia. We must continue to improve the quality of our systems, continually evaluating processes to ensure they suit the aims of modern Australia. This bill is a fine example of the Gillard government's commitment and I commend it to the House.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (18:38): I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. Schedule 1 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012 implements the government's 2011-12 budget measure to disallow deductions against government assistance payments. The measure reinstates the principle that stood prior to the High Court decision, in the Commissioner of Taxation v Anstis, that taxpayers should not be able to claim a deduction for expenses they incur in qualifying for government assistance income. Disallowing deductions against rebateable benefits recognises that these benefits are effectively tax free because of the operation of the beneficiary tax offset.
This measure is important as it restores equity in the tax system so that individuals with the same level of income pay the same amount of tax. The measure is also important as it provides certainty to taxpayers on the scope of eligible deductions. The government provides targeted and timely assistance to the students who need it the most through the transfer system. Measures this government has introduced include start-up scholarships for new students, relocation scholarships for students who need to live away from home to study and a reduction in the age of independence for youth allowance to 22 from 1 January 2012.
Schedule 2 amends the income tax law to clarify the tax treatment of certain assets owned by a complying superannuation entity, including shares, units in a trust and land. These changes remove the ability of complying superannuation entities to treat these assets as trading stock, which is consistent with the general industry practice of treating shares on capital account.
Schedule 3 provides an exemption for ex gratia payments made to certain New Zealand visa holders affected by the recent floods in New South Wales and Queensland. Exempting these payments from income tax maximises the amount of payments that individuals receive and is consistent with the tax exemption provided to the equivalent payments to Australians, which is the Australian government disaster recovery payment. It is also consistent with the exemption provided for ex gratia payments to certain New Zealanders affected by the 2010-11 floods and Cyclone Yasi.
Schedule 4 of this bill implements the government's 2011-12 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook measure to phase out the dependent spouse tax offset for dependent spouses born on or after 1 July 1952. The dependent spouse tax offset needs to be reformed to allow for Australia's modern and growing economy. This reform is an important measure to reduce the disincentive for dependent spouses without children to undertake paid employment. Taxpayers with a dependent spouse aged 60 or over on 1 July 2012 will not be affected by this measure, nor will dependent spouses with children, or taxpayers whose dependent spouse is a carer, an invalid or permanently unable to work. Taxpayers eligible for the zone, overseas forces or overseas civilian tax offsets are also not affected by this measure.
Schedule 5 rectifies some minor technical and machinery errors which have been identified in the taxation laws. The government periodically progresses miscellaneous amendments like these as part of its care and maintenance of the taxation laws. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (18:42): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Migration Legislation Amendment (Student Visas) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (18:42): Australia's student visa industry is of enormous importance to Australia's national economy and it enjoys the strong support of members on this side of the House, as it has for many years. At its peak in 2009 there were more than 491,000 international students enrolled in courses in Australia, generating $18.6 billion and making it the nation's third largest export industry, behind coal and iron ore. At the start of this financial year more than half of the 332,700 international students in Australia were studying at universities, while a third were on vocational training visas studying diploma courses. Our student visa population is made up of students from more than 197 countries. Students from China and India, our top source countries, make up about a third of the students here on visas. The majority of students choose to study mainly in New South Wales, my home state, or in Victoria.
In the decade leading to 2009-10 the student visa program grew at an average of 15 per cent per year. Australia's share of the international student market increased from 5.1 per cent in 2000 to seven per cent in 2009, making Australia the largest provider of international education services in 2009 behind the United States, at 18 per cent, and the United Kingdom, at 10 per cent. A recent paper on the student visa industry last year by the Bureau of Statistics observed that, considering the relative size of Australia's population, such high representation in the international student market was indicative of the ongoing importance of this sector to Australia, both economically and for communities. We certainly do punch above our weight when it comes to competing in the space of international education. Following a series of government measures between 2008 and 2011, along with other factors such as the strong dollar, more competition for students overseas and the damage done to Australia's reputation following attacks on Indian students, enrolments fell by between 10 and 30 per cent. A large number of colleges that were aimed at providing courses purely for migration purposes collapsed as a result.
In 2009-10 student visa applications dropped by 19 per cent, making that the first year of negative growth in total applications. The negative growth continued in 2010-11, when international education activity contributed $16 billion to our economy and there were just 141,600 applications lodged offshore—a drop of 20 per cent on the previous program year.
According to the ABS, declines in student visa applications have been most prominent in the VET sector, despite 150 per cent growth in that sector between 2006-07 and 2008-09. The number of student visa holders in Australia dropped by 13 per cent between June 2010 and June 2011.
Given the significant contribution the international student sector makes to our economy, and not only to that economy but also to our society more broadly, protecting the future success of this industry and enabling it to remain competitive is, and should be, an ongoing priority for all members of this place. It is therefore extremely concerning that the Auditor-General found last year that management of this critical industry and of the visa program was not sufficiently robust to effectively meet the challenges involved in achieving the government's objective for the student visa program of balancing industry growth and program integrity. The ANAO found that more than 350,000 non-compliance notices issued to students had not been acted upon, prompting fears that the backlog could obscure serious cases of non-compliance. The Auditor-General's report in May 2011 also found the department was unable to effectively monitor the 20-hour work restriction on student visas or to enforce compliance, because of the lack of an appropriate regulatory regime.
In June 2011 Michael Knight, a former Labor minister in New South Wales, presented his review of the student visa program to the government with 41 recommendations, which included measures to introduce a more targeted, strategic analysis of non-compliance. On 22 September last year, Ministers Evans and Bowen announced the government's response and accepted all of the 41 recommendations made in that report. On 22 March this year, this bill was introduced into the House to enact recommendation 24—that is, to remove the blanket automatic cancellation regime currently in place for student visa holders who breach the academic progress or attendance requirement, and replace it with a more targeted strategic analysis of non-compliance.
While the government has agreed to adopt the recommendations of the Knight review—and we believe this will go some way towards addressing these issues in relation to Australian universities—the coalition awaits with interest a second report in mid-2012 to tackle these issues across the international education sector more broadly—something that has so far been ignored. It is necessary to ensure that Australia's reputation in the provision of excellence in education is not compromised by linking those outcomes with migration outcomes. We are in the business of selling world-class education; we are not in the business of selling education visas as a pathway to permanent residence.
We will look carefully at the legislative and regulatory changes when they are introduced into parliament to ensure that the proposed changes address the issues and do not create more unintended consequences. With that in mind, the coalition does not, in principle, oppose this bill as we believe that, on the face of it, the bill seeks to streamline and better target resources towards migration fraud and non-compliance in the student visa sector. This is important because the Australian public has to have confidence in the integrity of our immigration program. When they lose that confidence, then any opportunities for us to continue to advance the immigration program—which has been what has brought luck to the lucky country in so many respects—are lost.
We already know of the serious and significant failures of the government in other areas of the immigration program, particularly in relation to the illegal entry of boats to Australia and the chaos that has been created there, which I will not dwell on this evening. Australians have lost confidence in this government's ability to run an immigration program effectively, securely and successfully. In this area it is important that we ensure integrity measures are in place. The coalition will always support measures that improve the integrity of the immigration program.
Further clarification is going to be required as to the thresholds, the definitions and the trigger points that would accompany the new compliance regime. In particular, we need to be clear about the resource requirements that this new regime will demand. The coalition awaits with great interest the final report from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee that is due on 18 June this year.
This bill will serve as an eraser to the embarrassing administrative backlog of the government's own creation, wiping out the administrative backlog of over 350,000 non-compliance notices created by Labor's mismanagement of this scheme. If the department could not handle these mandatory notices, it is hard to see how it will find the resources to manage a discretionary regime with the kind of integrity that Australian taxpayers and Australian citizens would expect, given the pressures that are placed upon the Department of Immigration and Citizenship as a result of the government's policy failures, particularly on our borders. The rationale for introducing a mandatory cancellation regime was to ensure that basic threshold requirements, such as actually attending an educational institution and passing a course of study, were met as an absolute requirement of holding a student visa—no exceptions. After all, if you are not attending your classes and you are not passing your course, you obviously have no need of a student visa and one has to wonder what your purpose is in being here in the first place.
At the end of 2010, the Auditor-General found there were more than 250,000 students who had failed to comply with one or the other of these requirements and had been issued with non-compliance notices. None of these notices had been dealt with. In the first three months of 2011 alone, more than 30,000 new non-compliance notices were issued every month. The Knight review found that around 35 per cent of these—over one-third—fell into the high risk categories. The fact that this important compliance regime fell apart under this government is not surprising. Enforcing compliance and upholding the integrity and robustness of Australia's immigration program is, though, in the vanguard of what the coalition believes should be the approach to immigration, including Australia's student visa program.
I note with some concern that last week there were reports of serious allegations of fraud and non-compliance in other areas of the migration program. They concerned applications coming through our post in Islamabad. As yet there has been no explanation from the government. There has been no announcement of how many cases have been referred to the Australian Federal Police, of how many prosecutions are pending, of how many visas have been potentially compromised or of how many investigations have been launched into cases referred to the Migration Review Tribunal which could have been connected to what those whistleblowers in-post were suggesting might have been fraudulent activity. All of these matters have gone completely unaddressed despite the fact that, in the same report on 7.30, the department's own spokesperson acknowledged that there had been a problem—and there was a problem. All of these matters remain unaddressed and dismissed. These matters of integrity are incredibly important, and I accept that the government is with this bill seeking to address them. But there will be questions about how effective the measures in the bill are, and, as we go through the Senate committee process, we hope to learn more about how they are going to be addressed.
So the coalition will be watching very closely to ensure that this new regime is properly resourced to deliver compliance and integrity in our student visa program. It is important that everyone seeking to game this system be identified, that their visas be cancelled and that they be promptly removed. The Senate committee report should go some way to providing clarification on the new regime, the practice of which will also need to be scrutinised.
I note that the government has as usual failed to manage its legislative program in this place in such a way as to ensure that the Senate's report is completed and made available to the parliament prior to its being brought before this House for a decision. I hoped that we would have had the opportunity for the measures in the bill to be looked at further before it is brought to a decision and to make any amendments that may be required as a result of the interrogation of the bill. In good faith the coalition is not going to oppose this bill in this place. It will come under scrutiny in the other place, and we will consider the matter in closer detail once there has been the opportunity for a review. I hope that, once the review is concluded, any concerns—if indeed there are any—can be resolved.
I go now to some of the more technical points about the bill. The bill seeks to amend two items of legislation: the Migration Act and the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000. This legislation sets out the consequences of non-compliance for student visa holders who fail to meet mandatory course attendance and participation requirements. Currently, students who fail to meet either of these are, as I noted before, subject to the automatic cancellation of their visa.
Under the ESOS Act, education providers are required to monitor course progress and attendance of international students and must at minimum intervene where an international student has failed more than 50 per cent of the units attempted in any one study period or is at risk of failing to attend between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of total course contact hours. Where achievement or attendance has not been satisfactory, the education provider must report the 8202 breach to the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.
Currently, under section 137J of the Migration Act, the automatic cancellation of a student visa is triggered when the student receives a notice of breach under section 20 of the ESOS Act. The student then has 28 days to comply with the notice or to attend a departmental office to make submissions about the breach and circumstances leading to the breach; otherwise, the visa is cancelled and the student is excluded from applying for further visas for up to three years. Any family-dependent visa holders would also have their visas cancelled.
This blanket non-compliance regime would be replaced under this bill by a system in which information conveyed by student course variations is used as an input into a more targeted and strategic analysis of non-compliance, and for the assessment of the individual circumstances of student visa holders. This bill would prevent registered providers from sending those notices under section 20 to a student visa holder who breaches a prescribed condition of their visa, effectively repealing the automatic cancellation under the Migration Act. This bill proposes that, rather than blanket cancellation rules being applied, cases of non-compliance be examined in the context of the minister's discretionary powers under section 116 of the Migration Act to allow infringements to be investigated and prioritised according to risk, taking into account individual or extenuating circumstances.
What is important here from our perspective is that we know what the threshold tests are going to be and that we understand how they are going to screen, identify, target and then act upon those cases of non-compliance that warrant action. This is a difficult task. I welcome the more risk-oriented approach rather than the blanket approach. We do not want to create a bureaucratic merry-go-round and a paper trail and a paper chase in this area simply for the sake of it; we need to target.
I think that these areas will require very close attention when dealing with the genuine and very real cases of potential fraud and of non-compliance within our immigration program. What is necessary is a clear understanding of the resources, of the processes, of the intentions, of the transparency and of the opportunity to further ensure that we are targeting areas of risk. Whether it is student visas, work visas, holiday visas, protection visas—any element of our visa program—it is absolutely critical that we uphold the integrity of our program at every single stage of the process because when you fail to uphold the integrity of either the construction of the program or its administration you are at great risk of allowing this program to fall victim to a lack of confidence from the Australian community.
The coalition is committed to the integrity of our immigration program. We believe strongly in our immigration program. We want to see it succeed and to see it welcomed, appreciated and supported in the Australian community. In that spirit we welcome the measures that are put forward in this bill and we look forward to further scrutiny of them in the other place.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (18:59): Order! It being so close to 7 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Budget
Ms LEY (Farrer) (18:59): It is the day after the federal budget—a budget which sees this government talking the talk of fiscal consolidation but walking the walk of reckless spending and of injecting money into their latest vote-buying exercise, whatever it takes. What a walk of shame this is. When I read through the details of this budget I am in despair and disappointment about its effect on my electorate of Farrer. The budget is dominated completely by the carbon tax—even though it was not really mentioned by the Treasurer in his speech. It is, without doubt, the elephant in the room.
On 6 July last year, I extended a very warm welcome to the Prime Minister to come to my electorate to talk to my constituents face to face about her government's proposed carbon tax. My letter was penned in this House 309 days ago. I have had no reply; the invitation is still open for acceptance. The carbon tax is the overriding concern for families and individual members of my electorate, and there is a good reason. They know that it will push up the prices of everything—especially electricity, groceries and health care. If you want an idea of how this carbon tax will hit them—one you might not immediately think of—there is no better example than my home town of Albury, where the local council has just factored in the impact of the new carbon tax. The irony is that in the very first year Albury City Council expects to have a zero carbon tax liability. Despite there being apparently no impact, Albury has just drafted its budget for 2012-13 and it will bump up rates by over $150 a year per household. The mayor reported that the increases are needed to meet future carbon tax liabilities and increasing electricity and fuel costs. There will be an eight per cent increase in our electricity charges alone due to the carbon tax. The council has also calculated that the extra cost to recover for future local waste collection will be an extra $35 per annum per household for domestic waste. From day one, year one, my constituents are being hit, and that is before they even leave their house.
I was in Broken Hill at the fabulous Agfair last weekend, meeting the people of the far west of New South Wales. It was with them in mind that I looked through the budget last night and I found one thing—one item of any specific note for my electorate, which covers a third of rural New South Wales. The University of Sydney Department of Rural Health in Broken Hill has received money in the federal budget for part of a regional health package: $4.7 million. It was a project that I and many others supported and we are grateful. The Rural Doctors Association has welcomed the investment, with a big 'but'; the chief executive said that the budget does not do enough to ensure that rural communities have enough medical staff. The infrastructure spending might be still in place—just—but the actual incentives to get medical allied doctors et cetera to the bush is not there. On ABC Radio today, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, Bernie Ripoll, said that the government is focused on keeping doctors in rural jobs. But why does this government get it wrong time and again? That was the program that was cut back in last night's budget.
Over the next four years, $5.454 billion is being stripped from Defence. This cut, of around 10 per cent, is the biggest single reduction in Defence investment since the end of the Korean War—but in entirely different strategic circumstances. I have Bandiana Army Base in the electorate of Indi, close to me in Albury-Wodonga. There is Kapooka in the electorate of Riverina, and the member for Riverina is concerned about that. There is also Mulwala, which is where propellant is manufactured for explosives and bullets that are used overseas. I will be watching very closely to make sure that none of these facilities is affected by this budget.
I also place on record my great concern for the veterans not only from the Korean and Vietnam wars but also from Iraq, Afghanistan and our peacekeeping forces, who need care and attention from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The government had better not be cutting one single dollar from looking after our returned service men and women.
There is disappointing news from the Murray-Darling Basin in my electorate, and I will talk about that at another time. Essentially, the government is allocating over $1 billion to water buybacks post 2015— (Time expired)
Australian Marine Engineers
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (19:04): I have been approached by constituents who are concerned about the standards of training for Australian marine engineers and proposals to change the current standards. I place on the record the following salient facts about the profession of marine engineering and the importance of maintaining the current standards of training.
Marine engineers are the officers employed on ships and other maritime vessels who are responsible for the operation and maintenance of the ship's machinery. This includes the main propulsion machinery with all its control systems and the steering gear. It also includes all of the ancillary machinery that provides electrical power for the vessel, the fuel storage and transfer system, and fire-fighting systems.
The standards of training and certification of marine engineers are covered by Marine Orders, which are regulations under the Navigation Act. These Marine Orders, or MOs, are issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority—AMSA. Marine Orders Part 3, or MO3, is the Marine Order dealing with qualifications of deck officers and ratings, as well as of marine engineers.
Concerns have been raised with me about the reduction of standards that has been proposed in a draft MO3 circulated by AMSA in late 2011. One effect of the proposed changes is that the training time for marine engineers will be reduced from the current 36 months to 12 months—that is, from three years to one year. There are serious concerns that this period is inadequate to produce a highly skilled technical officer with the understanding and expertise to deal with the complex systems of modern vessels.
One Australian shipping operator has suggested that the current minimum period should actually be increased to 42 months. It should be noted that the minimum period was four years not that long ago. This minimum training period includes theory training in college, workshop service ashore and qualifying sea service on a ship. Whilst the current Australian standard of 36 months of education for an engineer cadet could well need to be reviewed, a reduction to 12 months is not the answer. All stakeholders should meet to discuss and agree on what should constitute an AMSA approved marine engineer cadetship and the outcome should be inserted in the Marine Order. Furthermore, any reduction to the amount of sea service required to obtain a specific certificate of competency would have the flow-on effect of lowering the standard of Australian certification.
Another major concern regarding the draft MO3 that has been brought to my attention is that entry into the marine engineering training courses would be open to persons who do not possess the prerequisites currently required for new entrants. These prerequisites are either HSC-level passes in English, mathematics and physics or relevant trade qualifications. In the area of theoretical knowledge, of particular importance to marine engineers are, of course, the subjects of mathematics and science, including electrotechnology and perhaps steam propulsion systems.
A third concern that has come to my attention is the proposed deletion of the current mandatory requirement to demonstrate practical proficiency by successfully completing an oral examination conducted by a qualified examiner of marine engineers. Examiners employed by AMSA cannot conduct practical examinations onboard ships and so the oral examination is the crucial final step in the training process to ensure the standards of training are maintained. Deletion of the oral examination would be a retrograde step, as it could allow a reduction of the training process to end in the granting of a certificate of competency to a person who may not actually be competent as a marine engineer in any practical sense. Therefore, there should be no weakening of the current regulation that a certificate will not be issued until the applicant has passed an oral examination conducted by an AMSA examiner.
The constituents who have approached me want to see that good maritime standards are maintained. In particular, they are concerned about the standards of training for Australian marine engineers and proposals to reduce current standards. I, too, share their concerns.
The Nationals
Mr CROOK (O'Connor) (19:09): I was elected to federal parliament as the Nationals member for O'Connor, with a clear mandate to deliver a better deal for my electorate and a better deal for all of regional Western Australia. Throughout the 2010 federal election campaign, I was critical of both major parties for their unwillingness to deliver back to regional Western Australia. With a tightly contested federal election campaign likely to deliver a hung parliament, it became apparent that there was more to gain for my electorate and regional WA by remaining outside of the federal National Party room and sitting on the crossbench. I campaigned strongly on this platform.
While at the time this was a difficult decision, it was a decision I made with the full support of the Western Australian National Party and a decision based on the best interests of my electorate of O'Connor—that being a member of the crossbench in a hung parliament provided more opportunities to deliver. I stand by that decision, and my influential position on the crossbench allowed me to deliver some strong outcomes for my electorate in the first 18 months of parliament.
In the first few months of being elected I was able to secure $1.2 million in funding from the federal government for the Albany Community Care Respite Centre. Other successes have included more than $6 million in federal government funding for the Albany Centenary of Anzac Alliance and $2 million towards planning for the PortLink intermodal transport hub in Kalgoorlie. These have been positive outcomes for my electorate.
I have always used my position on the crossbench to vote in the best interests of regional Western Australia. One of my most controversial votes in parliament was my decision to support the federal government's flood levy. It attracted some criticism, however; the negotiations included for the flood levy to be extended to the flood damaged Carnarvon, and I ensured that no Carnarvon resident who was affected by flooding would be made to pay the flood levy. The flood levy was also used to lend assistance to the communities of Laverton, Leonora, Menzies, Nungarin, and the Shire of Ngaanyatjarraku, following heavy storms and flooding in February last year, through the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. Without the flood levy, this assistance would not have been made available for these communities and the state government and local residents would have been left to carry this burden without federal government support.
It was my crucial vote that saw the plain packaging legislation for cigarettes passed unamended. It was also my position that ultimately prevented the Labor government from introducing into the parliament its Malaysia solution for the processing of asylum seekers. In the face of these results, I absolutely stand by my decision to sit on the crossbench over the past 18 months.
The nature of politics is dynamic and recently we have seen the make-up of the federal parliament change. With these changes I believe the crossbench is no longer the best place to advocate for regional Western Australia. Last night's federal budget was disappointing for the people of regional WA and further vindicated my decision to leave the crossbench. I want to lend my voice to the campaign against the Labor government and allow regional Western Australia to be better represented in any alternative government that arises as a result of the next federal election.
The federal Nationals and the Nationals WA, while maintaining some differences, also share some key similarities. It was to the team of Warren Truss and Tony Abbott that I gave my confidence and support following the 2010 federal election. Around 90 per cent of my votes in this parliament have aligned with the federal Nationals. We have stood side by side on key issues affecting regional Western Australia, such as opposing the carbon tax and the mining tax. I thank them and the Liberals for their support of my amendments to the mining tax. In terms of policy, we both believe more investment is needed in regional Australia.
I have made the decision, with the unanimous support of the Nationals WA State Council, to campaign for a better deal for regional WA inside the federal Nationals party room. I certainly will not be taking a step back on my election commitment to reform GST funding and create a fairer and more transparent GST system for all states and territories. I also will not be taking a step backwards on gaining support for a federal regional development policy on par with the Western Australian state government's Royalties for Regions program.
I thank the Nationals team, including Nationals WA Leader Brendon Grylls, federal leader Warren Truss, Federal Director Scott Mitchell and Federal President John Tanner for their commitment towards delivering a better outcome for regional Western Australia. I also thank the members of the National Party for their very warm welcome into their party room, and members of the Liberal Party who have supported my move.
I also take this opportunity to thank Prime Minister Julia Gillard for her willingness to engage with me on issues important to my electorate. Along with the Prime Minister, Ministers Warren Snowden, Anthony Albanese, Kate Ellis and Jenny Macklin have also visited O'Connor over the past 18 months, and I thank each of them for their interest and commitment to my electorate. I also thank my crossbench colleagues for taking part in this journey with me; I appreciate your friendship and support to me as a first-time member of parliament. I thank you all. I look forward to continuing to represent O'Connor and regional Western Australia with the federal National Party. (Time expired)
Ipswich Motorway
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (19:14): To paraphrase the words of the Queensland Times newspaper of the 26 April 2012, the Ipswich Motorway pain is over at last. This federal Labor government committed $1.95 billion for the Dinmore to Goodna section of the Ipswich Motorway. The Dinmore to Goodna section was delivered by the Origin Alliance, comprising the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Abigroup Contractors, Fulton Hogan, Seymour Whyte, SMEC Australia and Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia.
The motorway has been the bane of the lives of the people who live in the western corridor between Ipswich and Brisbane. I parked on the Ipswich Motorway with a bumper sticker given out freely and readily and applied to cars in the western corridor. But the completion of the Dinmore to Goodna section of the Ipswich Motorway enhances opportunities for commerce and creates a faster and easier commute between Ipswich and Brisbane, the capital of Queensland. The new motorway provides a level of safety for people, and they deserve it. About 95,000 cars a day travel along the Dinmore to Goodna section of the Ipswich Motorway—up from 70,000 just five years ago. The volumes are expected to grow as Ipswich is one of the fastest-growing regions in Australia. The new motorway has a capacity of 180,000 cars a day, which is expected to be reached in 2032. It can then be made four lanes. I am not quite sure that I will see it, but I look forward to that day.
The Ipswich mayor, Paul Pisasale—I congratulate him on his recent victory in the council elections—was, and is, thrilled with the new road. He said recently:
The motorway is looking fantastic and it generates a new level of respect for the city of Ipswich. Every day the road becomes more bearable for the people of Ipswich.
I understand Councillor Pisasale, speaking at an RDA function at the University of Queensland's Ipswich campus, said:
How good is the Ipswich Motorway? You watch Ipswich come ahead now. I have 10 meetings in the next few weeks with large companies wanting to move here.
It is not just the three lanes each way—the new service roads have made a big difference: the northern service road from Brisbane Street in Ipswich Central to McEwan Street, Riverview; the southern service road connecting Law Street, Redbank, to Aberdare Street, Dinmore; the Smiths Road extension connecting Mine Street, Redbank, to Smiths Road, Goodna, which assists not only the people of Goodna but also the people of Redbank. It also assists in the commerce between St Ives shopping centre in Goodna and Redbank Plaza. We are talking about approximately 17 bridges being demolished and 31 new ones being built and approximately 70 new retaining walls; we have widened the motorway from four lanes to six, with provision for eight lanes in the future. There have been major upgrades to intersections; new and improved pedestrian and cycle paths; new road and pedestrian bridges and new motorway crossings connections; new local connection roads, as I said, and remediation works on the abandoned mines.
After years of neglect and three federal election campaigns where this road was opposed by the coalition, including a policy of stopping construction on the Ipswich Motorway at the last election, I can truly say to the people of the western corridor, 'This federal Labor government has delivered an important nation-building infrastructure project for the benefit of people in South-East Queensland.' If the coalition had won the 2007 federal election, it would have been left dangerous, congested and untouched.
I want to thank my good friend Mr Ripoll, the member for Oxley. He and I have campaigned on this issue for year after year, fighting valiantly against those opposite—the forces of conservatism who believe in inaction, inertia and idleness when it comes to road construction in Queensland. Those opposite opposed every cent we have put into nation-building funding across the Warrego Highway and throughout the roads in Queensland—$8.5 billion of federal government road, rail and port funding in Queensland—double what the Howard government spent in is time in office. I thank Gerald 'Mango' Murphy—that is his real name, everyone knows him as that—the project manager from the Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland; Cindy Thomas, the community engagement person from Origin Alliance; and all the workers from Origin Alliance for their overwhelming community response to and engagement with this issue. I look forward to next week when Minister Albanese, who has been a great champion of this road, meets with me and the member for Oxley to officially open this road for the benefit of the people of the western corridor. Congratulations to all involved in the construction of this wonderful facility.
Carbon Pricing
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (19:19): The Labor Party's carbon tax is a direct attack on Australian households and businesses. It is a new tax on every power point in every house and business, and we have now had confirmation that it will rip millions of dollars out of a number of businesses in the south-west of Western Australia. The release of the incomplete liable entities list last week confirmed the bad news for some key service providers and employers. The list of companies operating in the Forrest electorate that are included in the government's carbon tax hit list include: Alcoa, Alinta, Worsley Alumina, the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas pipeline, Verve Energy, Synergy, Iluca, Millenium Inorganic Chemicals, Simcoa, the Griffin Coal Mining Company now owned by Lanco Infratech, Water Corporation, Wesfarmers Kleenheat Gas, Wespine and Yancoal Australia Ltd. All of these companies will have to review their operations and will have no choice but to work out how, in tough economic times, they will either absorb or pass on the costs. The power companies Verve Energy and Synergy will have to put up their prices so we will all pay more for our electricity. Verve faces a $165 million tax hit on its Collie operations alone. Alinta will have to pay the carbon tax, so we can all expect to pay more for gas. Added to this, the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline will also be hit. They will have to pass on this cost by raising the price of gas supply to Alinta, who will in turn pass it on to consumers—so gas prices will take a double carbon tax hit. This is just one simple example of the compounding effects of the carbon tax.
The Water Corporation will pass on this new tax to its customers, so a lot of the south-west's residents will be paying more for water and sewerage. A lot of private companies will not be able to pass on the cost of the tax because they sell into competitive international markets, but their market competitors here and overseas will not have to pay this tax. What a gift that is to Australia's market competitors! Alcoa, Worsley, Iluca, Millenium, Simcoa and Wespine will have to absorb the cost of this new tax. It will impact on their bottom lines, undermine any expansion plans and could threaten jobs into the future.
Simcoa, for example, faces a tax hit of $2.5 million every year, before any industry assistance it might get, and if they continue their expansion they could be hit for every furnace they add. They will be hit. This will be on top of a minimum 10 per cent increase in power costs and increased gas costs which will also cost the company millions. Whilst these companies may get some compensation in the way of free permits, they still face major carbon costs, and a cost that will increase from $25 to $29 a tonne in three years. Coal suppliers to our power stations are expected to be hit by the carbon tax, but they may not be able to recoup the cost due to long-term, set contracts. This will have a negative impact on an industry beset with problems.
Of course, companies not on the list should take no comfort. An incompetent government has, naturally, produced an incomplete list. Labor's legislation means any company producing over 25,000 tonnes of emissions is required to measure their emissions and pay the tax. But many companies do not yet know what they emit. There are hundreds of Australian companies that may have emissions of that level who will now be looking and spending thousands of dollars working out what their emissions actually are so that they can then spend millions paying Labor's tax.
I want to warn companies, particularly those in my electorate, that the government is not going to advise you if you are liable to pay the carbon tax. So, do not take any comfort from that incomplete list that you saw a week ago. The government has placed the responsibility and the liability firmly onto you as a company and you as part of the industry.
There will be others around the south-west, other than those on the comprehensive list that I mentioned, who do not know yet whether they will have to pay this new Labor government carbon tax. Businesses face significant penalties if they get it wrong. It is another cost, it is another risk and it is another major burden for businesses to carry. As I said, there are a number of businesses and entities in the south-west that will be impacted on. Look at the millions and millions of dollars that this government is going to rip out of the south-west of Western Australia. More from the south-west! It comes from a Labor Party giving us an incomplete list, threatening industries, hitting on households, and it is no doubt an incompetent government. (Time expired)
Health Services
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (19:24): I rise today to talk about the importance of good healthcare services. I am proud to be part of a government that has done so much to invest in better healthcare services. Of course, we still need to keep up the effort and we need to keep investing. However, I am pleased to be part of a government that turned around years of neglect under the previous Howard government. During the break from parliament in April I was able to go and see firsthand some great funded initiatives that are impacting on and improving the lives of people in my electorate.
On 12 April I was able to attend the opening of one of BreastScreen Australia's upgrades, namely their clinic in Marion in South Australia. The federal government made a commitment of $120 million to upgrade breast screen equipment to digital mammography, which has funded the upgrade of the Marion clinic and also has funded an upgrade of technology in Noarlunga. Both of these clinics service my electorate. This technology is truly a breakthrough technology. It allows for early detection of breast cancer.
The minister and I got to speak with staff firsthand to see how this will impact. With the improved screening capacity that will come from this funding, 30 per cent more South Australians will have access to this service. That will mean 23,000 more South Australian women will have access by 2015. This is critical in terms of early detection and in ensuring that we save the lives of many, many women, including those that come from my electorate.
In addition to what we saw with the improved capacity, this new technology is much more comfortable for patients, and this was something that I got to hear about firsthand from the staff, the radiographers and the patients at the clinic. The patients said that it is much more comfortable to have the screens, and the staff said that it is much easier for them to manipulate the equipment. This is a good investment and is something that is really improving lives and, hopefully, will save many lives in my electorate.
In addition I was also able to attend the opening of the Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer. This is a collaborative initiative, and I would like to congratulate the many, many people who have worked for many years to put this centre together. This is something that will be at the apex of cancer research and treatment in Australia. It is, once again, an example of South Australia batting well above its weight. One of the key things of the centre is to bring research, treatment, clinicians and a whole range of people together to translate what they know into improved clinical outcomes. That is really critical. The federal government contributed $10 million to the centre, and money was also raised from private organisations, from members of the community and from the state government. There was real ownership over it. I think it will have some wonderful benefits for cancer sufferers right around Australia.
I would like to make the point that it is not just the official health professionals that make a difference—they do a great job—but it is also volunteers in cancer support groups that make a real contribution to helping the people suffering from cancer and helping their families. In particular I mention the Fleurieu Cancer Network's Cancer Friendship Support Group. This group is instrumental in connecting people suffering from cancer, along with their families and friends, to provide support and understanding and to share experiences. This can be so important as people go through cancer treatment, cancer therapy and eventually come out the other end. Indeed, cancer does change some people's lives forever, even when they have recovered. This group fosters and improves community participation and advocates as well. I take this opportunity to thank two people in particular who have been the backbone of this group—Artie and Julie Ferguson. They have volunteered many hours of their time helping people in our local community in the City of Onkaparinga.
These are just some examples. I could not get to the diabetes program that I visited, which I did want to also talk about. That program is, once again, making a difference to people's lives in South Australia. There are many initiatives funded by this federal government, and I am pleased that we are making a difference to health care in our community. (Time expired)
Flinders Electorate: Sorrento Post Office
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (19:30): I wish to raise the issue of the Sorrento Post Office and postal services in Sorrento, Victoria within my electorate of Flinders. There are two concerns that the residents of Sorrento have about the current circumstances of the post office. There is a proposal that the post office be closed down and that it be replaced by a licensed post office. There is also great concern about the heritage status of this building.
To his credit the CEO of Australia Post, Ahmed Fahour, spoke with me recently in response to concerns that we had raised on behalf of local constituents. I am pleased to be able to convey not just to the House but in particular to the people of Flinders and the residents of Sorrento that he made a rock-solid guarantee—and I utterly believe this—that the postal services will stay in Sorrento and that the hours will be extended, assuming that an appropriate local provider can be found. There will be a tender process, but the rock-solid guarantee I have from the CEO of Australia Post, who has personally engaged with this issue in response to our representations, is that Sorrento postal services will be not just maintained but extended. Nevertheless, my first preference is that of the majority of people in Sorrento. It is to keep the old post office. But, given that this tender process is underway, I think it is critical to have reassurance that the services will be retained and ideally extended, potentially by as many as 10, 15 or even 20 hours a week, with the potential for Saturday and Sunday services for the first time.
Beyond the question of postal services is the issue of protection of the heritage building. Again, I thank Ahmed Fahour for his commitment that the building is heritage listed and that Australia Post will ensure that it will be used—whether they sell it or whether they lease it—for purposes compatible with that heritage listing. There is, however, one development of extreme concern that has nothing to do with Australia Post. It has everything to do with bad faith by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Mr Tony Burke, I would assert. In recent weeks we have discovered buried away in the minutiae of the minister's departmental website a decision by the minister in May last year to quietly remove some of the post office's heritage protection. It is very curious that the minister quietly sought to remove some of the Sorrento Post Office's heritage protection.
I remind the House what is special about this post office building. It has been in operation since 1905. It is one of the oldest post offices in Australia and I am advised it is the oldest Commonwealth era post office in Victoria still under Commonwealth ownership, control and continuing usage. It is also a beautiful building. So to lose these heritage values would be of deep concern. It is my understanding that, were the building sold, it would automatically lose the remaining Commonwealth heritage list status and therefore it would potentially lose all of its heritage protection.
I call on the minister to undo the damage he has done and to commence the process of listing the Sorrento Post Office on the National Heritage List. If it was good enough for the Commonwealth Heritage List, it should be good enough for the National Heritage List. I will be writing to the minister for the environment and heritage to list the Sorrento Post Office on the National Heritage List. That way we can be assured that, whatever its use, it will be done in a way that is compatible with the great historic capacities and nature of this building. It is deeply disappointing that, in the dark of night under the cover of a back page buried in the internet, the minister has stripped away heritage protection. He should apologise and he should address this damage. (Time expired)
Beef Industry
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (19:35): Tonight I am going to raise three issues of concern to local beef producers, as they are indeed of concern to other producers across Australia. These are the current role and structure of the Cattle Council of Australia and of Meat and Livestock Australia, and the whole structure of the meat industry; their ability to adequately represent all producers, particularly the smaller ones; and the state of the meat processing industry, notably the decline of abattoirs across Australia.
The current structure of the CCA and the MLA has to change so that they can provide better representation in the other activities they carry out for those they represent and make the process of selecting members of those bodies democratic. It is a 1998 model and is not serving the current needs, markets, trends and the producers. The bigger the herd, the bigger the vote is how it works now.
Those times are past and a compelling case for change has been made by small producers and increasingly even larger ones who are dissatisfied. A local farmer has put it this way: he says a democratic election process and a requirement to have beef products accurately described in a simple and understandable manner at a consumer level would be an excellent start to improving the industry's situation.
The number of bodies has been expressed as a problem as well. In the words of small and large producers, local and across Australia, there are just too many peak bodies falling over themselves and not providing cogent and clear advice to government on the needs of the beef industry. There is the MLA, RMAC, ALFA, CCA, AMPC, AMIC, LESC and all the state based organisations and so on.
There is more. Luke Bowen, the head of the NTCA, was reported in the Rural Press following their April meeting as saying:
The system isn't providing a singular voice to represent us at a national level.
I can attest to that, having seen it close up. I saw that with the live export issue. I am told that last year, when RMAC chair, Ross Keane, was asked about the advice RMAC had given to the minister over live exports, he was said to have answered: 'We could not reach a consensus, so we didn't provide any advice.' That is just not an acceptable place to be. NTCA President, Rohan Sullivan, is quoted as saying that the lack of a single beef industry voice was a 'glaring deficiency' in efforts to deal with the live export matter. I also note that at a meeting of the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association in April this year over 300 beef producers backed a proposal to use RMAC funds to review beef industry representation. I am not sure whether funds could be used in these particular ways, but it would be good to have it industry led. So far a few major players are saying it needs to be done but there is the lack of a single voice, leading all bodies to say who will do it and how it will be done.
On this topic I note that the CCA have had meetings amongst themselves and with others who are concerned about the structure and the industry, notably the Australian Meat Producers Group. CCA have put up a proposed model but it violates the guidelines for levies and would require some of the producers' levies to go to the representational work of the CCA. So it has two strikes against it. It cannot be taken seriously by the levy payers or by government. The levy payers are not going to let them hive off their levy money in that way. I recognise that there are problems with funding for all of the organisations. The CCA have also suggested that four of the 12-member board be directly elected by levy payers. Yes, it is a start, but it is not good enough. It ignores the MLA's structure and operations.
The third point is the silence around the decline in the meat-processing industry—namely, the closure of abattoirs around Australia. In 1979-80 there were 475 meat-processing abattoirs. By 1996 there were 160 fewer abattoirs, down to 315. In New South Wales, 17 closed—four in our area alone—and nine are left, with five being owned by foreign companies or jointly owned. This is a crisis in an industry that no-one seems to be taking notice of. Meat processing is local. It has local content, it is about value adding and it needs support. It is also a major regional employer, with most meat-processing facilities in local government areas having populations of 50,000 or fewer. According to Gary Burridge, the immediate past CEO of the Casino based Northern Co-operative Meat and spokesman for the AMIC— (Time expired)
Work Experience in Parliament House
Mrs GASH (Gilmore) (19:40): Just before the break, Jessica Cohen from my electorate of Gilmore came and did some work experience. Tonight, I would like to relate how she found Parliament House. Just before I relate her words, I would like to say that I wish Jessica well. It was a pleasure to have her here and she certainly fitted in with our office. She said:
My name is Jessica Cohen and I recently completed a degree in international relations at UNSW. I am now currently at the stage of my life where I am searching for a career. Considering my major was in development studies, I am keen to have a career that involves working with the community.
A few weeks ago a close friend of mine suggested that a career in the political sector could be very rewarding. It would allow me to work on issues that affect our community and it also relates closely to my degree. The suggestion motivated me to contact Joanna Gash my local MP, in order to gain work experience and a comprehensive understanding on how our political system works.
Like most politicians I understand that Joanna is a very busy woman and I was delighted to receive her prompt reply. She kindly invited me to Parliament House to introduce me to the internal workings of our parliament.
A day in the life of an MP is quite a diverse and active one. In the morning I accompanied Joanna to a meeting on international trade. Senators, members of DFAT and MP's all attended this meeting to discuss Australia's options in regards to trade policies with particular countries. The meeting was interrupted with a siren from a nearby clock flashing green, signaling a division in the House of Representatives. Without delay, a third of the people in the boardroom left to vote. Divisions in the House of Representatives and the Senate occur frequently when parliament sits. For me, it was quite exciting to watch. The meeting was interrupted a total of three times due to the division in the House of Representatives, however the people adapted to deal with the disturbance and the meeting continued.
Joanna offered me practical experience too by asking me to write media releases and to draft letters to the community. This practical experience has not only equipped me for future jobs, it also has given me a personal insight to the day-to-day workings of a local MP's office.
After lunch I was able to acquire tickets to the House of Representatives question time. Although question time is always covered by the media, it was quite a different experience watching it live. The arguments can get quite heated at times with people in the benches bickering in the background. A politician must have a lot of skill and focus when speaking in Parliament as they can speak clearly and confidently even though a group of opposing people are verbally disputing their position.
In the afternoon Joanna invited me to sit in on a proposal from a non-government organisation appealing for support for their medical research. Equipped with a PowerPoint presentation, this non-government organisation detailed the actions they are taking to assist in the management of some of the world's most deadly diseases. Senators and MP's from different parties attended this meeting and each person had a different stance on the subject at hand. Although everyone supported the motion of the eradication of HIV, each person raised issues from different standing points during question time.
The most thought provoking question from my perspective was simply "how will you be able to determine the success of your project?" As I have learnt in development studies, every development project must have an effective monitoring system that can measure the success of your actions.
One specific thing I noticed from my experience at Parliament is that contrary to the popular belief that parliament can be filled with a range of parties, opposing each other for the media, behind the scenes, many of them have good working relationships. I feel as if they are aware that there is a benefit to an opposition when it comes to decision and policy making.
After my work experience at Parliament House, my interest in a political career has grown. Working in this sector exposes you to a range of relevant issues that are faced by our community, and it provides you with a chance to improve the way people live. The work of a politician is a meaningful career.
If any member is looking for a talented, able person for their office, then you cannot go past Jessica.
In the spare time that I have, could I add that having students, regardless of their age or experience, has been very rewarding for me. We often have a perception of young people that can be negative. However, when you have students like Jessica and others we have had in our office it is, as I have said, very rewarding to be able to read their stories into the Hansard to show that we should not be so quick to judge from what we perceive.
Holt Electorate: National Youth Week
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (19:44): On the subject of young people and the contribution they make, I rise tonight to talk about some very special young people from my electorate and the surrounding region and some of the thoughts that they have had. The city of Casey has a large number of young people. The 2006 census had the total number of young people aged between 10 and 25 at 59,953. I am sure, given it is six years since that census was taken, it is many more than that now. This is a significant cohort of young people. They are the future of our community and the future of our country. The opinions of these people actually matter.
What has concerned me for some time in my electorate and the surrounding region is the way in which our young people have been categorised and the pressures that they are under, because obviously a large number of young people live in the area. In the community, if, say, a young man throws a party which comes to national attention, that is front and centre in the national media. But, when it comes to the many constructive things that our young people do and the contributions that they make to our community, we never read about it. What sort of message does that send to our young people? 'If you don't do anything bad you should not be reported upon; your opinions do not matter; your values do not matter; we do not want to hear you.'
So, as part of National Youth Week, I asked some of our city of Casey's 2011 and 2012 young student leaders to meet with me to tell me about the issues that concern them, to make sure their voices would be heard. It is ironic. This is allegedly the communication age of Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, Google+—you name it. At the push of a button you can communicate with anyone. Yet, in this torrent of communication devices, our young people in the community are often very alone. They feel very isolated. They feel very unheard. That was one of the key messages that I took from the meeting that I had in my office on 13 April.
These young community leaders to whom I spoke are: Kathryn Hazell, Tanisha Beveridge, Shabnam Safa, Danielle Rothwell, Luke Pel, Amanda Carron, Justine Jaramillo and Emilijia Stefanovic. They are great young leaders in our community and they are facing incredible challenges from within their community. They represent their community and the city of Casey extremely well.
We discussed a number of issues, and one issue that came out loud and clear was that they are being required to define who they are as people at ages 16 and 17. When we were growing up, Madam Deputy Speaker—and we will not talk about our age here—I did not feel that pressure. I did not have to have my life basically mapped out when I was 16 or 17, but we are asking our young people to do that. How fair is that for them? They certainly feel it is not fair. They are asked to behave a certain way. There is enormous peer pressure. They have to wear certain clothes. They have to drink at a younger age. They are subjected to a lot of bullying.
One of the most disturbing things is their mental health and wellbeing. I am hearing story after story of young people who know young people who have taken their own lives. That was one of the things highlighted by that group of young people with their lives before them. They had been touched by colleagues and friends who had committed suicide at such a young age. What is that saying? In fact, I was contacted by a young student leader about another suicide that happened a couple of days ago. What is going on in our community? We know the issue of youth suicide is an incredibly important issue and governments pay attention to it, but our young people are still dying—and that is not good enough. One death is too many. We have to do whatever we can in this place to listen to our young people and ensure that their voices are heard so that we do not have this situation continuing where young people feel they have no alternative but to take their lives. I said to our young community leaders that I would pass that message on.
They also spoke about the pressures that they have in year 12 to get that elusive university entry score—again, they are being asked to define themselves by whether they go to university. Even when they are seeking part-time work they are asked: do they have a university degree? Are they studying? That is enormous pressure for young people in our community to be put under, and it is not fair pressure. We were not subjected to that.
I say to our young community leaders: thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. We will listen to you. I am going to continue to have these forums and we are going to make sure your voices are heard in this community and in this place.
Budget
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (19:49): I touch tonight on the budget that was presented last night. I think at best it can be described as a 'get them by' budget. It is a budget that has no coherent strategy to deliver strong economic growth or long-term sustainable surpluses, or even a strategy to tackle the mountain of debt that this government has accumulated in four years. We saw that debt in the current year blow out from $22 billion to $44 billion. How do we expect to see a surplus in the next financial year's budget? Our net government debt will climb to a record $145 billion. This has required the government to legislate to increase its debt limit—the limit on the national credit card—from $250 billion to $300 billion. These are records that nobody should be proud of achieving, nor are the number of new or increased taxes that this government has introduced since 2007. With this budget's various tax hikes and measures, the total now stands at 26.
These new and increased taxes have done nothing to help ease the pressure of the rising cost of living for the Australian community. They do nothing for families who are facing higher costs of living every day. As an example, since this government was elected in 2007, electricity prices have gone up by some 66 per cent, and that is before the introduction of a carbon tax on 1 July; gas prices have gone up by 39 per cent; food prices have gone up by 11 per cent; petrol prices have gone up by another 11 per cent; and education and health costs have gone up by some 25 per cent. This is Labor's second budget in a row that has not provided tax cuts for everyday Australians. Instead, Labor is hitting Australian families and the economy with more tax hikes, including the world's biggest carbon tax, which will push prices up even further. The carbon tax will result in $9 billion a year in new tax revenue, an immediate increase of around 10 per cent in electricity bills and a nine per cent increase in gas bills in the first year alone. The impact on families will get worse with a carbon price rising to $29 a tonne in just three years. This compares to a current global carbon price of $6 to $8. Needless to say, this toxic carbon tax will have devastating effects on industries and jobs yet will do nothing for the environment. The compensation and handouts from the government are being given out to cushion the blow of these new taxes but no amount of compensation can be measured to protect the jobs of everyday Australians—and no amount of compensation will compensate them for losing their job. These sugar hits are counter-productive: they do not go the distance and they do not keep pace with the new and increased taxes designed to drive up the cost of living.
We just saw with the legislation passed today that the education tax rebate was dumped and replaced with the schoolkids bonus. Not only that, but we have blowouts like the NBN, which is not in the budget. There is another $1.4 billion blowout in asylum seeker management. Defence continues to be cut. A broken border protection and onshore-processing policy rages out of control.
Labor has delivered its fourth deficit in four years, which is, in total, $174 billion. As I said earlier, the blowout in this financial year's proposed deficit from $22 billion to $44 billion is a great example of what we are going to see over the coming 12 months. The baton of debt will be passed down to the children that are supposedly getting the benefit of these handouts. Once they enter the workforce they will be paying the interest on the debt and they will be paying their taxes to repay this debt. This government is protecting itself and the Prime Minister is doing everything in her power to keep her job. The budget is a purely political document—as I mentioned at the outset, a 'get-em-by budget'. It is only the coalition that has a proven track record of providing hope, reward and opportunity. (Time expired)
Budget
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (19:55): This is a fairer budget than last year but it could have been fairer. The Greens helped prevent Labor's big business tax cuts, which will save the public purse $16 billion over the next decade. Unfortunately, the government chose to maintain an obsession with an early political surplus and has not used these savings, in our view, in the best possible way. The Greens would have put an extra $50 a week into Newstart to help people living below the poverty line. Unfortunately, the government did not agree. The Greens would rather maintain tax breaks for green buildings but, unfortunately, these have been removed.
The Greens believe Australia should honour its pledge of increasing overseas development assistance to 0.5 per cent of GNI by 2015-16, but this has been delayed. The Greens also advocated scaling back the diesel fuel tax rebate, but this suggestion was not picked up. The budget unfortunately does not sufficiently invest in long-term economic goals, preferring instead to focus on a short-term political surplus that will not help Australia after the mining bubble bursts. It is not smart planning for the future to put virtually no new money into schools, skills, training or higher education, to cut over 3,000 public service jobs or to invest virtually nothing in innovative manufacturing to set us up for a future beyond the mining bubble. The government says that a surplus is our best defence against global change. The Greens say that healthy, well educated and confident Australians trained in working in the new clean economy are our best preparation for the challenges of the 21st century.
I commend the government for some big and important reforms such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme and extra funding for aged care. I applaud the government for honouring the agreement with the Greens and putting half a billion dollars towards dental health, and initiating steps towards getting dental care into Medicare. I am very glad that the government agreed to the most significant funding boost SBS has ever received—$95 million over five years—and to a further $63 million to be invested in national Indigenous television. The government also agreed to exempt many of our national cultural institutions such as the National Gallery, National Library, National Museum and the National Film and Sound Archive from the efficiency dividend which would have cut into their budgets.
I am also pleased to have been able to secure funding for a number of important projects, such as a $1½ million lifeline to secure the future of Job Watch, the Carlton based employment legal centre that will continue to make a difference for vulnerable workers. The Baillieu government in Victoria cut 60 per cent of Job Watch's funding. Services that were at risk included free and confidential legal services, community education, advocacy and law reform services. I know the crucial and unique work that Job Watch does for working people and I am delighted that their good work can continue.
High-speed rail from Melbourne to Sydney is closer to reality with $20 million in the budget to establish a high-speed rail unit. The unit will build on the work of the multimillion dollar high-speed rail implementation study secured as part of the Greens agreement with the Gillard government. High-speed rail will transform the way we move around the country. We are now one step closer to building a 21st century rail network.
The government has also agreed to start funding again to important programs and to invest more in maths and science education. There will be a $54 million investment in programs such as Science by Doing and PrimaryConnections, two programs I have been championing. Boosting maths and science education in schools is smart because innovation is central to our future prosperity once the mining bubble bursts. We now need to push for a big investment in our schools in the next budget.
I am pleased that there is no federal funding for the Baillieu government plan to drive a tollway through the middle of Melbourne. There is no money for the tollway in this year's budget and, at this stage, none planned for future years. The fight is not over but it is a promising start. We now need to focus on getting the Baillieu government to invest in rail, not roads.
I was also able to negotiate $20 million to protect and celebrate the Royal Exhibition Building, the birthplace of Australia's parliament and a World Heritage icon for Melbourne. I have been working with Museum Victoria and residents groups on re-establishing a walkway on the building's dome as well as a democracy education centre and recognition of Indigenous Australians. I note that our parliament turns 111 today and I am pleased that we have delivered an appropriate gift to preserve its original home.
I also commend the government for its $67 million investment in the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Parkville. I will be looking at the budget over coming weeks to see if there are better ways of investing our tax dollars but I also note that without the Greens in the balance of power many of these important reforms would not be happening.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 20 : 00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Ms Roxon: to present a bill for an act to confer additional functions on the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, and for related purposes.
Mr Albanese: To move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 10 May 2012 and at that sitting, after the Leader of the Opposition completes his reply to the Budget speech, the House automatically stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday 21 May 2012 unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.
Ms Rishworth: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes the significant impact of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) on the lives of individuals diagnosed with this condition often including:
(a) difficulties with normal social interaction;
(b) delayed speech and unusual forms of communication;
(c) intense preoccupation with a single particular interest;
(d) inability to comprehend the consequences of their behaviour;
(e) lack of awareness about the emotions of others; and
(f) associated learning disabilities;
(2) recognises that:
(a) raising a child with ASD can present considerable challenges for families including financial and emotional pressures as well as strains on the family unit and marital stress; and
(b) intensive early intervention services can be critically important to improving the cognitive, emotional and social development of children with autism;
(3) acknowledges support provided through the Government's $220 million Helping Children With Autism Package, which is the first national initiative to help families and children with ASD;
(4) notes the importance of continuing to provide support for individuals with ASD and their families on an ongoing basis and particularly throughout schooling years; and
(5) calls on Commonwealth and State and Territory governments to work closely to ensure the seamless provision of services to families of children with ASD, especially at key points of transition such as from early childhood to primary schooling and from secondary schooling to further education and training or the workforce.
Mr Buchholz: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) serious allegations have been made surrounding the misappropriation of union members' funds by union leaders;
(b) Australian Council of Trade Unions Secretary, Dave Oliver, has said that every union member has the right to know that their money is going to be subject to good governance and good regulation; and
(c) Australian Workers Union National Secretary, Paul Howes, has said he supports bringing unions' accountability and transparency in line with the Corporations Act 2001; and
(2) calls on the Government to implement a plan that will expect the same standards of accountability and transparency of union leaders as are expected of Company Directors under the Corporations Act 2001.
Mr Pyne: to move:
That this House requires the Member for Dobell to make a statement to the House immediately, for a period not exceeding fifteen minutes, about the matters arising from Fair Work Australia's inquiry into the Health Services Union that relate to him.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott) took the chair at 09:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
McPherson Electorate: Community Achiever Awards
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (09:30): I recently held my second annual McPherson Community Achiever Awards at the Burleigh Waters Community Centre to formally recognise the work done by many of the unsung heroes of the McPherson community. The work done by each of this year's 45 outstanding recipients reinforces the strong community spirit we have on the Gold Coast. I believe Gold Coasters are very well recognised for their community spirit—and, in fact, their generosity of spirit—and this was clearly on display at the McPherson Community Achiever Awards.
This year's recipients have been recognised for their roles in a number of organisations, and I will name just a few of those. There was surf lifesaving, the Lions and Lioness clubs, the Gold Coast Orchid Society, RACQ CareFlight, our local RSLs, the Gold Coast Kidney Support Network, St Vincent de Paul, the Gold Coast Post Polio Support Network, Scouts, bowls clubs, Neighbourhood Watch and Crime Stoppers. We also had a nomination—a successful recipient—of a teacher at the Mudgeeraba Special School, for her very outstanding work with our special needs children.
Each recipient made a unique contribution to the community and in many different ways added to the lives of those who are the most vulnerable. Some recipients were recognised for their work as volunteers in the community, and others were recognised for going above and beyond the call of duty in their work. I would like to acknowledge each of those recipients again: Steve and Lyn Boyle, Ross Bussell, Lyn Calligros, Jared Clarke, Fred Craddock, Liz Connolly, Bronwyn Drinkwater, Glen Edmonds, Norma Evans, Elizabeth Fitchett, Peter and Lisa Gallagher, Peter Garrett, Scott Gilbert, Patrick Gillett, Lyn Glover, Dion Harris, Daren Healey, Sandra Hill, Stuart Hogben, Alex Jih, Daniel Kent, Vic Knowles, Barbara Lee, Zita Lepahe, Marsha Maynard, Joe McKone, Brian Milligan, Erin Mitchell, Merv Newman, Shelley Nolan, Carole Palesy, Werner Piehler, Jamie Quinn, Mark Ross, Elaine and Irving Schuster, Barbara Selby, Sonia Smith, Sheila Storrs, Paul Trewartha, Sue Wickham, Allan Williams and Jill Wych.
Once again, I would like to congratulate them on their very outstanding efforts and all they do for the community. The contributions made by each of these recipients and those of hardworking volunteers across the country go largely unrecognised. The McPherson Community Achiever Awards were my opportunity to thank those people for their outstanding contributions to the community.
Isaacs Electorate: Shri Shiva Vishnu Temple
Isaacs Electorate: Dandenong Jobs and Skills Expo
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary, Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innnovation and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (09:33): On 5 May I represented the Prime Minister at the official opening of the Hindu Society of Victoria's Cultural and Heritage Centre at the Shri Shiva Vishnu Temple in Carrum Downs. I was joined by Senator Kate Lundy, Minister for Multicultural Affairs; Nicholas Kotsiras, Victorian Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship; the Victorian Leader of the Opposition, Daniel Andrews; and other local state members of parliament and councillors. We celebrated the opening of the centre and the culmination of years of hard work and dedication on the part of the Hindu Society of Victoria. I thank Mr Vijeyakumar 'Vikey' Saravanathasamy, President of the Hindu Society of Victoria, for his hospitality on this wonderful occasion.
In 1984 the Hindu Society purchased 15 acres of land in Carrum Downs. The first stones for the temple—or 'Pancha-shila'—were cut in India, blessed by a priest and brought to Australia for the laying of the foundations of a temple that would become the largest Shiva temple in the Southern Hemisphere. There is a religious requirement that Shiva temples be built on virgin lands. Like so many other people who came to Carrum Downs, the Hindu Society looked at its green, unspoilt pastures and saw an opportunity to build a community.
The opening of the cultural and heritage centre, which is located next to the temple and houses a library, heritage museum, a school, meditation rooms and conference rooms as well as an extensive collection of paintings, photographs and artefacts from the Indian subcontinent, was a wonderful event. Over 2,000 people attended the opening, which began with blessings in the temple followed by a procession to the cultural and heritage centre led by young girls carrying lighted lamps and musicians playing wind and percussion instruments.
The procession is an ancient tradition which is a celebration and this procession led to the centre where the Australian, Victorian and temple flags were raised. Proceedings included the traditional lighting of the lamps and a number of Hindu cultural dances, and included recognition of Australia's Indigenous heritage with traditional dance and the playing of the didgeridoo.
I can say that it was a very exciting event for me, because the very first time on which I visited the temple in 2007 I was shown the plans and listened to the aspirations of the Hindu Society for this cultural centre, and it is a wonderful thing to see those plans come to fruition. The cultural centre cost $10 million and included a grant of $1 million from the Brumby Labor government. Most of the funds were raised by the tireless efforts of the Hindu Society from generous donors across Victoria. Today the temple and the cultural centre are the spiritual and learning centre for the Hindu community in Victoria. The 32 deities worshipped there represent the richness and diversity of the Hindu faith. I am proud to have this place of worship and education in our community.
I would also like to mention the Dandenong Jobs and Skills Expo, which I attended on 12 April with Senator Kim Carr, the Minister for Human Services. The expo was a great success. Thousands of job seekers made contact with employers and training providers offering local jobs and training opportunities. Building on the success of the Jobs and Skills Expo in 2010, this year's event provided a practical way for job seekers in Isaacs to get in touch with local employers and discover new opportunities in Dandenong and around Victoria. The Melbourne south-east region which includes Dandenong is home to more than 40 per cent of Victoria's manufacturing sector and I am proud to be the local member for such a vibrant and growing community.
Dawson Electorate: Bruce Highway
Mr CHRISTENSEN ( Dawson ) ( 09:36 ): Everybody is talking about what is in the budget. I would like to talk about what was not there—the Bruce Highway, 1,700 kilometres of bitumen running from Brisbane in the south-east of Queensland to Cairns in the far north. It provides the arterial link along the Queensland coastline for major regional centres like Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rocky and Gladstone. According to the North Queensland Roads Alliance, the Bruce Highway contribution to the North Queensland economy in 2010-11 was $11.5 billion and there was $5.3 billion in gross added value. An estimated 60,000 jobs in North Queensland, or about 17 per cent of the total employment in that area, are related to trade on the Bruce Highway.
There are four important ports along the stretch of the Bruce Highway between Rockhampton and Townsville. Townsville's port has a throughput of 10 million tonnes a year including sugar, copper, lead and zinc exports, and nickel and oil imports. Hay Point and Abbot Point, which are close or in my electorate, export 77.5 million tonnes and 12.1 million tonnes of coal annually. Mackay is an important port for exporting sugar.
But here is the big kicker. With all of that economic activity, the Bruce Highway is an absolute disgrace, and this is for two reasons. Firstly, in some sections it is just outright dangerous and, secondly, it is regularly cut because of flooding. Yet the importance of this infrastructure was completely overlooked in last night's budget.
The Australian Road Assessment Program rated the stretch of the Bruce Highway between Mackay and Sarina as the third most dangerous stretch of road in Australia. The section is only 25 kilometres long but recorded 108 motorists injured and six killed on it between 2005 and 2009.
As we know, the LNP was swept into power earlier this year and the key promise from the new Premier, Campbell Newman, was to allocate an additional $1 billion to the Bruce Highway. The pressure is now on the federal government to match the funding on a similar scale, as it has in other areas where they have done 80-20 funding splits. Four billion dollars should be allocated immediately to the Bruce Highway. But it simply was not in the budget.
To counter this, I have launched a campaign called FixTheBruce designed to allow grassroots users of the Bruce Highway to have input. We need to know exactly what the problems are so the solutions can be costed and prioritised. We need a willing federal government in Canberra to contribute its share of funding to the Bruce Highway so that it can be brought up to a standard that will allow Queensland to continue making a contribution to the national economy. Hopefully, we will have that willing government soon. For now, though, I encourage Bruce Highway users to log onto the website www.fixthebruce.com.au or, for those in my electorate, fill in the brochure in the mail that will help me identify the problem areas that they think need to be fixed and what they think is most urgent, to assist the Premier in prioritising future works and force the Gillard Labor government to invest in the Bruce Highway.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Mr RUDD (Griffith) (09:39): Disability affects everybody. I recently met with two families in my electorate who told me of the impact that disability has on their daily lives—the sleepless nights, the financial difficulties and the toll it takes on their relationships. Tanya and David care full time for their son Jaden who has a genetic disorder called 1p36.3 chromosome deletion. This means that Jaden experiences frequent seizures, which cause him to stop breathing, often in the middle of the night. I think any of us who are parents would automatically empathise with what must go through the minds of parents at such a time. All of these folk have had one thing in common: they said they are not looking for payouts; they are looking for a bit of support. To put it simply, these families are doing it tough and they deserve more support.
I am proud of the work done in my community to support people living with disability. One organisation is The Tertiary PLACE. It has partnered with other organisations to facilitate a sports program for young adults with disability. We are also lucky to have the Endeavour Foundation, based on Brisbane's Southside, just down the road from my own electorate office. What started out over 60 years ago, with a group of mums in Coorparoo trying to give their kids a fair go, has expanded to an organisation that now supports over 3,000 people with disability. The Endeavour Foundation is also the largest employer of people with a disability in Australia. This organisation is an example of the contribution that individuals with disability can make both to our community and to the economy. We are also fortunate enough to have individuals who are passionate about making a difference in our local community.
I recently supported a funding application on behalf of Kath Cory and Tina Graham, who have established BestLife Inc. Kath and Tina identified a need in the Mount Gravatt community for a weekend independent living centre. They saw a lot of families at breaking point looking after kids with disability and wanted to create something to help these families. Their dream is to be able to provide housing for individuals with disability to live an independent life, to provide some equality of choice for all people. That is what is already happening at the grassroots level in my community.
The question here is: what can our government do to support such individuals into the future? That is why the National Disability Insurance Scheme is such an important first step in addressing the concerns of these families, community organisations and individuals. Furthermore, it is important to support the full spectrum of disability, from implementing an NDIS for families and their carers to supporting front-line and advocacy services to make sure that we are truly meeting the needs of our community. These are the most vulnerable Australians. A mark of our level of sophistication as a country and as a community is to ensure that they are properly looked after.
Third World Countries: Birthing Kits
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (09:42): In a Third World country, something as simple as a clean cotton sheet can help save a life. For babies born in the world's poorest countries there is an extremely high rate of infection, due primarily to unclean and unhygienic birthing conditions. Sadly, this is the case in some of Australia's closest neighbours, Papua New Guinea and East Timor.
I, along with Senator Claire Moore, was recently privileged to have the opportunity to visit Timor Leste as part of a parliamentary observer mission for the second round of the presidential elections. On a side note, I was very impressed with the smooth running of the elections and particularly the transparency and the counting of votes, which was completed in the presence of officials, scrutineers and the general public. For some people it was something of a social event with many enjoying the spirit of the democratic process. Yet this trip also gave me the opportunity to meet with groups such as Kirsty Sword Gusmao's Alola Foundation and Marie Stopes International, who, with funding from AusAID, provide support and assistance for people living not only in Dili but also in remote villages. With that in mind, I was proud to learn that a very dedicated group of local women in my electorate, the Queensland Country Womens Association's Moggill branch, has responded to a state-wide call to assemble 1,000 sterile birthing kits for women in East Timor. The birthing kits include a plastic sheet, plastic gloves, soap, nail brush, gauze squares, scalpel, cord ties and, of course, a clean cotton sheet. The cotton sheets are cut into 1.5 metre squares for birthing sheets. The birthing kits can often mean the difference between life and death for some of the babies born in remote villages. The completed birthing kits will be distributed through the Alola Foundation in Dili to birthing centres in villages and outlying areas.
For the past few weeks my office has acted as a collection point for cotton sheets for these birthing kits and, judging by the number of boxes full of sheets which arrived on our doorstep, it appears that news of the appeal has spread right across the Ryan electorate. Following a request from the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, Richard Marles, and our Australian Ambassador to East Timor, Miles Armitage, Toll Remote Logistics has agreed to freight the QCWA's completed birthing kits from Brisbane to Darwin and onto Dili. I would like to thank Toll for their generous offer in freighting this very important cargo.
I would also like to acknowledge the dedication and hard work of the ladies from the QCWA Moggill branch. Since the branch was established nine years ago they have been sending birthing kits every year to various locations in Third World countries. They were recently advised by one of their recipients in Papua New Guinea that the infant mortality rate has decreased by 35 per cent since the branch has been sending them these birthing kits. I take this opportunity to congratulate and commend the ladies of the QCWA Moggill branch and indeed all of the Queensland CWA branches as they aim to reach their target of 1,000 birthing kits this year. They are undertaking invaluable community aid work and it just goes to show how something that we often take for granted—a simple cotton sheet—can make such a difference to the lives of those less fortunate.
Wills Electorate: Alevi Community Council of Australia
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (09:46): In the early hours of 19 March a number of petrol bombs were thrown at the doors of the Alevi Community Council's centre in North Coburg in my electorate. Glass bottles containing petrol were set alight and thrown at the front and rear doors of the centre. Fortunately, no-one was inside the centre at the time and most of the bottles fell short of their target and did not properly ignite. However, one bottle did set fire to the rear door and did extensive damage to it. The fire triggered a fire alarm and the fire was stopped before it could spread to other parts of the building.
Just as disturbing as the petrol bombs was a threatening note, copies of which were left on the centre's fence and in the letterbox. The one-page typed letter purporting to come from the Islamic Emirate of Syria accused the Alevis of helping Christians in Syria, demanded that the Alevis testify that Allah was the only god to be worshipped and said that they could 'hunt us down like dogs and kill us', in the words of one centre representative who I discussed the attack with. I have to stress that the Islamic Emirate of Syria is not a group known to the police or anybody else so far as I am aware. I point out that sometimes people engage in violent actions and seek to have others blamed for those actions and also note that police investigations are continuing.
However, I want to respond to this attack with two very clear observations. First, I have had a 20-year-long association with the Alevi community in my electorate as both a state and federal MP and during that time I have found them to be a peace-loving and community minded group who have added to the cultural diversity of my electorate and Melbourne more broadly. They have their ethnic and cultural origins in Turkey. There are estimated to be 15 million Alevis worldwide following their own faith. Women are not required to cover their heads or faces and are not discriminated against in any way. I have never encountered any behaviour from the Alevi community which could be characterised as provocative or confrontational or in any way justify a violent response. There can be no place in Australia for religious violence.
Australia is very fortunate that we have no history of civil war or sectarian violence. I urge everyone who comes to Australia to love and respect that. I know that many other countries are not so fortunate. I can readily understand the passion and enmity that can arise from belonging to a family in which a father has been killed or a sister has been raped, but anyone who has the good fortune to come to Australia needs to do both themselves and Australia a favour: leave those things behind. Drop them off at the door as you enter this country. Australia is a beautiful country where people have freedom of speech and expression including freedom of religious expression without fear of retribution or violence. Please allow it to remain that way.
Solomon Electorate: Duke of Edinburgh Award
Solomon Electorate: Tahnee Afuhaamango
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (09:49): I rise to speak about a fantastic initiative for young people designed to encourage and motivate Territorians. Last week I had the pleasure of attending a function at Government House to recognise 16 outstanding Territorians. The Duke of Edinburgh Award is open to all young people aged between 14 and 25. It offers a fun-filled package of activities over a set period of time. The program is entirely voluntary and is designed so that participants can undertake activities suited to their own interests and passions. There are three levels to the Duke of Edinburgh Awards: the gold, silver and bronze. As I said, 16 young Territorians became the newest recipients of this award. The silver awardees included Kacy Brennan, Lucy Campbell, Gypsy Cass, Ashley Dougan, Louise Forster, Katrina Fritz, Liam Hardcastle, Rebecca Hell, Joel Kay, Rangi McLennan, Georgina Nefiodavis, Monique Smith and my very good friend Alex McInnis from Henbury School. The gold recipients, also from Henbury School, were James Morrison, Christos Timotheou and Amanda Hintz. The event was very special for Amanda, who had recently turned 18. Nothing gives me more pleasure than to acknowledge the hard work of young Territorians, and I praise the people involved for encouraging these kids to be involved in this program, which teaches the kids to learn beyond the classroom and to serve the community.
Tahnee Afuhaamango is another very special person in our electorate. She is a remarkable young lady and I have mentioned her before in this place. This young woman inspires me and my whole electorate. Tahnee is someone I have known since 2008, and she is a determined young lady. She currently holds 20 Down syndrome swimming world records, and Great Britain is currently ratifying a further two world records. Tahnee started her swimming career after the Sydney Olympics in 2000. She was inspired to join a club and squad and dedicated each year to training. Her hard work paid off in 2006, when she travelled to Ireland to compete at an international level. She swam for Australia in 2008 in Portugal and again in 2010 in Taiwan. Tahnee is currently in training to represent Australia again in Italy in November of this year. Tahnee considers herself to be a role model for people with Down syndrome, and her motto is, 'Never say never.'
Pacific Highway
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond—Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) (09:52): I rise today to talk about the federal Labor government's massive commitment to upgrading the Pacific Highway in my electorate on the North Coast and what a difference it has made to the lives of people on the North Coast and also many visitors to our area. First of all we have the upgrade at Banora Point, which is almost completed, and I will speak in detail about that shortly. We also have the Tintenbar to Ewingsdale upgrade, which is starting construction soon. There is $554 million in federal funding towards the T to E, as we call it.
The Banora Point upgrade is the one I want to focus on today. This upgrade of the Pacific Highway is one that the community has spoken about for years on end. The community has been desperate to see it upgraded, and the fact is that previous state and federal governments just did not commit the funding to it. It was the federal Labor government that committed the funding. Prior to the federal election in 2007 we committed to fund the upgrade at Banora Point. We understood how important it was for safety reasons to have that upgrade of the Pacific Highway happening. So we made that commitment and then we delivered that funding. It was part of the economic stimulus package. Of course, that was really important in terms of not just the infrastructure upgrade but also the local jobs. In fact, about 400 people have been employed in constructing this wonderful upgrade. The federal funding for that is $347 million, a major commitment, and there is $10 million from the previous state government that was committed as well.
So, as I said, we delivered that funding as part of the stimulus package. The sod turning was great; we did that in December 2009. I was very pleased to be there that day turning the sod on a fantastic local project. Since then we have seen it develop very well in its construction. We have had some major milestones recently with the community day and the opening up of the southbound lanes, which is fantastic. Very shortly we will have the northbound lanes open as well. If everything goes well time-wise, we expect to have the project fully completed by June this year and opened in August, which is a real credit to the RTA and all those people that have worked so hard to make that happen. This has occurred because the federal Labor government made that major commitment of $347 million towards this upgrade. We are very proud of that commitment, and I would certainly like to congratulate everyone in the community who worked so hard towards that.
I also note that last night we made an announcement about further funding for the Pacific Highway, calling upon the New South Wales state government to match that funding so we could finish that duplication. We need them to come on board and be as committed as the federal Labor government is to making sure that we get the Pacific Highway upgrade. We have seen the impact that it has. Certainly in my electorate it has made a big difference, and I commend everyone in the community who worked so hard towards it. I have also seen our local state member now trying to take a bit of credit for it. Considering he did not contribute one cent to it and opposed it for many years, which is a real pity, I would like to see him get on board and celebrate this new, wonderful road and the fact that it is the federal Labor government that delivered the upgrade at Sextons Hill.
Lee, Mr Lawrence
Cream, Ms Sally
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (09:55): I rise to acknowledge the achievements of two very wonderful young people in my electorate of Stirling. Firstly, I would like to congratulate Lawrence Lee for being selected to play the violin for the 2012 Australian Youth Orchestra. Admittance to the Australian Youth Orchestra is highly prized, with over 1,000 applications received from around the country and only 300 places available. The Youth Orchestra will travel all around the country performing highly coveted shows which will be broadcast internationally via a live webcast. Lawrence will have the opportunity to play under renowned international conductors at some of the most prestigious venues around Australia. To be eligible for acceptance into the Youth Orchestra, each member must be under 25 years of age and have as a minimum standard the Australian Music Examinations Board grade 7, which is in itself an achievement. Lawrence plays not only the violin but the piano and has performed on Channel 7's telethon, at the RAC Christmas pageant and with the WA Charity Orchestra, to name but a few. For any young musician to be selected for the internationally recognised Australian Youth Orchestra represents the peak of achievement in the field. Lawrence's selection in the Youth Orchestra is a result of his talent, hard work and dedication, which he has displayed since he began playing the violin at just three years of age. This is a tremendous achievement, and I wish Lawrence the best of luck with future performances.
I would also like to acknowledge another young person in my electorate who is displaying enormous talent, Sally Cream. Another young achiever, she received a Local Sporting Champions grant for $500 so she could compete in the 2012 Australian Age Diving Championships in Adelaide. During the competition in April, Sally was awarded the national Australian age diver of the year for the age group 12-13 years and received medals for her excellent performances in the following diving events: gold for synchronised, gold for three metres, silver for one metre and bronze for five metres. This is a huge achievement, and Sally should be very proud of these results. Sally belongs to the Arrows Diving Club, which is the longest running and most successful dive club in Western Australia. Local Sporting Champions grants offer financial assistance to young people competing in state and national sporting competitions and can be awarded to both individuals and teams. It is great to see that Sally's hard work and dedication to her sport has paid off, and I wish her well in all her future endeavours.
We talk about the great achievements of young people, but it is also important to acknowledge the people in their lives who support and encourage them to achieve their best. I would like to commend their coaches, their mentors and especially their parents, for without them it would not have been possible for the children to attain such high accomplishments. I am sure both Lawrence and Sally will continue to perform at a very high level and set the finest example for other young people in the Stirling community.
Stirling Electorate: Australian Small Business Champion Awards
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (09:58): The Australian Small Business Champion Awards, the only national awards that recognise the achievements of small businesses, were recently held in Sydney. The awards showcased some of the most outstanding small businesses from all around the country.
This year the achievements of small businesses in the Penrith region shone brightly, with 60 local businesses being named as finalists and three going on to win their respective categories. I congratulate all of the finalists for being recognised at this national level of achievement: Kingswood Smash Repairs, Rejuven8 Penrith, Tax Today Penrith, Petrina Family Day Care Cranebrook, Connect Fitness Penrith, Advantage Psychology St Marys, James' Interior House Care Penrith, Go Bananas St Marys, White River Design Penrith, Property Central Penrith, Sittano's Bar and Restaurant Penrith, Stain Busters Penrith, Production Automotive Penrith, Complete Recruitment Solutions Penrith, Nepean Regional Security and Wild Ride Australia Colyton. With only 38 of these national awards on offer, it was a remarkable achievement for our region to have three successful businesses and 16 finalists.
I congratulate the following award winners for 2012. Taking out the automotive services category was Production Automotive Penrith. Brendon and Melinda Leyshon, who have called Penrith home for many years, purchased the business in 2006 and have gone on to build an extremely successful business, which has been recognised by a number of state and local awards. I congratulate Brendon, Melinda and the whole team at Production Automotive for their success.
Taking out the award for recruitment services and business growth was Complete Recruitment Solutions Penrith. Operating in Penrith since 2006 under the leadership of Linda Kemp, not only has Complete Recruitment Solutions proved to be a very successful business but it has also changed the lives of so many local residents by providing them with employment opportunities and pathways to careers. I congratulate Linda and the team at Complete Recruitment Solutions on their success and ongoing commitment to our local community.
In the category of services and business growth, Nepean Regional Security took the prize. Nepean Regional Security is operated by Gina Field, who is no stranger to winning awards, having won a number of local and state titles in recent years. I take this opportunity to congratulate Nepean Regional Security, Gina Field and her team.
I am particularly proud of the fact that these three businesses not only are successful local businesses but are also actively committed to supporting our local community through sponsorship and charitable donations. Small businesses are the backbone of our local community and our national economy. I am extremely proud that small businesses from Penrith have achieved at such a great level and have shone brightly at these national awards.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 2) 2012
Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mrs MIRABELLA (Indi) (10:02): I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No.1) 2012 and the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No.2) 2012. I note that these bills represent the third tranche of changes introduced by the government to give effect to the antidumping announcements it made in the middle of last year. So, appreciating that it may drag out this debate for far longer than is necessary, I do not intend to restate many of the points and arguments that I have made on each of the recent previous occasions that antidumping has been the subject of debate in the House and the Federation Chamber.
Suffice it to say that the coalition does, again, intend to give its support to the government on each of these two bills. In fact, we have been pushing for revisions to the antidumping regime since before the 2010 election—in other words, from long before the government finally announced its own changes. We have consistently said that we support changes to the current antidumping regime wherever those changes are sensible and practical. And we are happy to accept that this tranche of legislation meets those tests.
We are glad, in particular, to support the changes that give the minister a wider ambit and range of options in applying duties to goods that are considered to have been dumped in Australia. If the removal of limitations upon the calculation of the so-called 'normal value' of the relevant good or goods works as I think the government intends, that is also a positive step. We also have no problem with altering the minister's powers in such a way as to provide more scope and flexibility for antidumping duties to be extended beyond their originally nominated termination date. That said, we need to be very careful that that particular amendment is not ultimately used as an excuse for procrastinating and delay, because it is critically important for all of us to recognise that some of the current processes are simply too slow and cumbersome and undermine the very purpose of an antidumping regime in the first place. Anything that potentially adds to that problem of the slow and cumbersome culture is obviously a step backwards. On that note and at the risk of repeating myself again from earlier debates, I also want to make the point that the coalition believes it is critical that those administering Australia's antidumping dumping system be provided with new resources, not money shifted into the branch from other areas of Customs and especially not at a time when large cuts have already been made to other areas of the agency, including some of the deepest cuts in its history in last night's budget.
The important thing that a government can do in the first instance in the area of effective antidumping policy is provide an appropriate level of administrative support because it is that step more than any other which will help to bring cases to a speedy resolution, including by increasing the opportunity to use preliminary affirmative determinations. Just in passing, I also want to quickly note that clause 9 of the explanatory memorandum for the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill says:
The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Dumping Duty Act to make it easier to understand and less complex.
With that in mind, I would suggest in good faith to the government and to the relevant officers from Customs that they may want to have a look at the wording of some of the clauses and references in the explanatory memorandum—in particular, I think they may want to revisit clause 7.1 of the explanatory memorandum for the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill No. 2. I may well have overlooked or misunderstood or misinterpreted something but, on the face of it, I think some words may be missing from that sentence or, at the very least, some words may need to be changed in order to clarify the precise meaning of that clause for most people who come to read and try and understand what it means. As it stands, at least to my eyes, the first part of the sentence does not make sense and that is in addition to a small problem with pluralisation in the last part of the sentence as well.
On the first page of that same explanatory memorandum there is also a reference to where the regulation impact statement for the bill can supposedly be found. But if I am reading that wording exactly, it says that statement can be found in the explanatory memorandum for yet another bill. And then to complicate matters it gives what I think is the wrong title of that other bill. On top of that, the explanatory memorandum for the bill to which, I can only presume, it is referring does not seem to contain a regulation impact statement anyway. So when we are dealing with quite complex legislation and when one of the clearly stated aims of these changes is to make things easier to understand, confused drafting like this does not help.
Not delving all that far back into history, there were many examples of poor drafting and poorly chosen wording in explanatory memoranda. For example, the infamous recent bills in the innovation portfolio that the government used to erroneously change the R&D tax concession into a R&D tax credit. Given the horrible confusion and severely botched processes to which all of that has ultimately contributed—and I might add to which there is still no clarity in many areas—I would urge the minister and Customs in the strongest possible terms to steer violently away from that type of drafting.
I would like to restate the coalition support for each of these bills and to say that we will happily stand ready to continue to make a range of very practical, very sensible improvements to Australia's antidumping arrangements to ensure that they are accessible and that they are effective in preventing goods being dumped in Australia. That is the very least that industry expects—just a system that actually works and that is not too expensive or too complicated to access. Indeed, if we are privileged enough to be elected to government at the next election we look forward very much to the potential opportunity as a coalition to implement the antidumping policy we announced publicly in November of last year, which has received widespread industry acclaim.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:09): I speak in support of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012 and the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 2) 2012. On 20 April 2012, Capral CEO Phil Jobe met with the federal Minister for Home Affairs, Jason Clare, and me. Bundamba aluminium business Capral is quoted in the Queensland Times calling on us to bring forward this legislation. Mr Jobe said:
Chinese manufacturers are currently exploiting and circumventing existing legislation … The anti-dumping laws haven't been updated in over a decade, so it's good to see that under this government they are being brought up to date.
A key weakness in Australia's approach to dumping is the abject failure of the previous Howard coalition government and its unmitigated disaster in the recognition of China as a market economy as a precondition of FTA negotiations. That has restricted the ability of local authorities to apply subrogated or proxy pricing in cases where normal values cannot be easily assessed. China, for example, makes it very difficult in this regard. Customs has not been adequately funded or resourced in the past and is really fighting this issue—as are stakeholders like the AWU, Capral and other organisations—with one hand tied behind its back because of the complete and utter disaster of the Howard coalition government in the recognition of China as a market economy. This has resulted in a limited and partial application of relatively small dumping duties in some cases, compared to Canada and the United States, which adopt a very different approach to that of Australia in this regard.
In this country we need a properly resourced and independent antidumping agency responding to dumping and to complaints of stakeholders like the AWU, Capral and others. The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service is the only agency responsible for antidumping and countervailing investigations in Australia. The Trade Measures Review Officer provides an independent administrative appeal mechanism in relation to these matters. This is probably amongst the most complicated laws you could possibly imagine. For example, Capral itself has been involved in litigation in this regard and has had to spend considerable money on the services of a very eminent QC on numerous occasions to give advice and to represent them in these types of matters.
Paul Howes, the national secretary of the AWU, has said the oversight by Customs historically in this regard has been manifestly inadequate. This is primarily the fault of a failure in the past to address and resource problems of jurisdiction within Customs. Paul Howes says there is insufficient legislative coverage and weak governance in the department. As I said, the United States and Canada have adopted a quasi-judicial approach to the application of this type of legislation in the assessment of any injury, material or otherwise, to domestic industry. We have not adopted that approach. It all comes back to the ground rules and the establishment by the Howard coalition government in relation to the FTA and recognition of China as a market based economy.
In the past, the trade measures branch of Customs has been a little akin to the Swansea licensing bureau in Yes Minister—a poor cousin to colleagues focusing on border protection activities. The consequences are dramatic. We have seen importation of Chinese aluminium extrusion products dramatically impact upon Australian industry. Capral at Bundamba in Ipswich has 300 workers but, sadly, the plant utilisation is about 60 per cent. It is the result of experiencing unfair competition from Chinese imports. There has been a loss of well over $250 million of revenue in this sector. There has been the elimination of production activities and, as I say, suboptimisation of utilisation of plant in Australian facilities—for example, at Capral at Bremer Park in Bundamba, Ipswich. The Chinese have further expanded downstream their fabrication products. Our antidumping decisions in the past have actually buoyed the Chinese exporters. As Phil Jobe said to me in numerous meetings, they cannot believe their luck. We have seen a rising Australian dollar, and this has threatened the Australian industry. The consequences are that Chinese extrusion companies are supplying primary aluminium at rates that are about 20 per cent lower than prevailing world rates. They are simply setting artificially the yuan rate, which a lot of commentators say is 20 to 30 per cent lower than it should be. In addition to that they are subsidising their industries dramatically, dumping lower-than-cost products into Australia. It is unfair for our workers, it is unfair for our employers and it is unfair for our industry. We have seen Chinese aluminium exporters aggressively capture well above 35 per cent of the Australian market in recent years. On a per capita basis, according to the evidence I have obtained, Chinese extrusion exports to Australia are more than five times higher than to any other country, and that is a direct result of failures in the past.
So we need to believe in fair trade as well as free trade. This is not about protectionism. This is about creating the opportunities for our very skilled workers and our very skilled operators, like those at Capral, to make sure we have a level playing field so that we can compete competitively. It is not about breaching our obligations under the WTO rules. It is about making sure that countries comply with those rules and that they do not unfairly dump products into our country in breach of those rules. We are rolling out some of the most effective improvements to Australia's antidumping regime in more than a decade to improve its effectiveness. At the same time, we are reaffirming our commitment to the world trading rules.
We believe in free trade in this country, but we believe that trade should be fair. We do not believe it is fair to Australian workers and Australian manufacturers that China—or any other country—exports its goods to Australia at prices below the price it charges in its home market or below cost. That materially injures Australian businesses and puts Australian jobs at risk. So we have announced a number of reforms, and the legislation before us today is the third tranche of those reforms. I am quite committed as a local federal member in my area to making sure we protect Australian jobs. By that I mean making it fair so that employees, whether union members or non-union members, of companies like G James Glass & Aluminium, Capral and others in the Ipswich area and the western corridor are given a fair shake with respect to the operation of businesses.
I am pleased that Minister Clare has met with Phil Jobe and stakeholders to make sure we can do everything we can in the legislation to protect Australian jobs and give Australian manufacturers a fair go. Specifically, the legislation before the House today gives the CEO of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service—the minister—the power to act on the basis of all facts available in determining whether a countervailable subsidy has been received and the amount of the countervailing subsidy if adequate information has not been provided to Customs by the country of origin or the company being investigated. A lot of these companies are Chinese state-run companies. The legislation also removes the limitation to the exclusion of profit when considering a normal value of a good and removes the need for a separate review of antidumping measures and a continuation inquiry when they occur in close proximity to one another. That is one of the biggest problems in this area: there is inquiry after inquiry after inquiry—one after another—which comes at a cost to the stakeholders.
One of the great reforms we put in place earlier was to empower organisations like the AWU and Capral to have standing—locus standi, to use the legal expression—to take countervailing measures and to use litigation. In the past, they often did not have the standing they needed. So we are going to do a number of things. We are allowing the minister to use additional forms of interim dumping duty beyond the single duty that is currently provided for. The new forms of duty to be outlined in the regulations are ad valorem duty, a fixed amount of duty or a floor price mechanism. These are part of the announcements that we made in the middle of June 2010 when we described it as streamlining the antidumping system. There are a number of improvements. I think the increase of 45 per cent in Customs staff working on antidumping issues is welcome. I think that has been important in the past. They have not been funded properly with adequate resources. The 30-day time limit which we have imposed for ministerial decisions on antidumping cases is very important. In the past it took ages and ages for decisions to be made and this puts a limit so that the minister can actually make decisions in that regard.
There are a lot of things that we have done. There is stronger compliance. That is one of the things that these bills do. I met with Phil Jobe recently and we talked about the measures at the ports and the waterfront and how they get around our duties and customs. I know that Phil has met with the minister to talk about what we can do in a practical way, a non-legislative way to actually stop Chinese and other companies from getting around our border protection mechanisms.
I think it is important that industry and trade experts have the power, the resources, the expertise, the knowledge and the muscle legislatively and financially to be able to get behind and investigate these complaints. I think there needs to be greater flexibility. I practised as a lawyer for more than 20 years and I am telling you that, when I read the legislation here, I read the litigation, I read the decision making and I read the QC's advice, this is about one of the most complex areas of law. It really is extraordinarily complex. We need a more rigorous appeals process. We need to be supported by more resources and I am glad we are doing that. I am glad we are taking a more flexible approach in terms of the standing of people to do it.
We are making big efforts. There is a lot more to be done. We need fair trade as well as free trade. We need to make sure that workers in the western corridor and across my electorate of Oxley get a fair go in this regard. I am pleased that Minister Clare has come to the plant in Ipswich. He said that Capral's plight was indicative of the manufacturers across the country. In the Queensland Times of 20 April this year he said:
Australian manufacturers are under a lot of pressure. Some of that is due to the high Aussie dollar, and illegal dumping adds extra burdens and extra pressure to these businesses.
I know that, the workers know it, the government knows it and we are acting through this legislation.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:22): I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012 and the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 2) 2012. Firstly, the coalition supports these bills. They are measures making sensible and practical changes which will help in a small way to address the inherent weakness of Australia's antidumping laws. Our support for this legislation exposes another myth that is perpetuated by this Labor government that we in the coalition oppose everything. Where we see legislation that has merit, such as that in these bills, we will support it but, where we see legislation proposed that has been poorly thought through or is nothing other than a political fix and is not in the best interests of Australia, the coalition will make no apology for vigorously opposing such legislation.
These bills are the third tranche of legislative changes to Australia's existing antidumping regime that Labor has made during this term of parliament and I understand that there are at least one or two additional bills to be introduced later this year. Why has it been necessary for these changes in our antidumping laws to be made in four or more separates tranches spread over 12 months? This remains a mystery that perhaps only the government can answer. It would have been far more efficient for all, especially Australian industry, if these changes to our antidumping regime had been made in one block of legislation, but unfortunately efficiency and this Labor government are not words that are often found in the same sentence. Going to the specifics of the bills, they firstly amend the dumping duty act in order to allow the minister to use different forms of interim dumping duties from those currently used. This change is consistent with the World Trade Organisation's antidumping agreement, which currently does not mandate the method for calculating the level of duty where an interim dumping duty is imposed. These amendments will enable the minister to impose either an ad valorem duty or a fixed amount of duty, a combination of the two or a floor price. Currently, the minister can only use a combination form of interim dumping duty, which is a fixed component or a variable component. This legislation simply gives the minister greater ability to impose the penalty duty required.
The bills also add new provisions to the act which will implement proposals to amend the subsidies provision in the Customs Act to better reflect the definitions and the operative provision of the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. In addition these bills amend division 6A, the 'Continuation of anti-dumping measures', of the act, which will enable measures to be amended, including by altering the level of applicable duty, if the minister decides to continue them. Currently, the only means of amending measures that are to be continued is the conduct of a separate review of the measures in close proximity to the continuation inquiry. Again, this gives greater flexibility in dealing with the problem of dumping. In addition, the bills repeal section 269TAC(13) of the Customs Act to remove the current limitations on determining profit when constructing the normal value of the relevant goods alleged to have been dumped in a foreign country. This deletion implements the government's response to recommendation 3.4 of the International Trade Remedies Forum report on the effectiveness of market situation provisions in the Customs Act.
Despite these changes, there are still many practical difficulties in determining when goods are actually dumped. For example, how do you calculate the normal price of a good? In markets where prices change frequently, responding to market conditions, is it the price last week? Is it the price last month? Is it the price last year? For commodities, is it what the price will be in the future? What about exchange rates? How do you calculate how a firm has actually calculated the exchange rate? A company may use an internal hedge, especially in the current market, where we have seen such extreme volatility in exchange rates. Further, how do you calculate the price in the domestic market, where different costs may result in the same goods being sold at different prices in different regional markets within one country?
Then there are the terms of sale. Price differentials, which often may seem to be price discrimination, may be explained by a difference in trading terms. If goods are purchased under a letter of credit this obviously has a different price, as if they were sold on trading terms with 30- or 60-day open terms. There are also credit risks and statutory warranties. All these factors need to be considered in the pricing of goods. Further, how do you actually apply a quantity discount? This is another calculation that Customs must make in determining whether goods have been sold below cost. This makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for an Australian Customs official to determine whether a good has been exported into Australia at a price that is different or lower than the exporter's home market.
When determining whether goods are being sold at higher prices in the Australian market, we need to make an apples-with-apples comparison. But this is very difficult because often the goods and products exported to Australia are simply not the same as those being sold in the home market. So where an apples-with-apples comparison cannot be made, although Customs officials can look to the price charged by an exporter in another country and make the calculation based on a combination of the exporter's production costs, other expenses and normal profit margins, it is simply impossible for Australian Customs officials to accurately determine what the price would be if the goods were theoretically only available in a foreign market. Thus, any estimation of prices by Customs is purely an arbitrary figure. These are just a few examples of the difficulties that our Customs officials face when implementing this legislation. A recent example of the problems in determining this arose in the electorate I represent where a dumping investigation was undertaken by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service upon an application lodged by Advance Cables, Olex Cables and Prysmian Power Cables and Systems Australia on behalf of Australian industry producing like goods into an alleged dumping concerning electrical cables exported to Australia from the People's Republic of China. I am sure these firms felt that the goods were being dumped into the Australian market at below the cost of what they were made for in China. However, as a result of Customs and Border Protection's investigations, Customs determined that the electric cables exported from China to Australia had not been dumped and therefore terminated the investigation.
We must also recognise that an effective and workable dumping regime treads a very fine line. An antidumping regime that is too harsh and is too complex can easily be used as a protectionist measure, which harms Australian industry and harms Australian jobs. For example, many Australian manufacturers rely on imported components to manufacture goods in Australia. However, an antidumping regime that is too complex can result in these manufacturers being tied up in red tape, defending dumping claims for a vital business input which they need in their processes here in Australia.
We also need to be aware that this could also work against us in Australia. When most Australian exporters go overseas and try to sell their goods on overseas markets they do their pricing with a sharper pencil and that would be against World Trade Organisation rules. However, these modest amendments to Australia's antidumping laws are not a cure against the many factors that are causing the declining competitiveness of Australian industry. The facts are that while many Australian companies may consider that goods are being dumped into Australia because they seem cheap, the reality is that as a nation we are giving away many of our competitive advantages.
In business, you can only succeed if you have a competitive advantage and you safeguard it, for your competitive advantage is your lifeblood. A company may be able to survive for a while if it has competitive parity but if this turns into a competitive disadvantage, extinction is just around the corner. In Australia, our labour costs are traditionally a competitive disadvantage. We will never be able to compete—nor do we want to—with China and India on labour costs. But one of our greatest competitive advantage is our low-cost electricity supplies. Abundant supplies of high-quality black coal, generating low-cost electricity, is one of the few competitive advantages we have here in Australia. But this government, in an act of economic treason, has surrendered this national competitive advantage. A recent report released by the Energy Users Association of Australia shows average electricity prices in Australia are now amongst the highest in the world and, once the world's biggest carbon tax takes effect, Australian industry will be paying the world's highest electricity prices. Interestingly, South Australia, which boasts about having more wind turbines than anywhere else in Australia, can now also boast that they not only have the highest electricity prices in Australia but have the highest electricity prices in the world.
It is important to note that, under the World Trade Organisation's definition, 'dumping' is not just selling goods below cost for an anticompetitive purpose. The WTO's definition of dumping also includes merely selling a good for a lower price in a foreign market than is charged for the same good in the exporter's domestic market. Effectively, antidumping legislation attempts to ensure that a firm makes the same level of profits in an export market as it does on a domestic market for the sale of the same good.
Under World Trade Organisation agreements, dumping is rightfully condemned if it causes or merely threatens to cause material injury to a domestic Australian industry. Essentially, when it all boils down, dumping is merely geographic price discrimination on an international basis—the selling of the same goods at different prices in different markets where the markets are able to be segmented by international borders. If we are to stand here in this parliament, with speaker after speaker condemning dumping—geographic price discrimination—across international markets because it causes or threatens to cause material injury to an Australian business, we must also condemn geographic price discrimination when it occurs internally within our borders, especially where it causes or threatens to cause material injury to an Australian business. Otherwise, if we fail to do so, we are nothing more than hypocrites. While it is important that we have effective laws to deal with geographic price discrimination when it occurs across political boundaries and internationally, I say it is equally important that we also have strong laws when it occurs internally in Australia. Yet, unlike other countries, Australia has no provisions in our competition laws to deal with anticompetitive geographic price discrimination when it occurs across different markets within Australia. In the home of free market capitalism, the USA, the Robinson-Patman Act has a specific provision against geographic price discrimination. This act provides, in part:
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce … to sell, or contract to sell, goods in any part of the United States at prices lower than those exacted by said person elsewhere in the United States for the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor …
These laws simply do not exist in Australia's competition laws.
We should never forget that under these laws it was the notorious Standard Oil company, that was broken up into 34 separate companies, all competing against each other, found to engage in the practice of geographic price discrimination. The strategy used by Standard Oil was to sell oil below cost in one domestic market to drive the competitor's profits down and force them to exit the market, while in another area, where other independent businesses had already been driven out of the market, they raised prices. This would be unlawful across international borders. In America where it is done internally within their borders it is also unlawful. Unfortunately, here in Australia we have nothing to prevent it under our competition laws.
Further, while these bills seek to address goods being sold into Australia at lower prices than their cost in the home market it would appear the real problem we have in Australia is not with goods being sold at lower prices but with goods being sold at higher prices—virtually a reverse dumping. It is clear now that Australian consumers pay some of the highest prices in the world for goods. Take as one example Coca-Cola, which is a syrup manufactured in the USA and shipped to licensed bottlers in over 200 countries worldwide. Yet here in Australia the everyday price of Coke in our supermarkets is 50 to 100 per cent higher. Again, it appears that Australian consumers are paying higher prices for goods exported from overseas countries, not the opposite. So if we need to have this legislation in place to deal with antidumping we also need to investigate why Australian consumers are paying higher prices, because that also places us at a competitive disadvantage.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (10:37): I listened with interest to the contributions from the member for Hughes on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 2) 2012 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012. I welcome many of the things that the honourable member had to say, particularly his observations about geographic price discrimination within the federation. I can only hope that he will have the same enthusiasm as he did in the issue of geographic price discrimination for tradeable goods when it comes to geographic price discrimination for the sale of labour around the federation. Whilst I welcome the comments he has made on the sale of goods I know that his party, at least, has been a vociferous objector to the removal of price discrimination when it comes to the sale of labour around the federation. Indeed, the Liberal Party is a great defender of the rights of the states to have price differentials and even regional differentials for the sale of labour. Maybe that is a conversation I can pursue with the honourable member at another time when a more appropriate bill comes before this House.
During the parliamentary recess I had the benefit of visiting a number of businesses and factories within my electorate, and I had a number of discussions with one local businessman by the name of Roger Farrar, who runs an aluminium powder-coating business within my electorate, based in the Southern Highlands of New South Wales, in Moss Vale. Roger Farrar operates a good private business. He is a good employer. He set the business up himself. He built the powder-coating oven himself and it is one of the most energy-efficient powder-coating ovens in New South Wales. He is a good operator, with a good business. His main markets for the extruded, powder coated aluminium are window- and door-framing businesses. They sell in turn to the commercial construction market. Often it is government organisations here in Canberra and elsewhere who are fitting out their new buildings with his products.
Roger Farrar has made the very pertinent point to me over a number of discussions that the dumping of cheap goods from Asia into the Australian market is killing jobs and killing businesses like his. He has no objection to free trade; he has no objection to fair trade. What he does have an objection to is the abuse of our open system of trading with the rest of the world, the abuse by local consumers and foreign exporters, because that is destroying certain industries within this country—particularly small businesses like his which do not have huge stocks of capital to fall back on in tough times and use to trade their way out of economic difficulties. A small job that Mr Farrar loses because of the availability of cheap, dumped aluminium goods can mean the difference between his business's survival or otherwise.
This story can be repeated many hundreds of times around the country, and it is one of the motivating factors behind us bringing this third tranche of bills before the chamber today. Our system of anti-dumping laws operates within both national and international legal systems. That is to say that our laws themselves are open to challenge by our trading partners and members of the World Trade Organisation. The decisions that we make in the administration of those laws are also open to challenge and are reviewable in appropriate forums here in Australia and internationally. So we need to ensure that whatever we do complies with our international obligations but also enables a system of review. I make no bones about the fact that, if a bias should exist within our laws, it should be a bias which enables a complainant manufacturer here in Australia to fairly access the system of review and to be able to do that in an efficient way, because a remedy delayed is a remedy denied, and a remedy denied means the difference between life and death for many of the businesses in this trade-exposed area.
I am very pleased that this third tranche of bills goes to some of those issues. It does operate within our international obligations. It makes sure that the laws that we introduce into this parliament are impervious to international challenge but provides a freeing up, if you like, or a bias, to make it easier for our domestic manufacturers to challenge what they believe to be illegal and unfair trading advantages for our international competitors.
Nothing in this legislation should be seen by any of our international trading partners as an attack on the relationship we have with them. As speaker after speaker has said in this place, we are a trading nation and as a nation we benefit without doubt from the free exchange of goods and services and capital between this country and our trading partners. It is one of the things that lie behind our almost unique prosperity in a challenged economic world.
There are three to four issues that this current legislation addresses. First is the issue which I think the member for Hughes quite succinctly described, enabling the CEO of the customs and border protection authority or the minister to compare apples with apples. It does that by enabling them to free up the relevant matters that they must take into account when assessing whether a relevant countervailing available subsidy has been received by an alleged dumper of goods into the Australian market. That will make it easier for us to assess whether a dumping incident has occurred. It is not always straightforward, as the member for Hughes has quite rightly said and as the minister said in his second reading speech on this legislation. A person in the street can look at this, apply a common-sense approach to it and say quite simply that a subsidy or an assistance has occurred which is against the spirit of the law but might not be against the letter of the law. What that part of this legislation is attempting to do is free up those relevant considerations, again consistent with our international obligations.
The second part of the legislation goes to ensuring that we provide an expanded power to both the CEO and the minister in relation to continuation inquiries. This is achieved by enhancing the powers that the CEO and the minister have to conduct a continuation inquiry to allow similar results to those currently available in review of measures. Through this amendment, the Customs and Border Protection Service will be able to recalculate the level of duties of an antidumping measure during a continuation inquiry. It will streamline the process, meaning that there will be quicker outcomes for all interested parties.
A third, and important, measure is providing greater flexibility when assessing the normal profit or normal value of an item which is said to have been dumped on our market. If we are alleging that a good has been dumped on our markets at prices below which it would be offered in its home market or elsewhere, then it is important to have a means for assessing what the normal value, and therefore the normal profit, for producing and selling that good will be. This operates on the principle that people do not produce goods out of a desire to be engaged in a philanthropic endeavour. They produce goods to make profits, to distribute those profits amongst their shareholders and to run a functioning business here or elsewhere. So it is important to be able to assess the normal value and profit of a good in order to assess whether it has been dumped into the Australian market.
Finally, the fourth measure is providing flexible remedies to ensure that the remedy fits the crime and that the remedy will properly address the issue that is at the heart of our objective behind this legislation, which is not to provide some backdoor form of protection except and unless that protection is against unfair trade practices—protection against dumping, protection against predatory regional pricing and protection against pricing which is simply designed to damage established businesses here in Australia.
I think they are all important measures. They rightfully deserve and, I understand, have gained the support of all members within this place, which is very pleasing indeed. The member for Hughes wonders out loud why three to four separate tranches of legislation have been introduced by the government when a singular compendium of bills could have done the job. There is a pretty simple answer to that—that is, we wanted to act as soon as possible on this issue. I am being pressed by businesses and employee representatives, unions within my electorate, to ensure that the parliament acts as soon as possible. When we have measures that are ready to go, it is only proper that we introduce them into the parliament as soon as possible. Even if the entire package is not ready, if we have a discrete area of laws that can be introduced into the parliament which will provide some relief, then it is only proper that we introduce that legislation as soon as is practical. And that is exactly what we have done. I will finish on this point, Madam Deputy Speaker O'Neill: these are all important reforms. They build on and stand on the shoulders of the reforms that have been introduced into this parliament and passed into law. But the best laws in the world will only work if they are properly policed. I welcome the fact that the minister and the government have doubled the number of staff that are available to the Customs Service to properly police this important area of law. I would like to see us go further. I would like to see us go much further in this regard. It is not only about doubling the number of staff but ensuring that we have continuity of employment in this area so that staff can build up the requisite expertise in identifying breaches of these laws to ensure that they can be efficiently and effectively dealt with. If you have a small number of staff, or even a larger number of staff that are constantly turning over, they do not build up that expertise or the relationship or the knowledge which is necessary to effectively police these important laws.
The second point I would make in relation to this is: whatever we can do to streamline the legal processes is highly desirable. I can say with great authority that businesses do not lightly take anti-dumping action. What they are effectively doing when they are taking anti-dumping action is taking on one of their customers or prospective customers and saying that they think that those customers or prospective customers have cheated them out of a job. That has a longstanding impact on the relationship that business has with a prospective customer so they do not take that action lightly. But when they do take it, they want a quick remedy, an appropriate remedy, one that enables them to get back into that market and re-establish their relationships with their customers in an effective way and in a way that sends a pretty strong signal right around the place that you might have, as a purchaser of goods, some short-term advantage in procuring these cut-price goods and, in some instances, cut-quality goods, but in the long term you are doing the wrong thing. This is a message to businesses the country round: in the long term you are doing the wrong thing. You are removing not only the jobs and livelihoods of sustainable businesses throughout the country, but in the long term you are opening yourself up to having yourself over a barrel in the future. These businesses might be willing to dump their goods on the Australian market for whatever reason in the short term to perhaps remove domestic competition down the track, but you can be quite sure that in years to come the prices of those goods will rise and there will be no domestic competition available for those people to go to any alternative. So there is a message to business in this as well, that they have a responsibility.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (10:53): I rise to voice my support for these two bills, the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 2) 2012 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012. I particularly thank the member for Throsby for his contribution. I suppose it will be interesting to see how the member for Hughes's contribution is taken in the light of his attempt, as I understand him, to rewrite the rules of Federation, which is quite a brave thing to do. He made no mention of a referendum, but it was an interesting exploration of law and how the states interact. I think he might find some value in having a reread of his Constitution.
The bills before the chamber are part of the Gillard government's multifaceted approach to improving Australia's antidumping system. These are some of the most important improvements to Australia's antidumping regime in more than a decade. Industries, companies and workers suffer when goods from overseas are dumped into the Australian market, companies such as the ones I see when I drive through Moreton, especially in Rocklea, Archerfield, Salisbury and Acacia Ridge. It only hurts Australia in the long run if our manufacturers are forced to shut down so that competition is removed and they put their employees out of work to make way for cheaper overseas products. As the member for Throsby touched on, normally if an Australian business is closed down, and there is no competition, prices rise and all consumers suffer. So it is vital that we have a fair and effective antidumping regime. This is about protecting jobs across Australia and especially, I would say, in my own manufacturing area of Moreton. Already, manufacturers face challenges such as the high dollar—although I see it has come off the boil a little bit lately—and this incredible patchwork economy where we see those businesses in my electorate that service the mining industry booming. The only builders who are working are doing renovations for people who work in the mining industry. Others are doing it tough. So I have some great businesses that are booming and others who are really doing it hard. Obviously, if we look around the world we see slowing global demand as a result of the global financial crisis. There are a few green shoots there but also a few troubling signs as well if we look at perhaps France and Greece and some of the political decisions that might be made over there.
In Moreton, many of my manufacturers are still feeling the impacts of the 2011 floods that devastated their industrial zone in Rocklea in particular but also in Archerfield and some sections of Acacia Ridge and Yeronga. Recently I had a chamber of industry event—the Southside chamber and the Archerfield chamber combined—with the Minister for Small Business, Brendan O'Connor. Many of the business people there talked about how they were coping with recuperating from the floods. They also pointed out the people who were not there who did not recover and had closed down because of the damage from the floods. Internationally known companies like Steve Parish, the photography and printing business, are now out of business because of the effect of the floods—and the high dollar and the tourism downturn.
I am proud to be part of the Gillard government that is focused on supporting small business with investments and job creation. This antidumping legislation is only part of the story. We see that the proceeds of the mining tax have enabled the government to give small business the ability to write off any new business asset worth up to $6,500. This will be worth more than $1 billion across the sector and I am sure many of my businesses will appreciate that. They will be able to write off the first $5,000 used in the purchase of a motor vehicle thereby freeing up cash flow and giving them room to invest. That is also good news for the Moorooka Magic Mile of Motors, which is in my electorate.
We are also giving the Small Business Advisory Service program an extra $27.5 million over four years to continue supporting small businesses with vital advice and assistance. Since it was introduced, this program has provided over 354,000 separate advisory services to more than 187,000 small businesses around the country. As we know, small businesses are the employers and the engine room of the economy. More than 90 per cent of the users of this service, when surveyed, said that they would recommend the service to other small businesses.
We are establishing a key point of contact for small businesses in their liaison with government in the form of a Small Business Commissioner, as announced by Minister O'Connor. Small business owners will be able to get the information and advice they need thanks to the national information and referral service. It will also give them access to other services including help to resolve disputes. Obviously, having a minister in cabinet looking after this small business portfolio is also a good thing. We have moved to establish a $29.8 million manufacturing technology innovation centre to create networks with small businesses, industry bodies, major manufacturers and research organisations. These measures demonstrate the government's commitment to helping the many businesses currently under pressure. We will continue to work closely with these industries to help them overcome the many current challenges.
The reforms in these particular antidumping bills are based on feedback from businesses, unions and workers who interact with Australia's antidumping system. Their focus is to make sure our antidumping system is better aligned with the laws and practices of other countries, particularly those that play fairly, and to help provide certainty and confidence for businesses and local jobs.
Australia is a nation of trade. We benefit from access to overseas markets for our export goods and services—mining and agriculture are just some of them. We welcome the imports that flow through to Australian businesses. Therefore, we cannot just throw up trade barriers. That is the old way, the way of Australia before Federation, although some of the comments from the member for Hughes suggest he wants to go back to a time before 1 January 1901. This short-term populism of throwing up trade barriers would only deliver long-term pain. Every sensible economist knows that, although we do have a few people opposite who do talk about raising trade barriers quite regularly.
The Gillard government wants to uphold confidence in international trade and that means having confidence in the rules. These bills make clear that the CEO of Customs and Border Protection and the minister have the express power to take all facts available into account when determining whether a countervailable subsidy has been received or in determining the amount of a countervailing subsidy when the parties being investigated by Customs fail to provide relevant information within a reasonable period or significantly impede the investigation of an inquiry. This is a common-sense approach to the needs of business. This reform ensures that our antidumping system better reflects the World Trade Organisation agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures.
Secondly, these bills remove the need for a separate review of antidumping measures and continuation inquiries occurring in close proximity to each other. This reform will streamline the process, meaning quicker outcomes for all interested parties, particularly the workers of Australia. These bills also put into practice the recommendation of the International Trade Remedies Forum to take away the current limitation to the inclusion of profit when calculating the normal value of a good in its country of origin in certain circumstances. This allows greater flexibility for Customs to more accurately determine the normal value of goods.
Finally, these bills allow different forms of interim duty to be applied from those currently used. The types of interim dumping duty which could be used will include an ad valorem duty, a fixed amount of duty, a combination duty or a floor price mechanism.
In conclusion, better support can be given to our employers and employees with an up-to-date, rigorous and better resourced antidumping system and, at the same time, we can reiterate Australia's commitment to play according to the world trading rules. Unfortunately, not all of our competitor trading nations play fair, and that is why we have this legislation. These reforms will provide better access to the antidumping system, faster remedies and faster decisions, improved quality of decision making, greater consistency with other countries and stronger compliance with antidumping measures. For this reason I commend the minister for introducing the bills to the House.
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Justice and Minister for Defence Materiel) (11:01): I thank members who participated in this cognate debate on two bills—the Customs Amendment Anti-Dumping Improvements Bill (No. 2) 2012 and the Customs Tariff Anti-Dumping Amendments Bill (No. 1) 2012. As members have said, they represent the third tranche of legislation that implements the government's reforms to Australia's antidumping system that were announced by my predecessor in June of last year. These reforms are designed to provide better access to the antidumping system for the Australian industry and to ensure any applicable remedies are available as quickly as possible.
As I said when I introduced these bills, the fourth and the final tranche of legislation to implement the antidumping reforms that were announced last year will be introduced in this session of parliament. The fourth tranche will contain reforms in three broad areas. It will further amend the subsidies provisions of the Customs Act to ensure they better reflect the WTO agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures. They will establish an ant circumvention framework in Australia and they will also strengthen the provisions that deal with non-cooperation.
In putting together this legislation, we are working closely with industry through the International Trade Remedies Forum. This group met here, in Parliament House, last week. I told them amongst other things that the reform does not end with the implementation of the fourth tranche of legislation, and I will be working with them on more reforms to improve our antidumping system.
I thank opposition members for their support for these bills and I commend them to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Schedule 4) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (11:04): I rise to talk on the Customs Tariff Amendment (Schedule 4) Bill 2012. The purpose of this bill is to make amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995, which will repeal and replace schedule 4 of that act. Schedule 4 currently lists 100 concessional items. Under the changes they will be reduced and consolidated to approximately 55. The aim is to improve clarity and usability, particularly for industry and business.
Despite yesterday's budget, demonstrating no plan to build a stronger economy, repay debt or create secure jobs, we are glad that the government has seen the sense of picking up the coalition's plans to cut red tape and this bill looks like one of the few ways in which Labor will make any progress on reducing red tape for small business and industry.
As the bill will help reduce complexity and red tape for small business and industry, it does have the support of the coalition. The list of concessions within the legislation has grown over many years, becoming increasingly complex to administer and difficult for users to understand. The required changes which have been made relate to concessions which have been in place for many decades; many items which were introduced when general tariff rates were much higher than current rates; and 14 government agencies with policy responsibility for various items.
Clearly, greater complexity places greater compliance burdens on business and that, in turn, leads to increased costs and generally those costs will be passed on to consumers. When moves are made to reduce complexity, such as within this bill, they will always get the support of the opposition. Of course, complexity can also create the ability for mistakes to be made. The more complex we make regulations, the more likely businesses are to make mistakes in interpreting those regulations. This change is obviously a step in the right direction to help business have a greater understanding of concessional rates that are available on tariffs.
The amendments are the result of a review which focused on removing unnecessary complexity from the existing schedule by simplifying existing arrangements and removing obsolete items.
Recommendations put forward by the review are sensible and are supported by the coalition. They include removing items which are either redundant or rarely used; consolidating, where possible, those items that have similar coverage and explaining them more clearly; reviewing and removing obsolete by-laws that list goods under certain items in schedule 4; and placing similar items together in the structure of a revised schedule 4. These recommendations will make that schedule more user friendly and, as I said, reduce unnecessary complexity.
Red tape and, increasingly, green tape are strangling the prosperity of small and larger businesses in Australia. Their impact is increasingly significant and any moves that this parliament takes to deal with it in a sensible way should certainly be welcomed. The coalition always supports measures—and wholeheartedly—which make it easier for people to do business. That enables them to therefore grow stronger, create more jobs and contribute to our national economy.
I believe that the issue of red tape and green tape must be seriously addressed by this parliament. This bill is welcome because it does do that. The work that this parliament needs to do in tackling what, quite frankly, is the monster of red tape is far from having begun. We in the coalition are very serious about doing something about it. If you are going to do something about it, then you actually need to make drastic cuts to red and green tape. We will make those cuts and it will be part of our policy going forward. I commend this bill. It takes a small step along that road. But of course there is so much more for this parliament to do to take that enormous burden, which we have created legislatively over decades, away from business and industry.
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Justice and Minister for Defence Materiel) (11:09): I thank the member for Stirling for his contribution to this debate. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Schedule 4) Bill 2012 contains important amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. These amendments will repeal the current schedule 4 of the act and replace it with an easier, simpler schedule. Schedule 4 delivers a wide range of tariff concessions. These concessions have the effect of reducing or removing the normal rate of customs duty that would otherwise apply.
At the moment, schedule 4, as the shadow minister said, is complex and difficult for industry and importers to use. Because of this, in 2010 the government announced a Better Regulation Ministerial Partnership to examine and simplify the current regime. That partnership recommended making schedule 4 easier to use by doing a number of things, including removing items that were redundant and restructuring to place similar items together. The bill is a result of that work. It does remove red tape and makes it easier for Australian businesses and importers to use this section of the Customs Tariff Act. When enacted, the schedule 4 bill will reduce the existing tariff concession schedule to around half the current number of items and improve its clarity and usability. The bill preserves the scope of current concessions at the same rate. It has strong industry support and will benefit importers, customs brokers and manufacturers.
The bill also formally incorporates the extension of the SPARTECA-TCF Scheme to 31 December 2014. This scheme relates to textile, clothing and footwear concessions for prescribed Forum Island countries. The extension was initially contained in Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2012, tabled in parliament on 16 February this year.
I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (11:12): I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 2012. A similar bill was introduced in the last parliament which is largely reflected in the bill before us today. This bill firstly addresses issues raised by the Federal Court in Daniel v Health Insurance Commission. Secondly, it implements recommendations of the review of the PSR scheme, Report of the steering committee 2007. Thirdly, it makes minor administrative changes to the scheme. Finally, in addition to the bill that was presented in the last parliament, it introduces amendments in response to the full Federal Court's decisions in Kutlu v Director of Professional Services Review.
The PSR is a peer review process that was established in the early 1990s. It is charged with protecting the integrity of Medicare and the PBS. The scheme currently covers medical practitioners, dentists, optometrists, midwives, nurse practitioners, chiropractors, physiotherapists, podiatrists and osteopaths who use Medicare and the PBS. The process is intended to protect the public from inappropriate practice by ensuring that Commonwealth funded services delivered by practitioners are medically necessary and clinically relevant. It also protects the public from the consequences of inappropriate practice by ensuring that payments to claimants are made in accordance with the regulations for the Medicare and pharmaceutical benefits schedules—specifically that the service that has been provided is adequate in light of the associated requirements for the payment claimed.
The Medicare Participation Review Committee, or MPRC, is the independent statutory body that decides whether referred practitioners retain the right to practice under Medicare. The Commonwealth currently spends nearly $18 billion on Medicare services and $10 billion on pharmaceutical benefits per annum. The coalition does support processes which ensure the integrity of the expenditure and the appropriateness of the clinical services provided.
The explanatory memorandum states that the amendments proposed in this bill do not alter the PSR or the MPRC processes. The amendments are intended to improve administration, clarify issues raised in recent court decisions and address evidentiary matters. This was reiterated by the minister in her second reading speech. The bill specifically addresses the issues raised in the full Federal Court in relation to Kutlu v Director of Professional Services Review, as I have stated, and in that case the full Federal Court held that there was a technical problem with the appointment of PSR panel members. This bill ensures that the appointments are treated as valid and effective. The coalition does not oppose this bill.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (11:14): I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. The Professional Services Review scheme and the Medicare Participation Review Committee process are important parts of the government's efforts to protect the integrity of the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I would like to thank the opposition for their agreement to the swift passage of this important legislation. The bill will ensure that the Professional Services Review scheme continues to operate effectively so that Medicare can provide high-quality, appropriate and safe health services for all Australians.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
CONDOLENCES
Bowen, Hon. Lionel Frost, AC
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House record its deep regret at the death on 1 April 2012 of the Honourable Lionel Frost Bowen AC, a former Member for Kingsford-Smith from 1969 to 1990, place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (11:16): I very much wanted to be associated with this condolence motion. Lionel Bowen retired from this parliament 22 years ago, and I dare say I am one of the few members of the House of Representatives who had the great privilege of serving with him. In a sense, I always felt a very special personal linkage with him, notwithstanding the fact that we served on different sides of the House.
Lionel Bowen was born in Sydney on 28 December 1922. He left school at 14 but completed his studies at night school and later obtained a law degree from my old alma mater, the University of Sydney. In those difficult times, many people achieved a great deal, despite the considerable disadvantage that they suffered in early life. My own father's career was similar in the sense that he had to earn scholarships and places in school and university in order to succeed. Lionel Bowen practised as a solicitor, as I did, working primarily in the area of local government. His firm, Bowen & Packham, was across the road from my firm, Berne Murray & Tout. There was a time when lawyers had to frequent each other's offices, usually to get moratorium certificates signed or certificates in relation to leases that a client of yours had received independent advice on, and frequently I attended Lionel's office—long before he became a member of parliament. That firm continued as Bowen & Gerathy at a later point in time.
From 1948 to 1962, Lionel Bowen was an alderman of Randwick Municipal Council. He was mayor between 1950 and 1951, and 1955 and 1956. I saw some synergies with the Ruddock family. My father entered local government—the Shire of Hornsby—in 1952, I think, and was there until he was elected to parliament in 1964. He also served a single term as mayor and another term as acting mayor. Lionel Bowen was elected to the Parliament of New South Wales and served there as the member for Randwick. Over that time, 1962 to 1969, he served with my late father. I made an error earlier: my father served from 1962 in the state parliament, until 1976. Lionel was elected to the House of Representatives as the member for Kingsford-Smith in 1969 serving until his retirement shortly before the 1990 election. My father aspired to serve in the federal parliament. That was never to be. My wife used to say that I walked in his shoes in a sense with a much easier path albeit almost 39 years ago.
I served with Lionel Bowen from 1973 until 1990 as a member of the House of Representatives and I had the opportunity of seeing him serve as Postmaster-General from 1972 to 1974, Special Minister of State from 1973 to 1975, minister assisting the Prime Minister from 1973 to 1974, minister assisting the Prime Minister in matters relating to the Public Service from 1974 to 1975, and Minister for Manufacturing Industry between June 1975 and November 1975. That was while Labor was in government, and then it moved into opposition and in December 1977 he was elected the Labor Party's deputy leader. He was in that post until April 1990. He was Deputy Prime Minister from March 1983 to April 1990. He served as Minister for Trade, as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Commonwealth-State Relations, as Vice-President of the Executive Council and as Attorney-General from 1984 to 1990. In 1989 he passed Ben Chifley's record as the longest serving minister in governments of the Australian Labor Party.
I had the great privilege in 1977 to be elected chairman of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, to review the act that had been introduced by Lionel Murphy. It was a very significant committee but what was most significant for me was that Lionel Bowen was the Labor Party's deputy leader and Lionel Bowen, as its shadow Attorney-General, saw fit to serve on that committee of the parliament. There is often some sensitivity by people who have served at a senior level and go back and serve on parliamentary committees. I think Lionel Bowen is an example of one gentleman who believed it was important to contribute to the parliament and the debates and the discussions in which we were involved and to contribute at the very highest level, whatever one's position in the parliament. I look back at some of the very kind remarks he made about me as chairman of that committee but I felt greatly privileged to be able to have him serving beside me in reviewing legislation that had been extraordinarily controversial in its time and in putting in place positive recommendations that survive even to today.
I think it is a great tribute, and I do not think this has been referred to before, that one of our significant courts buildings in Sydney is named after Lionel Bowen. I think he deserved it. I think that was right and proper. He was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia in 1991. He served Australia for 42 years across three levels of government. I think somebody who was able to serve in the very diverse ways he did and who could see the very significant achievements that he had been able to make in government progressed deserves commendation for the great contribution he made to Australia. To his wife, Claire, to whom I have written and whom I saw on the occasion of the state funeral, I extend the condolences of the Ruddock family and I do so to all of the Bowen family.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (11:24): I want to follow on from the remarks made by the member for Berowra and note the fact that across the parliament there has been unanimous respect for and acknowledgement of the contribution that was made by Lionel Bowen. As the member for Kingsford Smith, now serving in a seat that Lionel Bowen won after his time in both local and state politics, it is a very great privilege for me to be standing here with Lionel Bowen as one of my predecessors. It is also a great privilege for me to be able to reflect on the contribution that he made not only in the parliament but also in the electorate more broadly.
Lionel Bowen's career was a highly distinguished one, which is even the more remarkable given the humble conditions and circumstances under which he grew up. It is appropriate for me to note again just some of those achievements of high office. He was the Deputy Prime Minister from 1983 to 1990; the Attorney-General for a significant period of time; the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Commonwealth-State Relations; the Minister for Trade; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; the Special Minister of State; the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister; the Postmaster-General—his first appointment under the Whitlam government; the state member for Randwick for a number of years; the first Labor Alderman of the Randwick City Council; and, of course, a founding director of the Randwick Labor Club. His achievements are noted. They are recognised as being the mark of someone who had tremendous capacity and who gave himself to the service both of the Labor Party and of the country.
I want to reflect on some of the remarks that have been made by those people who worked with Lionel Bowen in his time. Bob Hawke, the former Prime Minister, said:
From his own intrinsic talents and characteristics emerged this remarkable man who now together we remember and we honour.
Former Prime Minister Paul Keating said:
Australia has been fortunate in having the conscientious service of someone so committed to the values of justice and equity and the public good in general.
Humility was written all over his calling card.
I noted the remarks of Johno Johnson, who has been a long-time loyal servant of the Labor Party, when he remarked of Lionel Bowen, whom he knew very well:
Office meant nothing to him unless he could serve people.
It is also the case that the qualities that Lionel Bowen displayed, qualities both of humility and of capacity, are rare. They are rare in this place, to be frank, and they are also rare in life in general. Here was somebody who was sure of himself but had a down-to-earth nature that not only was noted by his colleagues and his contemporaries but was something which is always reflected upon by anybody you meet, as I do as the current local member for Kingsford Smith, by anybody who met him on any occasion. He was someone whom they could relate to, who they felt connected with them and listened to them, who was able to empathise with them—and I will go on to say why I think that was the case—but who also had something to offer them by way of observation, assistance, if they were a constituent seeking help, and analysis by someone who was extremely capable and had considerable intellectual abilities.
I think one of the keys to understanding someone's career and character is to look to their early life. In the case of Lionel Bowen there is much that instructs us there. He certainly was born in what we would now describe as fairly challenging circumstances. He was an only child and, ultimately, the only child of a single mum. He left school at 14 to support the family and then worked overtime to become a solicitor and ultimately a politician, serving his local community for generations and generations. He was diagnosed with rheumatic fever at an early age, and it is probably fair to say that this would have had some influence on him as a young man. He trained as an artillery signalman but was taken out of active service because of the condition, and so ended up in the war working as an orderly at Sydney Hospital unloading the wounded from the ships. Here again is an experience that I know, from what his family have communicated, had some impact on him. He was a child of the Depression but also, in his adolescence, late teens and early 20s, a child of the World War II generation, and that certainly left its mark upon him.
The Bowen family are very well known in the electorate of Kingsford Smith. To Lionel's wife, Claire, and to their children and grandchildren, I again extend my warmest sympathies at the loss of Lionel. There is no doubt that they were aware of the tremendous capacity and character that Lionel had, but I think it would have come home to them even more vividly when we all gathered, along with former prime ministers, at St Mary's Cathedral for the state funeral. Recognition of the contribution he made was appropriately given. Lionel's son Tony remarked to me that he died in his favourite season, Easter, a time which reflected his religious adherence and when his great pursuit, the track, is also starting to gear up into full swing at the racing carnival.
After growing up in the circumstances in which he did, he ended up as a married man living in his three-bedroomed house in Kensington with some 10 people for a number of years, until the second-storey extension was added in 1974. In his time he played the role in the Labor Party of a constant, loyal, diligent and active participant in the political affairs of the party, and subsequently of the nation, at the highest level.
There are some aspects of Bowen's career that have not been remarked on up until now, and I would like to pay a brief tribute to them. One is the fact that he was very active in his early period in the parliament on issues concerning Cambodia, and subsequently the progress of the Cambodian nation following the terrible reign of the Khmer Rouge. Members opposite may recall some of that involvement. He was probably the first federal politician to suggest that a peacekeeping force be sent to Cambodia, something which at the time people looked at somewhat askance. Yet it is an example of how he identified with the people in that country, who had suffered such a great deal.
Lionel Bowen was someone who was both humble and confident. He was a very acute assessor of people's characters and as a deputy to Prime Minister Hawke, and in work with other prime ministers, he served in a way that gave them the opportunity to lead to the fullest of their abilities. That was truly a mark of his service here in the parliament and to the Labor Party.
I want to make one personal reflection, as I think it is appropriate to do so in this condolence motion. My first interaction with Lionel Bowen was when he was Attorney-General and approached me to sit on the 1998 Constitutional Convention. I thought that did some very good work, but ultimately we were not able to settle those issues, which were and remain very important to Australians. It was always a mystery to me as to why Lionel Bowen had approached me, and I subsequently found out that a couple of his sons—particularly Peter, but also Tony and, I think, the other kids—had listened to a lot of Midnight Oil in his house at Kensington over the years, and eventually it seemed as though Lionel's ears were pricked up as well.
I have to say that when I came into the party and the parliament I was welcomed both by the Bowen family and by Lionel. He was there to provide sage advice—and it certainly was sage advice—and I was extremely appreciative of the relationship that I was able to develop with him, even though I did not know him as well as many others. He made an extraordinary contribution to his community, to the Labor Party and to the Labor governments that he served, and he made an extraordinary contribution to the nation. He will be very well remembered.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (11:36): It is an honour to join in the condolence motion for the late Hon. Lionel Bowen. I first met Lionel Bowen in 1995. He at that point was, of course, a former Deputy Prime Minister and a lion of the labour movement. I was a very junior ALP branch member of, at that point, seven years standing in the ALP—a young man who had yet to be elected to his local council and without a profile in the party. In what would become over the years a very typical mistake, I found myself sitting next to Lionel Bowen at a dinner to celebrate the election of the Carr Labor government. This mistake was due to an official assuming that I was his son and therefore seating me on the official table next to the former Deputy Prime Minister. I soon worked out that this mistake had occurred and suggested that I might take my leave and go and find a more appropriate seat at the very large function—a seat more befitting a very junior Labor Party branch member than the official table with the newly elected Premier and the former Deputy Prime Minister. Of course, Lionel would not hear a word of that. He insisted that I remain in my seat and spent considerable time chatting to me about matters of common interest. Lionel was always quick to encourage and loath to criticise. He enjoyed taking the time to chat. He shared his views with humility. He was keenly interested in the rejuvenation of the Labor Party after his retirement, and he had not an arrogant bone in his body.
The mistake that that official made on that evening was the beginning of my relationship with Lionel Bowen. Of course, a few years after that the ravages of the pernicious disease of Alzheimer's began slowly to take their toll on Lionel. But it has been very common at functions or meetings since I have entered parliament for people to come up to me and tell me that they went to school with my father or used to work for my father. I was initially quite surprised that so many people worked for the NRMA, until I realised after a number of these incidents that they were confused. But I would find that as a result of regularly being assumed to be related to Lionel Bowen I learnt a lot more about him even than in my own interactions with him. I would obviously tell disappointed interlocutors that in fact I was not Lionel Bowen's son, but they would invariably go on to tell me a story about Lionel, and invariably those stories would reflect on his humility, his integrity and his decency.
Lionel Bowen had, I think, the Chifley-like qualities of a great Labor politician: humility combined with passion and determination. His humility sometimes led him to be underestimated, but the record shows how wrong those who underestimated him were. He is one of the handful of people in Australian history to have served in all three levels of government: local, state and federal. He was a mayor at 28, going on at one point to be the longest serving Labor minister in Australia's history, a record subsequently surpassed only by Paul Keating, Kim Beazley and Gareth Evans. He was Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party for more than half his time in the federal parliament, and he came very close to becoming our leader in 1977, losing that ballot by six votes in the caucus. It is an interesting question of historical record as to what might have happened if he had in fact won that ballot. I suspect that his down-to-earth nature and his passion would have made him a very successful Labor leader, and the political history of Australia over the last 30 years may well have taken a very different turn.
His length of service and his high office does not tell the full story of his achievements and his passion. He was not a high-profile politician, despite his very high office. His role was often as a counsel and a sage behind the scenes. He was involved in the very difficult and emotional meeting in which Bill Hayden handed the leadership over to Bob Hawke. He took the view that it was the right thing for the Labor Party for him to waive his right under Labor Party conventions to name his portfolio, ceding the foreign affairs portfolio in opposition—very clearly, at that point, soon to be the government—to Bill Hayden.
He was driven to pursue social justice at least in part because of his childhood poverty. It has often been mentioned in his obituaries that his father was an alcoholic who abandoned the family when Lionel was at a young age. His mother also had to care for her brother, who had an acquired brain injury. Her father had passed away a few years before in the great Spanish influenza pandemic—which also killed my great grandmother. The family was borne into great poverty in that period. This, I think, informed his view that—as one of his sons eloquently said in a eulogy at the local church—'nobody should be wiped out simply due to his or her frailty'. That was a view Lionel Bowen kept throughout his political life and also his personal life. As I said, it has been commonly mentioned that his father abandoned the family. What is less mentioned is that at the place where his father is buried a gravestone marking the burial place reads: 'From your loving son Lionel'. His forgiveness of his father says more about him than any words we can muster here in this House.
Lionel Bowen is lost to us, but his records, his achievements and his great, great qualities live on as an inspiration. I extend my condolences to the family, as I have personally, and I record my personal admiration and the inspiration Lionel Bowen provided to many of my generation—even those of us who do not share his surname!—in this House.
Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (11:43): Lionel Bowen was one of the great parliamentarians, not only of the last century but since Federation. He was a man of enormous ability but always remained unpretentious and a genuine true believer in the principles of the Labor movement, and it is most fitting that the Australian parliament is honouring his memory in this motion. I am certainly proud of the fact that the Bowens—Lionel and his wife, Claire—and my parents, Doug and Lorna, were very good friends. In fact, Lionel and my father, Doug, virtually shared their political careers in the Labor Party together. When they joined the party Ben Chifley was its leader. Lionel entered the New South Wales parliament in 1962, and that was the year my father was elected to the Senate. Lionel came to Canberra in 1969. Just three years later—in December 1972, as we can remember, with the election of the Whitlam government—both of them became ministers. Lionel was the Postmaster-General and my father was Minister for the Media. In fact, in those early stages of the Whitlam ministry, they shared the one secretary of their respective departments, and Lionel and Doug sat next to each other in that first cabinet and remained good mates throughout.
In mid-1975, my father followed Lionel as Special Minister of State and he recalls Lionel as being someone who was always on top of his brief, as a good lawyer, not only in terms of detail but also in terms of tactics. For example, not long after Malcolm Fraser deposed Bill Snedden as Leader of the Opposition, Lionel warned those more complacent members of the Senate to watch it, because he would not be in the least surprised if Mr Fraser moved to block supply later in that year, and political history tells us that that is in fact what happened, leading to the dismissal of the Whitlam government on 11 November 1975. Lionel was one of the first members of the government who predicted that course of action.
Labor of course then went into opposition, but eight years later, in 1983, Bob Hawke won government. Lionel became his Deputy Prime Minister, and was probably one of the most loyal deputy prime ministers, in terms of riding shotgun for the Prime Minister, that Australia has ever seen. He also held the office of Attorney-General. At that time, my father was President of the Senate. They had a number of close mates, including Bob Hawke, Mick Young, Clyde Holding, John Brown and Ben Humphreys. My father tells me that they frequently dined together and that, if the walls of the Old Parliament House could speak, they would indeed tell quite a few stories, all of those men being larrikins in their own right. They kept in touch after parliament but, just as an indication of the personalities, my father recalls going around to see Prime Minister Hawke. In the small corridors of Old Parliament House, there outside the Prime Minister's office were Prime Minister Hawke, Minister Howe, John Brown, Mick Young and Lionel, all in deep concentrated thought and serious conversation. My father thought we were about to confront a national crisis, given the intensity of this conversation. But as he got closer to them he heard them say, 'Yeah, but who d'you think's going to win in the sixth?'
In the late 1980s, my father went to London as high commissioner and he speaks of the tremendous standing of Lionel on both sides of the British parliament. My father related to me one visit which I am sure Lionel's wife, Claire, will remember, where Claire and Lionel accompanied my father and mother to the town of Lyndhurst in Hampshire, where Lionel unveiled a wall mural depicting the early life of Arthur Phillip, who became Australia's first governor. Arthur Phillip had undertaken farming for a brief period when he retired as a captain of the Navy before being reappointed to captain the First Fleet to Australia.
From my point of view, I was greatly honoured to serve in the office of Attorney-General, an office that Lionel held with distinction. Indeed, in many ways I tried to emulate Lionel's principled and balanced style, and I can assure Lionel's family that respect for his legacy endures to this day in the Attorney-General's Department. But for time constraints, one could list Lionel's remarkable achievements and recall many humorous anecdotes about him. Lionel Bowen was indeed unique, modest, self-effacing and a devoted family man, a loyal and reliable friend, a proud representative of his country and a truly magnificent Australian. I also join my colleagues in paying my respects and indeed those of my family to the memory of such a great and distinguished man. Claire and her family must be very proud of him indeed.
Debate adjourned.
Adams, Senator Judith Anne
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House record its deep regret at the death on 31 March 2012, of Senator Judith Anne Adams, Senator for Western Australia, and place on record its appreciation of her public service, and tender its profound sympathy to her family in their bereavement.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (11:49): It is an honour to be here to talk about Jude, and I am particularly pleased that the member for Hasluck is in the chair beside me, because we probably both understand very much the character of Senator Judith Adams, and both were supported in so many ways by this great lady. This is a day that I had hoped and prayed would be a lot further away than it is. She was a close and dear friend, a colleague and a mentor, and she was indomitable. I think that is a great word for those of us who knew and loved Judith Adams. She was an indomitable character. She was tireless—absolutely tireless—hardworking and genuinely and widely respected by all sides of politics. Looking at the tributes that have been paid to her just shows you what respect she was held in by her colleagues across the board.
We all knew Jude as a straight shooter. Jude would never tell you one thing to your face and say another thing somewhere else, or speak about you differently somewhere else or give you different advice, or give someone else different advice. If she thought something she would say it, she would stick to it and she would repeat it. In the same way she supported people like the member for Hasluck and me in so many ways. She was very genuine in that support. She had strong views, but equally strong loyalty. I could always count on Judith Adams, and I know that there are many of my colleagues who shared that experience. We could count on Judith Adams.
I know that when I first really met her seriously was when I started doorknocking in my campaign in Augusta. Jude was very keen to let me know how I should do the job. She was very direct and we worked hard, as you would expect. I suspect that the member for Hasluck would have had a similar experience. Jude was very thorough in everything she did and tireless on the ground. When you consider that she was a mature-age person who came into the parliament, her energy was extraordinary; her passion and her commitment were extraordinary.
She was equally passionate about rural and regional people. I had a great bond with Jude because she was one of the members in this place who I never, ever had to explain to about rural and regional Australia, rural and regional people and rural and regional communities, because Jude had lived it. She knew it and she knew exactly what I was about when I would stand up and talk about what rural and regional Australia needed. There are not enough people who do have that knowledge and experience in this parliament. That is why we have such difficulty in getting our message across. But Judith Adams was one of those people who knew. I never had to explain to her what people needed or why.
She was passionate about rural, regional and remote people's lives and, particularly, their health. She was absolutely committed to health. Even though, as I said, she was a mature-age person to enter politics, she was a wonderful example, as she said in her maiden speech, of how her life experiences brought so much to the role. Those of us who worked with her knew what she brought to the role. She brought so many life experiences right across the board, and they have been well articulated and will continue to be. She brought wonderful skills and knowledge, and she brought so much passion, belief, strength, commitment and hard work.
But her extensive work for the parliament on behalf of the Australian people probably will not be recognised in the way that perhaps it should be, because the people of Australia will never actually know how much their health and their quality of life have been improved as a result of Judith's work. Her committee work was hour upon hour, day upon day, week upon week—on and off planes and following committees, making sure she listened to communities in remote, rural and regional areas. She listened to people, she heard the stories constantly and she responded to them. She got it. She was prepared to put those words into actions through her committee work and through recommendations in so many parliamentary inquiries. She was part of the grunt work of this parliament. She was quiet in the sense that she did not chase the limelight. She epitomized the grunt work of this parliament.
I am proud to say the contribution that Judith made is almost unparalleled in this House. Even when she was in the most remote areas, she had the best communication skills with people from all areas. She was down to earth and at home in any environment. You could take Jude anywhere. You could sit her under a tree with you. She could come with you and talk to farmers up on the stands at a cattle sale or just sit and have a cup of tea with you. Wherever you took Judith Adams, you knew that she would understand and get right to the point. You knew that people from your community or elsewhere would be able to identify with her and her with them. It is a wonderful talent that not everybody has. She was genuinely interested, and that is exactly what people knew of Jude. When she sat down to have a yarn, you knew that you had her ear and her attention. You knew that she understood you and that, if she did not quite get the issue, she would make an effort to understand it, and that then she would represent that. This was the great strength that she had. She was down to earth and at home in any environment.
When I came to this place, one of the first things she said to me was: 'You need to get involved in the Australian Defence Force program.' This is a wonderful parliamentary program where members of this House go out with the Australian Defence forces and get experience firsthand, on the ground. This was one of Jude's great passions in this place, along with her committee work and her focus on health. Lynton Dixon, the liaison person from ADF, will probably always have a wonderful respect for Jude, as we all do. But there was no doubt that Jude was always on his hammer, letting him know what needed to be done with this program to make sure that the connection between the parliament and the forces continued. She went on every tour that she could go on and often when she was not well. I can recall one time when she was out on one of these tours and she suffered a broken arm, not through any problem other than the state of her tumours. She had one concern: she did not want any of the ADF people to be worried about her or to see it as a problem, because that injury was due to the state of her illness. That was the nature of Senator Adams. She was an extraordinary person—very tough mentally and as equally tough physically, as we all saw.
We know that Judith was diagnosed with breast cancer a number of years before entering politics. She endured so much treatment prior to and during her time here, but we, her colleagues, never heard Jude complain. She was a wonderful example. I say to anybody out there with cancer or with a life-threatening illness to consider the life of Judith Adams. She never let her cancer stop her from achieving in life. It never stopped her focusing on what she was there to do in a broader sense. She lived her life with cancer. She had this fantastic attitude that, if the cancer was going to get her, it would have to work hard because she was not going to give in. It would have to run fast because she was working hard and running fast herself and she was not going to just sit around and wait for the cancer to get her. It was going to have to work hard to get her right up until the last minute.
I can recall in this parliament when Judith had to use a gofer to get around the parliament because the side-effects of her treatment gave her the sensation when walking that her feet were walking on glass. Yet at this time she was still doing her committee work and still getting around this country working on behalf of the Australian people. She was an absolute inspiration.
I recall that when she lost her husband, Gordon, it was at a particularly difficult time. They had sold their property. They were in the process of moving into a new home and she was in transit, over here, when her husband died. I also know that that happened late in the year, and very early in the next year Judith had a recurrence of her cancer. They were very difficult times for Judith. But again she fought, and fought hard. Towards the end of last year after we finished, she had to receive another round of treatment. This was one that burned the inside of her throat, which made speaking and swallowing extremely difficult and which saw her dehydrating quite significantly so that she ended up in hospital straight after Christmas.
In my many visits, and I know the member for Hasluck did the same, she counted on me to give her all the information. She was not giving up even then, even when we knew where she was at and she knew where she was at. She did not give up. Even when she could not really speak, the deal was that I would speak and she would listen, which was unusual for Jude in a sense. Very forthright, she still wanted to know what was going on in politics, what was going on out in the electorate, what issues were affecting people. She wanted to listen; she was still engaged; she was still interested; and the fabulous thing was, even then, she was determined to get back here. She was determined to be back for the next sitting and that was the one thing that sustained her. She was going through dreadful, dreadful challenges at the time.
One of the things that she regretted most about being in hospital was not being well enough to get out for the wedding of the member for Hasluck. She was so desperate to get to that—it was the one thing she wanted most and she was unable to do that. That hurt her towards the end; she tried so hard to be well enough to do that: her goal was to get to the wedding of the member for Hasluck. When I went back to her, the first thing I had to do when I walked in was to give her a rundown—'Now tell me what happened'—it was a blow-by-blow account about what happened at the wedding, because she was so interested and wanted to feel part of it. I know the member for Hasluck and his new wife went and gave her an even closer description of what happened which she really appreciated.
In this place, can I also say that she really appreciated the flowers, the phone calls and the thoughts from colleagues from all sides of this parliament. Can I also thank everyone who did so on her behalf. They were very precious to her, because she spent a lot of hours alone in that hospital and she was going through a dreadful time. It was just appalling. Thank you to those who did so. She endured far too much in the final weeks in Royal Perth Hospital, but she did fight to the end, which is no less than what we expected. Even when her health was at its worst, she was always focused on getting back here to do her best for the Australian people. When she said to me that she had finally had enough, that was when I knew that Jude had come to end of her fight. That was a huge admission for Jude, which showed us that the fight had been so tough.
Wilson Tuckey, who did her eulogy, said at least when we all get to heaven, Judith will have the health system in great shape. So, her work goes on in a sense. Can I express my real condolences to her staff—they really did feel this right the way through—and to her sons Stuart and Robbie. Robbie was at home with Jude throughout this. All I can say is I will miss her very, very much. I counted her as a friend for life and I hope she rests in peace, because she certainly deserves to.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (12:04): I rise to speak on this condolence motion for Judith Adams, who was a great senator and a great representative for the state of Western Australia. As you can tell from the incredibly moving speech by my colleague Nola Marino—who I am not going to look at because she is going to make me cry—Judith touched the lives of so many people. Today we pay tribute to her service and dedication. Judith's life was one of community service and dedication to others. In each capacity of her life—as a nurse, serving in the New Zealand territorial army, as a farmer, as a wife and mother, a health consultant and finally a senator—her focus was always on improving the lives of others. The notion of service to one's community, to one's country, was ingrained in her. The paths her grandmother and mother took in life had a profound influence on her. Her grandfather, Trooper Percy George Pitt-Palmer of the Auckland mounted rifles, was killed at Gallipoli in the First World War before she was born. Her mother served as a nurse during World War II. So naturally Judith followed the family tradition. Having completed her general nursing training, she joined the New Zealand territorial army as a commissioned officer in No. 2 General Hospital. She served with the New Zealand army for five years. Consequently, Anzac Day held a special meaning for Judith. In her first speech as a senator, she said:
It is important to acknowledge the courage and determination of those who defended us and the free world in history's greatest war.
Her military service complete, Judith migrated to Australia, where she settled with her new husband, Gordon, on a farm in remote Western Australia, where she set down her roots and, as you can tell, formed so many friendships. Her experience in a relatively isolated rural setting gave her an understanding of the issues facing outback Australians. Wild pest animals, drought, salinity, property rights and skills retention were all matters she learned about firsthand and maintained a strong interest in. That is why, as Nola said, she was so keen to come back here. She was a very passionate advocate.
Rural health and aged care issues were Judith's driving passions. She cared deeply about the additional difficulties and costs faced by rural Australians who need specialist medical treatment and who do not have access to local support. Judith was proud to address these national issues during a long involvement with the National Rural Health Alliance, the Breast Cancer Network Australia and the Patient Access Committee of the Radiation Oncology Jurisdictional Implementation Group. She was a strong advocate for reform of the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme.
When she became a senator, she had already beaten breast cancer once. She was involved with the BreastScreen WA Advisory Committee, where she argued that the range of the target age group for screening should be widened. She was also a vocal advocate for programs to support cancer patients with the side-effects of their treatments. Judith took much pride in being the second oldest woman to have entered the Australian Senate in 2005 at the age of 62. This heightened her interest in aged care issues and policy. Judith was concerned about the growing retiree population and the increasing rate of dementia.
The hallmark of Judith's career as a senator is that she had the strength of her convictions and voiced her opinions on those issues that were close to her heart, particularly women's health. In particular, she controversially argued for the ban on the abortion pill RU486 to be lifted and supported a private members bill to force transparent pregnancy counselling.
At the age of 65, Judith discovered that breast cancer had returned and she sadly lost her second battle three years later. But she will be remembered and respected for her commitment to the people of Western Australia and for the tireless integrity and dedication with which she lived her life. As deputy whip in the Senate, she was deeply admired by her colleagues for her hard work and dedication. She is an inspiration for so many women in the parliament who follow her. My deepest condolences go to her sons, Stuart and Robert, and her extended family. She had so many friends in this place and touched so many lives, and for that we are incredibly grateful.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (12:09): I rise to offer my condolence on the passing of Senator Judith Adams. I find this condolence hard to deliver. Judith was both a friend and a mentor. What I have found in my short term in this parliament is that we have incredible people who give so much of their time and effort in the commitment they make to fellow Australians. Senator Judith Adams was certainly somebody who was very much like that.
When I heard that she had passed away, I rang Lynton, who is in charge of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. I said to him: 'Lynton, Judith has passed away. I won't be able to meet my obligation for the Middle East tour.' He said to me: 'Judith knew you would do this. Her message is that I was not to accept your exclusion from the program.' What I did not know was that Judith had rung Lynton and said: 'Ken has applied for a placement in the Middle East and I'd like him to go.' Her passion was about our Defence Force people and about the program, and she wanted me to experience the dedication, contribution and work that so many of our service men and women do. It was hard. I spoke to her son Robbie. I said, 'Robbie, your mum told me when I last saw her in hospital that she had got me onto the HMAS Melbourne, thatI would enjoy the experience and that she wanted me to go, regardless.' Robbie said to me, 'I know.' I said to him that if I did not go then I would probably feel her wrath when I walk through the Pearly Gates at a later stage.
Her passion in so many areas, particularly for Western Australia, saw her argue for wrongs to be righted and for services and programs to be delivered to those who needed them. She supported those who required support in a way that exemplified her commitment in the fields that she worked. I had the privilege of meeting her when she worked for the Department of Health in Western Australia on an area health board. I was impressed with her forthrightness and the way she argued. As an outsider you argue with any bureaucracy and it is tough, but she knew her stuff. She knew the detail. She would read, and in her own mind would form the view on how she would represent those she was charged to take responsibility and be an advocate for.
She was very effective. I know, having worked in the health department of Western Australia at a very senior level, that she was highly regarded for the community work she did but also for the way in which she challenged us in the delivery of programs to people in rural and regional Australia, particularly in the remote areas. I saw that evident later, when I came to this House. During the campaign, I was told that I had a patron senator. I did not think that I would have the privilege of having Judith and I thought I had been assigned somebody else. She and I met and had a meal together. She gave me some very sage advice. She said, 'How strongly do you want to win your seat?' We talked about that and she gave me some advice on my thoughts and value-added to what I had planned to do. One thing she said to me was: 'If you want to meet people, doorknock. Meet people, let them know who you are, what qualities you have and, more importantly, about what you will bring as a member to advocate on their behalf.' She said: 'To serve in the Australian parliament is a privilege. It is not a right. It is an opportunity accorded to you by those who elect you.'
I suppose one of the sad things is that the broader public of Australia do not take the time to understand the institutions that impact on them. Many people often make comment that parliamentarians do not work hard and that their time and effort is for themselves. Let me say that in my experience here that is not the case, and it certainly was not with Judith. Judith spent countless hours working. When I worked with her on particular things we could spend up to 89 hours in a week doing what we needed to do to make life better for Western Australians and, more importantly, for Australians. Her commitment to rural Australia was evident in the conversations that she and I had.
I said to her one day, after we had been talking, 'You have become my mother.' I said that on the basis that my own mother had died several years before. There are times when you want somebody who is truthful with you and who, in their own truth, brings forward the qualities that we have buried within us. She would challenge me, but she would not resile from being blunt and from being open and honest. I make the same comment that the member for Forrest made: when you spoke with Senator Judith Adams, what she said to you you knew she would say to others equally, with the same veracity but also with the same integrity and honesty. There are not very many people we meet in the course of our careers or the work we do who are consistently honest and whose guidance we value. There are people who affect you. There are people who touch you. But, sadly, in this House people did not really have the time to see the immense qualities of a woman who battled cancer. In the last weeks of her life, Anne and I would go to Royal Perth Hospital and spent time talking with Judith. As the member for Forrest said, she would say to us, 'I'm taking a break but I will be back for the session after that.' She said, 'My time and contribution to the parliament has not ended and I'm not going to let cancer beat me. I've fought it long enough.'
The thing that fascinates me about Judith is that not once did I hear her complain about her pain nor about the treatment she had—and she had multiple treatments of chemotherapy. It was only towards the end, when she could not swallow, that she said to me, 'This is the first time I've felt frustrated. It's the first time that I've felt beaten.' And the telling words that really hung in my mind that night were her saying to me, 'I won't be back.' That was an indication that she had accepted that her journey was coming to an end. I know she was waiting for her son Stuart to come from Canada. I would talk to Trish, her senior staffer, and Trish would give me an update each day. I wanted to go and see Judith, but she had said, 'I want to be remembered for how you last saw me. I don't want to be remembered for how I look now.' She said that the love for those who were close to her would never diminish and that she greatly appreciated the things that we had done both in our personal lives and within our roles in this parliament.
When I came over to Canberra for my first visit, Judith said, 'Nobody else is showing you around. I will take you myself.' She was in great pain when she walked, but we walked around the corridors of Parliament House and she pointed out the things that I needed to remember. She always said to me, 'If you get lost, go to the middle. It is like a ship, and once you know your port side and your starboard side you can never get lost. If you stray onto this coloured carpet, you are in the ministerial section. At the moment we're in opposition, so you're in the wrong place. Turn around and go back!' Then she introduced me to people in this environment of work. I was introduced to the support staff, people who make our lives easy. She would say to them, 'This is my friend. This is the member for Hasluck. I want you to look after him.' Then she told me about her role, her committees and her commitment to those. She said to me, 'There are people you will value over and above all, but show all respect. When you show them respect, they will return that respect.'
I loved watching Judith in estimates. Estimates were one of her passions and she would say to me, 'Is there anything that you want me to ask in terms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs?' I would say yes, or she would say that she was going to ask certain questions. I used to enjoy reading Hansard after she had been in estimates to see the types of questions she had asked. It showed me an inquiring mind prepared to make sure that the duties of a senator were obligated and fulfilled to the best of her ability. She would send me over the Hansard copies of the Senate estimates and she would have some pages marked. She was a great friend whom I will miss terribly. But I will remember her for the contribution that she has made to Australian public life, her defence of our military people and her commitment to making sure that we look after those who protect us and give us the freedoms that we enjoy.
I want to say that her sons, Robbie and Stuart, and their partners have our love, and our thoughts are with them. We will always remember the contribution that Judith Adams has made to the Australian parliament, to rural Australia, and certainly to elements of education, but, more importantly, to every family that she argued for across this nation.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (12:22): I rise to pay my respects to Senator Judith Adams following her passing away on 31 March 2012. Indeed, it is my great honour to follow in the steps of my friend and colleague the member for Hasluck, Mr Ken Wyatt, whose honest, genuine, sincere and heartfelt condolences there gave us a sense of his close relationship with Senator Adams, and we are very grateful to her for enabling him to be in this place. I honestly think I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when I say that his contribution in this place will be a continuation of her legacy.
Senator Judith Adams was a colleague and I may go as far as to say a friend. But I did not know her that well, having come from a different state and having joined the parliament only in 2010. She always struck me as hard-working, decent, modest and thoughtful and, when you hear some of the words of colleagues that have been spoken both in this place and by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the House as well as those in the Senate, one gets the sense of her giant contribution to Australian public life, and particularly her community in Western Australia, and of someone whose sometimes quiet demeanour covered up an incredibly detailed and eventful life.
In 1968 Senator Adams moved from New Zealand to WA where she met her husband, Gordon Adams, who was a pilot with the Royal Flying Doctor Service. In New Zealand Senator Adams had joined the New Zealand territorial army and gained a diploma in operating theatre nursing, and there she made a significant contribution to the New Zealand military. In fact, she continued the legacy of her grandfather, her mother and other family members of being service men and women. Her grandfather was in fact a New Zealand Anzac, who lost his life at Gallipoli. Her mother was a hospital ship nurse during World War II. Judith served in the Army both as a nurse and a midwife. But when she came to the parliament as a senator for Western Australia she rose to the rank of senior deputy whip in the Senate. She was an active member of Senate committees and she was a strong supporter of the ADF parliamentary exchange. She was also a strong advocate for women's health, particularly of those living in remote areas.
She bravely battled against cancer and, in fact, fought for the rebate for external breast prostheses, as well as support for patients with cancer to make particular travel arrangements. She was always an advocate for those who were battling against cancer. She knew firsthand what this struggle entailed.
My colleague in the Senate Senator Helen Kroger has spoken of Judith's care for her staff and her commitment to the Liberal cause. When she stood for the Senate, Senator Adams said:
I stood for the Senate knowing that I had the background, the experience and the will to represent Western Australia and to especially represent those people who live and work in rural and remote areas.
Looking back on the contribution of Senator Judith Adams one can see that she stayed true to those words, that she did make a significant contribution to the advancement of the lives of people living in rural and regional Australia, that she did advance the cause of women's health and that she did advance the cause of both the Liberal Party and the coalition.
Coming to parliament is a great privilege; it is a special place. Few people get that opportunity. It can also be a harsh place because people are motivated for different reasons to do different things—some noble, some not. But I think, universally, Judith Adams was seen as one of those good people who came here to make a real difference. She did not care for her own personal wellbeing as much she cared for the wellbeing of others. That was a hallmark of her career in parliament and it is also a hallmark of the legacy that Judith has left behind.
I join with all my colleagues on both sides of the House in paying tribute to Senator Judith Adams's considerable career, both prior to joining the parliament and since she began work in this place. I would also like to send my best wishes to her sons, Robert and Stuart; to her daughters-in-law, Anne and Tammy; and to her grandchildren, Taylor and Maelle. They have the affection, the good wishes and the condolences of everyone in this place. Judith Adams, may you rest in peace.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (12:29): I was deeply saddened to hear of the passing of Judith Adams, on 31 March, after a long and brave battle against cancer. I extend my condolences to her sons, Stuart and Robert; daughters-in-law Anne and Tammy; and her grandchildren, Taylor and Maelle.
I support the emotive and heartfelt words of those who have spoken on this condolence motion earlier but, particularly, those of her fellow Western Australians the members for Forrest and Hasluck. Senator Judith Adams was a champion for regional Australians and particularly for regional Western Australians. The Leader of the Opposition described her as a great fighter for Western Australia. She was born in Picton, New Zealand on 11 April 1943 and went on to train as a nurse before joining the New Zealand territorial army as a nursing sister. She was later posted to Vietnam as a civilian nurse under the Colombo Plan during the Vietnam War.
Judith moved to Australia in 1968 and went on to work for the medical department of Western Australia as a member of the emergency nursing service. This gave her the opportunity to visit many regional towns throughout the vast state. It was in Western Australia that Judith met her husband, Gordon, a pilot for the Royal Flying Doctor Service, and they married in 1970. In 1972 Gordon and Judith purchased a property and moved to Kojonup, three hours south of Perth, to run a farm and to raise family. This is the same property at which, following his passing in 2008, Gordon was buried and where Judith has now joined him in eternal rest.
Judith was an active member of the health community in Western Australia and was a councillor at the Healthcare Association of Western Australia, the Australian Healthcare Association and the National Rural Health Alliance as well as serving as a member of the Rural Health Reference Group. In 1998 Judith was, unfortunately, diagnosed with breast cancer before a secondary diagnosis, which led to extensive chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment in Perth.
Judith was an active member of the Liberal Party and served as West Australian state executive member from 2000 until 2004. In 2004 she was elected to the Senate, having already beaten breast cancer once, and it was her real-life knowledge that she gifted to parliament and policymaking. The Prime Minister acknowledged that Senator Adams brought a depth and breadth of life experience to this place. Despite her illness, Judith's real Aussie spirit shone through and she did not let her condition get in the way of her being the best senator that she could be.
During her time in parliament she served as Deputy Opposition Whip. She vocally campaigned for better defence policies and improved health services for people living in rural and remote areas. She was also a strong advocate for Western Australia. Her colleague Senate Eric Abetz described Judith as an exemplar of grassroots politics. She always ensured that the best interests of her constituents were put first and stood up for their rights if she thought they were being hard done by. I know Judith's presence in the Senate is greatly missed and she is missed in the wider coalition as well. Judith will be remembered as a hard-working and dedicated senator for the people of Western Australia.
Finally, I would like to place on the public record the sentiments of my predecessor in this place, Kay Hull. Mrs Hull was the member for Riverina from 1998 until 2010 and one of Judith's coalition colleagues. 'She was a warm and wonderful friend,' Kay said just this morning. 'Judith made a significant contribution to the parliament and on behalf of Western Australia. She suffered significantly but did not complain; she just got on with the job.' Judith Adams, may you rest in peace.
Mrs MOYLAN (Pearce) (12:33): I would like to add to the comments of my colleagues who have spoken about Senator Judith Adams, our colleague who has passed away. Indeed, since Judith's passing the tributes have flowed for a woman whose life can be very strongly characterised by her devotion to public service, to service to health and to good governance as well as to raising a family and to being a fully engaged member of the Kojonup community. These were constant threads in the life of Judith Adams.
Her engagement with and service to the Liberal Party were also exemplary. Judith's passion for politics and health services intersected when she was elected senator for Western Australia. She became a tireless worker for the Liberal Party, as she had been prior to her election, and she championed many causes as she went about her daily work representing the vast state of Western Australia. Judith was always on the go. She was unstinting in her engagement with the constituency of Western Australia and in particular around Kojonup and its regions, where she and her husband farmed.
There are several WA House of Representative members who were the beneficiaries of Judith's tireless campaigning. She showed a great interest in people in general and had a strong desire to engage with individuals at all levels. Determined not to be defeated by illness, Judith participated strongly in the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into the social and economic impact of rural wind farms—just in June last year, in fact. This was a matter that Judith took a particular interest in. It was a matter, indeed, that was tearing rural communities apart, and Judith took time to listen to people whose voices were not being heard. Her early advocacy for proper planning and community consultation was unwavering. I hope to continue that work with Senator Back and others to ensure that Australia puts in place proper planning processes so that people's health and quality of life, particularly in rural communities, are not further compromised. I know this is something that Judith would want us to continue on with.
The fact that Judith and I both had breast cancer—we were both breast cancer survivors—brought us closer together, and I gained a greater insight into the character of this exceptional woman during our conversations, particularly in the last months of her life. I was deeply touched by her extraordinary courage. Her interest in keeping abreast of the political issues of the day were front of mind, and I rarely heard her complain about anything, even though the increasing toll of her illness must have been almost intolerable in those last weeks. Many of us will miss the wise counsel of Judith. We will miss her boundless energy and we will certainly miss her strength of character. I extend my sincere sympathy to Judith's family, to her friends and particularly to her staff. May Judith Adams rest in peace.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (12:36): I want to acknowledge the words of the previous speaker, the member for Pearce, who was a great friend of Judith Adams's. In talking about Judith, let me begin with some personal reflections. I last spoke with Senator Adams only a couple of weeks before she passed away. I called on her mobile; frankly, I had not expected her to answer, but she did—she was in hospital at the time—and we had a lovely, long conversation, even though it was evidently difficult for her. It was difficult in two respects. Firstly, I think it was the sheer physical difficulty: the process of talking was hard. Secondly, of course, it was emotionally difficult. Judith knew what was coming, but she was stoic. There was frustration, I think, with the pain, but there was also a resilience from her life and her role as a mother, as a grandmother and as a senator.
In the course of that discussion, she talked about what was important to her. Most important was her sense of family and having seen her sons, Stuart and Robert, and her grandchildren, Taylor and Maelle, come into this world. Then we talked about her work. In particular, we talked about something of importance to her, which is the potential health effects of wind farms on local community members. Along with the member for Pearce, Judy Moylan, Judith Adams was a great advocate of proper research and commitment, and I was able to inform Judith that the Senate had just passed what was effectively her motion. There was a great sense of relief and vindication on her part that something in which she believed had been progressed, and I remember making the commitment that we would take this to a full, independent, national medical review. I reaffirm that commitment to all of those who knew her and worked with her on this issue: if we are in government, we will seek a full, independent inquiry and it will be done in her name, in remembrance of her. It was emblematic of two things: firstly, her diligence and commitment to local issues and, secondly, her concern about others—even as she was in the most dire of conditions, she was focused on the health impacts and the quality of life of people in small towns not just from within her own family area but from right across Western Australia and Australia. It was real, unfeigned and, frankly, unfakeable. To be in that circumstance and to have that focus was, to my mind, the ultimate measure of the person.
I do not want to repeat much of what has been said so eloquently by so many others. I simply want to offer that reflection of the person. In her grimmest circumstances, with, as she knew at the time, very little precious time left, she remained focused on her family and she remained focused on her task. It was a very powerful phone call which will stay with me for a long while. When we said goodbye we really said goodbye. I think we both knew that that was likely to be the last encounter. Judith, you did us all proud and you did your family proud. Thank you for what you did. Take care.
Dr STONE (Murray) (12:41): I too would like to express my sincere appreciation of the life of Senator Judith Adams and her friendship. She was an extraordinary woman. Her life ended, I think, with her having fulfilled so much of her own enormous potential. I am sure her family sees that her life was a fulfilling life at the end of her time. None of us would want to see any woman or man suffer the way that Judith Adams did, but she was stoic in her years of battling cancer. It was extraordinary when you would see Judith in Parliament House with various wheelchairs or other special supports for her wrists or her legs. To her that was irrelevant; what was important for her was the issue of the day—pursuing always some issue of disadvantage or some health problem that needed a solution.
As a senator, she had many opportunities in the many inquiries she was a part of. I was particularly pleased when she supported the concerns, which numbers of us have in this place, about foetal alcohol syndrome. As a nurse from Western Australia, Judy Adams knew only too well the terrible impacts of women drinking alcohol during pregnancy and the potential consequences where children are born with irreparable brain damage. Judith was a very keen contributor in our early efforts to discuss this condition in parliament, to pass a private member's motion and to establish a support group in parliament. Then she watched closely the special inquiry we are undertaking through the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs.
To me, Judith was quintessentially the right sort of person to enter politics. Her claim to fame was not that she was in her early 20s or that she had worked all her time in a political office or for a member of parliament or senator. She was a woman who had already spent years as a nurse and on a property as a partner developing a farm. She had worked with the New Zealand defence effort in Vietnam. She was a mother and a grandmother. So she came to parliament with a life already full of information and experience. I think that is extremely important in this day and age. I know we celebrate youth when someone very young comes into this place. I like to celebrate the mature men and women who come into this place and have a lifetime of mistakes, triumphs and experiences to bring as they consider legislation or question what is before us in this place.
Judith Adams was elected as a senator for Western Australia in 2004. She was therefore not the longest-serving senator in this place, but I would argue she was one of the most effective. She was also an absolute champion of other women entering politics, but she did not ask for any concessions. She wanted us to be here on our own terms, competing on the basis of merit. She was an outstanding example of a woman of her era, a woman who managed to combine family with a professional career and also made a huge voluntary contribution to the state of Western Australia.
I am very sad that I could not get to her funeral in Western Australia. I had commitments that I just could not change but certainly I was with her and her family in spirit in her final days. I wish her family well as they come to grips with the loss of their mother and grandmother. I hope this family takes great comfort in the remarks that have been made, from the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition and our colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and that these remarks will be adequate to truly describe a very great woman.
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (12:45): It is a great privilege—and a sad privilege in a way—to have the opportunity to say a few words to acknowledge a wonderful person, a wonderful highly principled life, a highly committed life, that of our friend and parliamentary colleague Senator Judith Adams. I suspect Judith's characteristics and her achievements and her approach to life were captured very much with the way in which she fought cancer for a considerable period of time. It did show enormous strength of character. It did show how strongly she took her responsibilities. It did show that she was a person who did not feel the need to burden others with her problems.
She was, in her own way, quite a remarkable person. She had a very interesting background: born in New Zealand, trained as a nurse, served with the New Zealand Territorial Army in Vietnam, achieved the rank of First Lieutenant and, in 1967, was appointed to the New Zealand surgical team in Vietnam—a civilian unit under the Colombo Plan. She was always a very proud supporter of the Anzac tradition.
Since 1968 Judith had devoted her life to Western Australia and continued to participate in health services, living in regional Western Australia. She held quite a number of positions in the Liberal Party and was very committed about influencing for the good the community in which she lived. Of course that took an even greater expression after being an army nurse and a midwife, a farmer, a wife and a mother. That commitment to Western Australia and Australia took greater expression again by Judith's decision to enter public life. That came about with her election in 2004. To have received the honour of being elected by her colleagues to the position of Deputy Opposition Whip within three years of coming into the Senate was certainly an expression and an indication of the great esteem with which her colleagues held her.
Judith was like a dog with bone with issues. Once she believed in the way things should go she committed herself 100 per cent. She would not be distracted or discouraged by the strength of opposition. She would continue to argue her point in the most effective and committed way until a decision was taken. When whatever decision was taken she would accept that decision but more often than not she was on the winning side of many debates partly because of her effectiveness. We will all remember Judith as a person of great character and great personality, and a person highly principled. She was also a wonderful mother, according to all of her friends and those that have known her for a long time and who know her sons, Stuart and Robert, their respective partners, Anne and Tammy, and her grandchildren, Taylor and Maelle.
It is a sad moment. Judith could have contributed many more years to public life in Australia and could have brought the great depth of experience and judgment that she gleaned over the years to many more public debates. Not only is it a great loss to her sons, their partners and her grandchildren but it is a great loss to this parliament—the early death of Senator Judith Adams, a wonderful person.
Debate adjourned.
Little, Mr James Oswald (Jimmy), AO
Debate resumed.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (12:51): James Oswald Little, known across the nation as 'Uncle Jimmy', was a true Australian hero and music legend. We gather here today to mourn Jimmy's passing on 2 April, after losing his long battle with kidney disease.
He was born at the Cummeragunja mission on the New South Wales-Victorian border in 1937. Just under 18 years later, he commenced his recording career with Regal Zonophone. It was an extraordinary achievement for a 17-year-old, particularly as he was one of the first Indigenous Australians to top the music charts in an industry that was dominated at the time by Anglo Australians.
For five decades, he continued to sing and produce popular songs and albums, including Royal Telephone, Winterwood, Messenger, Danny Boy and Baby Blue, plus perform numerous plays on stage. Whilst he is often believed to have been solely a country singer, his remarkable talents enabled him to perform reggae, gospel, alternative rock, Aboriginal music and sixties pop.
Through his pursuit of music, he increasingly became a role model for Indigenous youth, and established a music mentoring program in Redfern from 1985. An endearing and selfless personality with a 'velvet voice', Little was appropriately recognised by the Australian music industry and others for his unique contribution to music and the Indigenous community. He was inducted into the ARIA Hall of Fame, received honorary doctorates from three Australian universities and was awarded the Order of Australia.
One of his greatest achievements was the establishment of the Jimmy Little Foundation to improve renal health amongst Indigenous Australians. He himself suffered from kidney failure from 2002 until he received a life-saving transplant. Even during daily kidney dialysis treatment, he continued to perform and mentor young Indigenous people. It is little wonder that he is affectionately known as Australia's 'Uncle Jimmy'. His selflessness and eternal optimism characterised our 'Uncle Jimmy'. He was a national Australian treasure, whose legacy as a music performer and Indigenous ambassador should endure, as well as his incredible sense of humanity.
In recent years Jimmy worked closely with Medicines Australia to support Indigenous health in Australia. Medicines Australia provided $770,000 in funding to support the Jimmy Little Foundation deliver its Thumbs Up! healthy-eating campaign targeting children in remote Aboriginal communities, promoting the notion of 'healthy tucker—long life'. Encouraging healthier food choices assists to reduce the terrible burden of diabetes and kidney disease, an issue obviously close to Uncle Jimmy's heart. Children and young people were chosen as the primary target group of this program to foster the development of healthy eating behaviours at an early age to improve health and educational outcomes and prevent the development of chronic health conditions such as diabetes later in life.
After Jimmy's passing, Medicines Australia's Chief Executive, Dr Brendan Shaw, made the following statement:
The death of Jimmy Little … marks the passing of a truly great Australian. Jimmy was not only a supremely talented musician and entertainer, he was a passionate advocate for indigenous health.
Medicines Australia was extremely fortunate to work with him through the Jimmy Little Foundation to help promote the importance of healthy food choices in remote indigenous communities, particularly among children.
Jimmy was driven by a single-minded determination to ensure the Foundation made a meaningful difference to the lives of indigenous Australians.
While his passing is extremely sad, the Jimmy Little Foundation is a fitting monument to a lifetime devoted to helping other indigenous Australians and will long continue to make a real difference to the lives of many living in remote communities.
Medicines Australia extends its condolences to Jimmy’s family.
Uncle Jimmy will be mourned and missed by people, not just music fans, all over our nation. I must say that as a very young person watching Bandstand in the sixties I thought Jimmy Little was a great guy and sang beautifully.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (12:56): I heartily endorse the remarks made by the member for Bennelong, whose electorate is named after another great Aboriginal Australian. James Oswald Little was a phenomenal musician, captivating actor and inspirational teacher. He was perhaps the first Aboriginal person to be widely embraced by all Australians at a time of high discrimination and hardship for Indigenous people. He was recognised right across the nation for his talent, his teachings and his dedication especially to younger Aboriginal Australians.
Affectionately known as 'Jimmy', he was born into the Cummeragunja Mission on the Murray River in New South Wales, about 30 kilometres from Echuca in Victoria, on 1 March 1937. The eldest of seven children, he was born into a musical family. His mother, Frances, was a singer and yodeller and his father, James Senior, was a tap dancer, comedian, musician and singer who led his own vaudeville troupe along the Murray River during the 1930s and 1940s. Jimmy Little was born to perform. At the age of 13, not long after his mother had sadly passed away, Jimmy was handed a guitar and not long after was often seen playing at local concerts. In 1955, at the age of 18, Jimmy left home to live in Sydney and pursue a career in country music. A year after moving to the big smoke, Jimmy was signed to Regal Zonophone Records, where he released his first single Mysteries of Life/Heartbreak Waltz. In October 1963, eight years after his first single, Jimmy issued his biggest hit with the gospel song Royal Telephone. In November it peaked at No. 1 in Sydney and No. 3 in Melbourne. Jimmy was the first Aboriginal recording artist ever to make the top 10, and this famous song Royal Telephone sold 75,000 copies. In 1964, Jimmy was the Everybody's magazine Australian pop star of the year. From 1985 Jimmy taught and mentored Aboriginal musical students at the Eora Centre in Redfern and from 2002 he was an ambassador for literacy and numeracy for the Department of Education.
In 1990, Jimmy was diagnosed with kidney disease, something he blamed on not having a healthy lifestyle and not getting regular check-ups. Because of this, Jimmy became an avid campaigner for the health of Aboriginal people and in 2006 he began the Jimmy Little Foundation, to improve renal health across Indigenous communities in regional and remote Australia. On 2 April this year, Jimmy died from natural causes at his home in Dubbo, aged 75 years. He is survived by his daughter, Frances, and his beloved grandson, James Henry Little. In 2005, Jimmy told Peter Thompson, on the ABC TV program Talking Heads, how he would like to be remembered:
I just want people to remember me as a nice person who was fair-minded and had a bit of talent that put it to good use.
However, it seems Jimmy Little has left more of a mark on this world than just being fair-minded with a bit of talent. Jimmy was an ambassador for Aboriginal health and highlighted the importance of healthy living to all Australians. He was a true gentleman and a great Australian and has left behind an enduring legacy. Vale Jimmy Little.
Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 16:00
Bowen, Hon. Lionel Frost, AC
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House record its deep regret at the death on 1 April 2012 of the Honourable Lionel Frost Bowen AC, a former Member for Kingsford-Smith from 1969 to 1990, place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (16:00): I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
Little, Mr James Oswald (Jimmy), AO
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (16:00): On indulgence, I rise in this chamber to pay tribute to the life and times of Uncle Jimmy Little, one of the pioneering Aboriginal entertainers of our age, an Aboriginal man whose career spanned some 44 years and who said, with great eloquence, 'The main ingredient in my songs is love.' He reflected that both in his work and in his relations with everybody he met during what was an absolutely remarkable career.
Jimmy grew up on the banks of the Murray River. He was a child of the mission and he had a mother and father who provided him with not only the support as a young child that would prove invaluable to him during the course of his career but the inspiration as well, as they were vaudeville entertainers—in a period of time where I have to say that vaudeville entertainers, particularly those of Aboriginal ancestry or birth, were extremely rare.
Jimmy had a career which not only spanned 44 years but saw him become very successful as a singer of popular songs, very successful as an interpreter and a balladeer. He was a renowned and acknowledged country and western music singer. He acted. And, up until the time of his death, he was also significantly involved not only with his community but particularly in the work that he was doing with the Jimmy Little Foundation, whose activities were directed towards supporting and assisting people who had suffered from kidney disease, something that Jimmy himself experienced.
Jimmy's mum was a Cummeragunja woman, his dad a Yorta Yorta man, and the influence that he had over successive generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander performers cannot be in any way underplayed. The fact is that knowing that Uncle Jimmy was still recording, was still touring, and that you were likely to see him or run into him somewhere around Australia in a town or at a venue, and that each and every time he would be the most gentle, the most reflective and the most generous of people to be with, I know provided a great deal of inspiration, and consolation at times, for Aboriginal performers and artists, particularly those who were starting out on that long road.
Jimmy was not without ambition. He saw from an early age that this was what he wanted to do and he set about doing it with an extraordinary degree of perspicacity. He persevered through literally thick and thin. And—I think tellingly—he never sought to overly exaggerate, deny or try and manipulate in any way the way that people saw him and how he was, as a proud Aboriginal man. The fact is, as he himself said, he was very proud to be an Aborigine, a member of the First Australians. In that sense, he was somebody whose engagement with other Australians was always carried out with dignity; he had a strong sense of who he was and what his culture was. But he was also somebody who was very focused on his craft of being a first-rate entertainer.
I want to reflect briefly on Jimmy's music and, in particular, his singing. I think I bring some small degree of past practice to these observations, but I will try to make them brief for the benefit of those listening. Jimmy was someone in possession of a beautiful voice. As one commentator said, 'He knew how to sing soft and slow and low,' and I can assure you that is not necessarily easily done. He was a superb balladeer and interpreter, no more so than when he recorded, with the very well known Australian musician and producer Brendan Gallagher, a fantastic collection of songs called The Messenger, an album that featured the work of many well-known artists of the seventies and eighties, particularly Paul Kelly but also The Church—an extremely beautiful version of Under the Milky Way—Ed Kuepper, The Reels and others. Of course, Jimmy had had significant success much earlier than that. He was literally a veteran of the entertainment world and of the music industry in particular.
Royal Telephone is probably still the song that he is best known for. In 1963, to sell 75,000 copies of a single was an absolutely extraordinary achievement. Jimmy's subsequent induction into the ARIA Hall of Fame—probably a little overdue but nonetheless absolutely appropriate—came on the back of a significant career in the sixties, releasing singles and EPs of the music he created. As has been noted by commentators, that particular chart-topping single took place before the 1967 referendum, which tells us something about the journey that Jimmy Little took.
I also want to mention his versatility, because he acted as well. He acted early on in a film called Shadow of the Boomerang, but he continued to act intermittently in the middle period of his career. He brought his presence to the screen as he brought his presence to the stage as he brought his presence to any room that he walked into.
At the end of the day, I think Jimmy was an example to everybody, not only to his own people for the way in which he conducted himself—he blazed the trail for many performers—but also for the way in which he gently engaged and interacted with others. He was never strident. He never sought to blame anybody. He always looked for the positive in any situation. He always wanted to give back to his people.
Jimmy was not only a role model as an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander man; as Clinton Walker, who has written about Jimmy, said, he was also a role model as a human being. He received the Order of Australia, he was New South Wales Senior Australian of the Year, he was the recipient of the National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee's Aboriginal of the Year award and so it goes on. Leaving aside all of those awards, which were absolutely appropriate, the way Jimmy lived his life was a great inspiration to us all. I want to pass on my deep condolences and pay my respects to Jimmy's extended family and to those who worked with him for many years.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (16:08): I also rise to offer my condolences on the occasion of the death of James Oswald 'Jimmy' Little. I had the incredible privilege of knowing Jimmy well, particularly in the latter stages of the work he was doing around developing an awareness of the impact of renal disease, because we sometimes neglect what it means to lose kidneys or kidney function, such as the imposition of being married to a machine that cleanses your blood.
I met Jimmy many years ago through a mutual friend, May O'Brien. Jimmy was performing at a conference we went to. As a child I had always loved Royal Telephone, and when Jimmy asked for requests May yelled that out. She said to me: 'Come and meet Jimmy. He is an incredible man. He has done so much very quietly in his own way to bring the issues of his people and our people to the fore of the public view'. And so I did meet him and, in a sense, when you do meet somebody for whom you have admiration and respect you tend to follow their career after that. It was tremendous. I met with him several times, but the best meeting I ever had with Jimmy was when Buzz Bidstrup, who was a drummer in a band and who got to know Jimmy over those years, invited me to meet with Jimmy in his home when he was living in Sydney to talk about the establishment of the foundation and what Jimmy hoped to achieve.
It was an incredible 2½ hours of sitting with somebody who was so peaceful, so calm and so measured in what he had to say but who was extraordinary in the vision that he had for the work, the capability and the capacity that he could bring to the foundation, in two ways: one was to lend his name to the foundation and the second was his commitment to go out and use his music and share his knowledge and his own experience with others, hopefully to make a difference in the way people would view renal disease. Of course, after that they were highly successful in attracting funding to commence the program in the Northern Territory.
It is sad that he died on 2 April at his home in Dubbo, aged 75 years. I know he would have been with family. I know that is something he really appreciated. Over the time I knew him personally there were elements that came to the fore about the quality of Jimmy. At the commemoration service for Jimmy I was asked to represent the Leader of the Opposition, and I heard the premier of the state deliver a very powerful speech about the quality of the individual and the quality of the work he undertook—the way in which he reached out beyond his Aboriginality. He reached into society and touched people with his vision, with his song and as a person. People who knew him loved him dearly. But I think, more importantly, what was recognised in all of this was the strength of his family and the support that he received from 2004 onwards when he had his first transplant.
Jimmy had a quiet sense of humour. He recounted the days when he first started touring; when he would go into hotels to perform he was often told to go through the back door of the hotel—which was the black door, where blacks only could go. He said that on occasions people who were performing with him would say, 'If Jimmy can't come through the front door of the hotel then we are not performing at this hotel,' and they would pack up and leave and perform elsewhere.
His friendship with so many people in the industry was remarkable. It was fascinating that when Kylie Minogue performed a song with him her parents came down not to see Kylie perform with Jimmy but to see Jimmy perform and to meet Jimmy. Such was the gentleness of the man and the admiration that Australians had for him.
James Oswald 'Jimmy' Little was an Australian Aboriginal musician, actor and teacher from the Yorta Yorta people. He was raised on the Cummeragunja Mission in New South Wales. He died at his home in Dubbo aged 75 years, and what an incredibly rich 75 years they were for him, particularly 1958, when he started to play much more openly and to perform across the spectrum of music that was available at the time. He was certainly influenced by Nat King Cole and others of that period, and some of the gospel music. But at no stage did he pigeonhole himself into a particular genre, although country and western music was a favourite of his. I have heard him play a range of music which demonstrated his capacity to walk across those genres of music and still hold an audience, and to hold them well. I heard the story of how he met Marjorie Rose Peters, a fellow singer. The excitement was described as, 'He looked across the room and saw an incredible smile,' from his future wife. Some time later they connected again and became a couple. They married and had one child, Francis Claire Peters-Little, a documentary filmmaker, writer and historian who also sings. She said, 'I can't sing,' but when she sang one of Jimmy's songs at the concert that night it was with an incredible voice, and I thought, 'If she can't sing, there's hope for me in terms of karaoke.' The way she encapsulated it was just beautiful.
The other thing Jimmy did was that, whilst he became an Aboriginal star, he always said: 'I am Australian. I value my heritage. I value the fact that I am a Yorta Yorta man but I also value the fact that I am part of, as Christine Anu would say, 'my island home.' He had an influence on Australia in a period when people's views about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were very strong. But he was very gentle and quiet and, as a passive person, he brought home to people the incredible capability and talent that he as an Aboriginal man had. He had an influence on the music industry. It was fascinating listening to Col Joye recount his times of singing with Jimmy Little and to Judy Stone, who also performed, talk about being encouraged by him and Col to do her first song and send it off to Festival Records. So he taught and reached out to those he saw with the ability to sing and provide music and be part of, in a sense, songwriters who sing the history of a country or tell a story of a set of circumstances. That is what he continually did.
I was pleased when he won a place in the ARIA Hall of Fame and then the award for the Best Adult Contemporary Album because each of those two awards recognises his influence and, in particular, his contribution to the Australian music industry. What was particularly rewarding from my perspective, and I know that of many Australians, was Australia Day 26 January 2004, when he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia, with the citation, 'For service to the entertainment industry as a singer, recording artist and songwriter and to the community through reconciliation and as an ambassador for Indigenous culture.'
It was interesting listening to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Peter Garrett, talk about his movie endeavours. He enjoyed those. He was not somebody who hit the scene for a long time but his contribution in those was great. I think the other attribute that is important was the work he did at the Eora Aboriginal Education Centre in Redfern, and he certainly imparted his knowledge and skills to aspiring young Aboriginal people who were looking at going into the arts. I know personally some individuals who were encouraged to think beyond where they were at and to pursue a career in music. Jimmy was also a guest lecturer at the Koori Centre at the University of Sydney.
In 1990, Jimmy was diagnosed with kidney disease. At that time he said, 'Unfortunately, I did not get check-ups often enough or soon enough to realise the possibility that my kidneys could fail.' In a sense his comments epitomise most Aboriginal people who experience renal disease, who because they ignore the signs and symptoms and do not look after themselves they end up with kidney disease. With the advent of transplants, Jimmy had a kidney transplant in 2004 which gave him a new lease on life and certainly drove his desire to continue with his music and to perform and to travel. I had the incredible privilege at that concert to see the Jimmy Little Trio perform with two or three of the artists but, in particular, with the family member when they sang one of his songs. Let me tell you that those three gentlemen, even though age has caught up with them, still showed pizazz and sparkle in playing their guitars and drums. They were tremendous and they certainly got tremendous recognition. But, as a result of immunosuppressants, he developed type 2 diabetes as well as a heart condition. It was after his transplant that he established the Jimmy Little Foundation to promote health and diet in Indigenous communities. If you look at what he has achieved in bringing a message to Aboriginal communities and to young people through his music, his knowledge and his experience, he has certainly promoted an awareness of renal disease—the need to look after your body as well as the signs and symptoms you need to consider in order to have a better pathway than he did.
In 2005 Jimmy told Peter Thompson on the ABC TV program Talking Heads how he would like to be remembered, and I think this epitomises Jimmy Little the person:
I just want people to remember me as a nice person who was fair-minded and had a bit of talent that put it to good use.
I think any of us who are aware of his contribution to the industry would agree that his contribution over a long period of time is significant to the way in which the genres of music became known. He was often on the television shows of his era. Some of you will remember Bandstand and some of the other Saturday shows. Jimmy Little was a regular on those shows and in his presentation brought home very strongly to all Australians that he was a talented musician.
I want to acknowledge the concert of Australian performers who paid their own tribute to Uncle Jimmy. The tribute was through song and personal reflections on how Jimmy Little impacted on them personally and professionally. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to table that list.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): There are no objections to the tabling of that document.
Mr WYATT: Thank you very much. I will finish by saying that we have lost a great Australian and an Aboriginal leader who showed that you can achieve things doing what you have to do quietly and under the radar, but powerfully—through the voice, through song and through your actions.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:22): I join others in speaking on this condolence motion and extending my personal condolences to the family of Jimmy Little. I did not personally know Jimmy Little, but I certainly knew of him, and I knew of his music. I listened to his music because I enjoyed it. Today I pay tribute to him not only because of his music but because he was an extraordinary person. And I say he was an extraordinary person because, up until 1967, when we had the referendum that gave some recognition to Indigenous Australians, very little recognition and very little opportunity were given to Indigenous people across this country. So for an Indigenous person to be given any form of recognition prior to 1967 was indeed remarkable. Yet Jimmy Little was able to achieve that, and he did it through his music. What made it even more remarkable was that in the 1950s and 1960s budding artists were everywhere. To break into the music and entertainment industry was in itself a very difficult feat. It was a very competitive industry, it was a selective industry and, according to some, it was an industry in which discrimination was rife. So for Jimmy Little to in fact break through is something that should be acknowledged in its own right. If we look across the oceans to the USA, where in the same era a number of African-Americans had in fact broken into the music industry, and we look at the stories associated with the industry there, it is pretty easy to understand that, because of the competition and the pressures within the industry just for someone to be recognised and to get through, quite often it was a case not so much of what ability and what talents you had but of who you knew within the industry to open the doors and make it possible for you. Jimmy Little did that here in Australia, when I suspect there was no-one in particular to open doors for him and make it possible, because Australia was in fact lagging behind the American and perhaps even the English entertainment industry of the time.
Jimmy did break through and he obviously broke through because of his personality and his singing ability. His singing ability quickly brought him to fame. He performed and sang a number of songs that I recall were played regularly on pop radio. Pop radio was, at the time, the forum through which any entertainer was given some sort of recognition. In breaking through he became an inspiration and a leader for his community. That in itself was important because he broke through in the years leading up to the 1967 referendum. His success, his leadership and the inspiration he provided to others undoubtedly contributed towards the changes to the Constitution in 1967. In fact, I saw a brief film clipping where he was one of the Indigenous leaders of the time who was interviewed in the lead-up to the 1967 vote. Again, he was interviewed because he was being held up as one of the successful Indigenous people of this country.
Undoubtedly, he did pave the way for others and since his success there have been numerous other Indigenous artists and, in particular, many singers who have become successful in this country. I am sure that all members of this House would be familiar with so many of them. But it was not just Indigenous artists who subsequently became recognised; it was Indigenous people across the country. We have since seen many Indigenous people very successfully performing in a whole range of sports throughout this country and in fact representing this country in sports. One of those Indigenous people, Lionel Rose, not only represented Australia in boxing and won a world title but also followed that up with his own hit single here in Australia. Again, that is a good example of an Indigenous leader who proved that you can be successful if you put your mind to it.
It is always difficult for anyone to achieve any form of success when you have to be the first one to break through. I said earlier on in my remarks that I suspect that Jimmy Little did that not just because of his talents but because of his personality. There is no doubt that there have been many a talented person who have never been successful and whose talents unfortunately, for one reason or another, were never able to be shared with the rest of the community. Other speakers have talked a little bit about that. With my limited knowledge of his personality, he struck me as a person who was genuinely prepared to compromise and understand others and, in a very peaceful way, try to bring people together. I believe that that was his strength. He then went on to use that extraordinary personality or characteristic to assist Indigenous people in this country in so many different areas.
If you look at his record subsequent to his artistic acknowledgement, you will see that he continued serving the Indigenous people of this country until the day he died. He continued standing up for what he believed was right. He received many, many recognitions. I will come to those recognitions in just a moment. Interestingly, from my recollection, it was only a couple of years ago that he came to this place to support the Indigenous people of Australia. Jimmy Little was known to the world mainly for his singing. He was born on 1 March 1937 and passed away on 2 February 2012. He was a man from the Yorta people but he was raised by the Cummeragunja in New South Wales. From the age of 14 Jimmy embarked upon a career as a singer-songwriter and guitarist, a career that would span six decades. That in itself is quite remarkable. Also, as other speakers have noted, he has acted in a number of films including Shadow of the Boomerang in 1960 and Until the End of the World in 1991, and he performed in a stage play, Black Cockatoos.
Whilst Jimmy is best known for his work as an entertainer, he also made a significant contribution as a teacher who has worked at the Eora centre in Redfern and as a guest lecturer at the University of Sydney's Koori Centre, where he worked from 2000 onwards. Jimmy was best known, however, for his music and he started recording with Regal Zonophone in 1956 before launching his career at Festival records with a 45rpm EP called Ballads with a Beat. Ballads with a Beat reached the top 10 in the Australian musical charts and was followed by a number of EPs, singles and albums in the 1960s. The gospel song Royal Telephone, released in 1963, sold over 75,000 copies, but his most popular album was Messenger which peaked at 26 in the ARIA Albums Chart in 1999.
Jimmy built a reputation as one of Australia's premier country performers in the 1970s, but he was also fond of big orchestral sound, evident in his 1972 album Winterwood, and in the album entitled An Evening with Jimmy Little, live at the Sydney Opera House. Jimmy also diversified into reggae music in the 1980s. Jimmy was recognised through a number of forums and his contribution to music received the recognition it deserved when he was inducted into the ARIA Hall of Fame in 1999.
There was more to Jimmy than music, however. He was made an Officer of the Order of Australia on Australia Day in 2004 and, as the member for Hasluck quite rightly quoted:
For service to the entertainment industry as a singer, recording artist and songwriter and to the community through reconciliation and as an ambassador for Indigenous culture.
In the same year, the Australian people voted Jimmy as a Living Treasure. Jimmy received honorary doctorates from the Queensland University of Technology, from the University of Sydney, and the Australian Catholic University. He was a recipient of the National Aborigines and Islanders Day of Observance Committee, otherwise known as NAIDOC, Aboriginal of the Year Award in 1989. He was named Senior Australian of the Year in 2002 and received the Australia Council's Red Ochre Award in 2004. It is quite a long list of accomplishments and recognition, again, just highlighting the extraordinary character of Jimmy Little. He married Marjorie Rose Peters in 1958. She unfortunately passed away in July 2011. Their 53-year marriage produced one child, a daughter, Frances Claire Peters-Little.
Jimmy was blessed in many ways but was forced to live with some serious health issues, as other speakers have also highlighted. He was a diabetic and had a heart condition. In 2004 Jimmy also had a kidney transplant. This event prompted him to turn a new page and he turned his considerable energy to promoting Indigenous health outcomes. After the transplant, the Jimmy Little Foundation was established.
Again, let me take a moment to just comment about that. As we all know, health issues are one of the most serious problems and challenges facing the Indigenous people of this country. Jimmy knew that, but he also knew that with better health care, many of those issues could be overcome. For him, the issue was passing on that information by educating his people and getting them to understand how they could do something about extending their own lives and living healthier lives. He committed his later years to doing that, and I certainly acknowledge his initiative in the Jimmy Little Foundation. The foundation was established with the vision of increasing the life expectancy of Indigenous Australians primarily through education and ensuring that they understood the importance and meaning of sound dietary habits. It is also interesting that the Jimmy Little Foundation now works with governments at the federal and state levels as well as with statutory and peak bodies to achieve those very objectives. I am sure others will talk about him and add to the comments already made about him but, as I said from the outset, Jimmy Little was in fact an extraordinary person and his achievements were indeed remarkable. So they certainly were, and I hope that through him other Indigenous people have been inspired given that he has set out the path and opened the doors for achievement by so many other Indigenous people who I believe have the talents and the abilities but simply need an inspiration to take them on to those achievements. To his extended family I once again extend my condolences.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (16:35): I rise today on behalf of the residents of the Ryan electorate to remember one of Australia's most famous and inspirational Aboriginal musicians, Jimmy Little. James Oswald 'Jimmy' Little died earlier this year at his home in the city of Dubbo after a long struggle with diabetes, kidney problems and a heart condition. He was born in 1937 on the Cummeragunja Mission on the New South Wales-Victorian border and in 1955 moved to Sydney to pursue his musical career. Jimmy Little was a true pioneer in the Australian music industry. He was one of the first Indigenous artists to achieve mainstream music success and over the course of his 60-year career played almost every music style imaginable from country to reggae. According to his manager, Graham Bidstrup, Jimmy Little achieved his success despite being forced, through the late 1950s and early 1960s, by nightclub owners to use the back door because of the colour of his skin. In 1999, Jimmy Little was inducted into the ARIA Hall of Fame for Messenger, a collection of contemporary songs he had reinterpreted. In the same year he won Best Male Artist of the Year and Best Single Release of the Year at The Deadlys—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Music Awards.
In addition to his musical career, Jimmy Little was a strong advocate for Indigenous Australians and served as a mentor for many Indigenous children. In 2006, he established the Jimmy Little Foundation to bring a healthier future to Indigenous Australians. The foundation works to combat high rates of kidney disease and diabetes in Aboriginal communities. Jimmy Little's outstanding contribution to Australian society has been recognised through a number of awards, including having been made an Officer of the Order of Australia and appointed as a National Living Treasure. On behalf of the people of Ryan, may I extend my condolences to Jimmy Little's family, friends and the many Australians who are fans of his music and I acknowledge the substantial contribution he made to the lives of Indigenous Australians.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (16:38): I rise to add my comments to the condolence motion on Australian musician James Oswald Little OA or, as we know him, Jimmy Little. I wish to pay my respects on the passing of this outstanding singer, songwriter and guitarist whose remarkable career spanned six decades. Jimmy Little was born in 1937 as a member of the Yorta Yorta people. His parents, Frances and James Little Sr, were both entertainers and he grew up on the Murray River in New South Wales, near Echuca, in Victoria. Of his upbringing Jimmy said his parents:
… taught me well about the value of life, freedom, love, respect, all those basic things that we need. As Vaudevillians, I loved them. It was part of my dream to follow in the footsteps of Mum and Dad. And I'm so proud that I was able to do that …
Music was a big part of Jimmy's life and at the age of 13 he was given a guitar. Within a year he was playing at regular concerts and by 16 had moved to Sydney to perform on a radio program Australia's Amateur Hour and to pursue a career in country music. Back then, Jimmy was influenced by greats such as Nat King Cole, Jim Reeves and Johnny Mathis and was given the nicknames 'the Balladeer' and 'Gentleman Jim' for his unique mellow style. Of his many successful releases, Jimmy's gospel song Royal Telephone sold over 75,000 copies and his most popular album, Messenger, hit No. 26 in 1999 on the ARIA albums chart. That same year, Jimmy was inducted into the ARIA Hall of Fame and won an ARIA award for 'Best Adult Contemporary Album'. In 2004, on Australia Day, he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for service to the entertainment industry.
In between making and selling music, Jimmy dabbled in acting, appearing in the films Shadow of the Boomerang in 1960 and Until the End of the World in 1991. He also worked as a teacher, mentoring Indigenous music students in Redfern, and took on the role of guest lecturer at the University of Sydney's Koori Centre in 2000. Music was always his passion, and he spent many years, from 2001 onwards, working with many high-profile performers, such as Paul Kelly, Bernard Fanning, Brendan Gallagher and Dave Graney.
Being a diabetic with a heart condition, however, posed a few problems, and in 2004 he underwent surgery for a kidney transplant. It was this experience that eventually led him to establish the Jimmy Little Foundation to help the many other Indigenous Australians who, like him, suffered from kidney disease. In fact, it was through this foundation that Jimmy had the biggest impact on the Northern Territory. The foundation works with patients in regional and remote Australia and partnered with the Fred Hollows Foundation in 2009 to develop the Thumbs Up! nutrition program, which is focused on remote communities. It aims to promote healthy eating, education and information and works in association with project partners the Arnhem Land Progress Association, the Australian Red Cross and the Northern Territory department of education. A pilot program is currently operating in Ramingining, Gapuwiyak, Galiwinku and Milingimbi, and uses music, multimedia workshops, concerts and cooking with senior community women to get the message across to children.
According to the reports, the Jimmy Little Foundation is funding a mobile renal dialysis unit to be built and then operated by the Western Desert Nganampa Walytja Palyantjaku Tjutaku Aboriginal Corporation—WDNWPT. This vehicle will be on the road servicing remote communities with vital renal treatment that will allow people to stay in their community while receiving life-sustaining dialysis. On his passing, the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance Northern Territory said:
At AMSANT we will always remember his role as an Elder for Aboriginal health. Despite the personal sacrifices and pain he experienced, he became a vital ambassador for those of us who endure kidney disease, and all that goes with it. Although he was too ill to attend, he was a strong supporter of the AMSANT Fresh Food Summit in Tennant Creek in 2010. The work of the Jimmy Little Foundation in backing the importance of good nutrition will be yet another legacy of his life and commitment. He was an inspiration with his gentle leadership to our staff here at Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance Northern Territory on his visit to our office.
Jimmy Little was a remarkable person who worked to progress the Aboriginal cause and is an inspiration to other Indigenous people across the country. May Jimmy rest in peace and his music live on.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (16:44): I wish to briefly pay tribute to the life, work and in particular the role of Jimmy Little in the advancement of Indigenous Australia. Jimmy Little was a musician but, like so many of those trailblazers for Indigenous Australia, he was involved in either the arts or sport. We can point to many, but he was one of the quartet of Indigenous Australians whom I believe were absolutely critical to the advances in the standing and the improvement in the status, the role and the condition of Aboriginal Australia. They came from a situation which was unacceptable, intolerable and which, rightly, should be the subject of deep historical concern. But, at the same time, they said to everybody, 'We can come from this background; there are many families that have thrived and overcome difficulty and each individual has the possibility to live a life of majestic purpose.' To my mind, that quartet comprised: Jimmy Little, who was the most significant and, potentially, the first through his work in music; Lionel Rose, who achieved world champion status as a boxer; Evonne Goolagong Cawley, who, as Evonne Goolagong, was a Wimbledon champion, and who performed around the world and was perhaps the most famous of the quartet; and former Senator Neville Bonner, who became the first Indigenous Australian to enter this parliament in 1971.
When you look across their work, the arts, sport and also parliamentary life, you see that this group, along with many others whom I acknowledge, were fundamental in transforming the role and the status of Indigenous Australia. I am no music critic, as anybody will tell you, but his body of work and his achievements were tremendous. But I want to refer to more than that. He started his recording in 1956, at age 19. He became the first Indigenous Australian to make the top 10 and he had a No. 1 hit in 1963, selling 75,000 copies of Royal Telephone. But it was the acceptance, the love and the respect with which he was held that became a bridge for Aboriginal Australia. In my view, Jimmy Little, amongst others, along with Lionel Rose, played such an important role in Australian consciousness and that was a real contributor to the success of subsequent referenda later on in the decade. There are many reasons to remember Jimmy Little: his music but, in particular, his role in helping Indigenous Australia to break out from old stereotypes, to gain a foothold in the mainstream cultural life of Australia.
The third reason to acknowledge Jimmy Little was his humanitarian work. In 2006, he established the Jimmy Little Foundation off the back of his own kidney failure and kidney transplant. This was a foundation, which among other things, brought renal dialysis mobile units to outback Australia. I cannot say how many individual lives it has helped save, extend or improve, but there is no doubt that there are numerous lives that have either been saved, extended or improved as a result of his work. That is a body of work of itself which would be worthy of commendation, but it is representative of a broader life, which we mourn today but, much more importantly, which we celebrate as a life well lived.
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (16:49): I rise today to honour the memory of a great Australian man, Mr James Oswald Little AO, better known as Jimmy Little. Jimmy Little was one of Australia's most beloved singers and songwriters. He had a career which spanned over six decades. Like all of Jimmy Little's fans, I was extremely saddened to hear of his passing on 2 April. We truly have lost a national treasure. The man who was Jimmy Little will forever remain in our memory as a nation. He was the first Indigenous Australian to receive mainstream success in music, having a top 10 hit with Royal Telephone in 1963, following with numerous other single and album triumphs, not to mention too many individual accolades, including induction into the ARIA Australian Music Hall of Fame in 1999. Despite his many successes in the music and entertainment industry, Little was a humble man with a warm, gentle soul. He was passionate about his Indigenous Australian heritage and spent many years as an ambassador for literacy and numeracy for the department of education in order to improve educational standards within the Indigenous community. In 2004, Jimmy Little was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for service to the entertainment industry as a singer, recording artist and songwriter, and to the community for his reconciliation. As an ambassador for Indigenous culture, he was named a national living treasure later that year. Little was generous with both his wealth and his time. He was known for often adding his musical talents to any worthy Aboriginal cause and was widely respected within the Aboriginal community and indeed across Australia.
Jimmy Little suffered from diabetes and, like many sufferers of the disease, was going through kidney failure. However, in 2004 he experienced a life-changing event, receiving a kidney transplant, which enabled him to be free of the pain and the burden of regular renal dialysis. Just a few years after his kidney transplant, Jimmy created the Jimmy Little Foundation to educate Indigenous youth about health and diet with a focus on preventing diabetes within our Indigenous communities. The foundation also runs a mobile renal unit and advocates for better health outcomes for Indigenous communities.
Jimmy Little will be forever remembered by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians as a great entertainer, a great advocate and a great man. He was and will continue to be an exceptional role model for young Indigenous Australians. Jimmy really did bridge the divide between contemporary Australia and our remote Indigenous communities. I have great faith that Jimmy Little's legacy will live on for many generations to come. James Oswald Little AO, may you rest in peace. You will always be remembered and, Jimmy, I am sure you had many conversations with Jesus on your own royal telephone.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (16:52): I also acknowledge the passing of Jimmy Little last month in Dubbo. As the member for Parkes, the electorate that encompasses Dubbo, I would like to offer my condolences on behalf of the residents of my electorate to Jimmy Little's family. I have been a country music fan all my life and have listened to Jimmy Little's singing for many, many years, and have always been a fan of his music. It was only recently that I discovered that there was much more to this man than just a very talented country and western singer. While I never knew Jimmy Little personally, having spoken to people who did, I certainly wish that I had had that opportunity. I was speaking to a lady in Lightning Ridge last week who had met Jimmy Little just once and said that the charisma that he radiated really had an effect on her. That was the type of person he was. He was quiet and very respectful, as many Aboriginal elders are, and also hardworking and determined.
We have heard some wonderful eulogies on Jimmy Little this afternoon in this House and I will not go over the same ground. I wish to acknowledge the passing of such a key person in the Aboriginal community. As a person who represents a lot of Aboriginal people in this place, I cannot underestimate the effect that someone of Jimmy Little's standing had on the community and the people who looked up to him not only because of his singing but also because of what he did later in life in highlighting issues with kidney disease and setting up the foundation. In closing, I would like to offer my condolences to Jimmy Little's family and pay my respects to someone who was a truly great Australian.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (16:54): On indulgence: my contribution will be very brief. I would like to associate myself with the comments that have been made by all speakers in this discussion and acknowledge the outstanding person that Jimmy Little was and the role that he played within our society here in Australia—a great entertainer, a person who worked tirelessly within his community, a role model for all Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. I think our society will be a poorer place for his passing.
He was recognised in so many different theatres for the work that he did as an entertainer. When I was a young girl living in a country town in northern New South Wales I actually saw him perform, and I thought it was one of the most exciting events that I had been privileged to see. It is not only the work he did as a singer, songwriter and entertainer but all the other work and all the recognition that he received, from being Senior Australian of the Year to being a person who is highly thought of within his own community and within the wider Australian community. With those few words, I conclude my contribution.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): I thank everybody for their participation in this debate. As it was by indulgence, we do not need to do the usual niceties.
Rose, Mr Iain Murray, AM
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (16:57): On indulgence, it is with great pride and sadness that I stand here today to pay my condolences to the family of Iain Murray Rose. The champion swimmer died on 15 April after a battle with leukaemia, leaving behind his wife, Jodi; his son, Trevor; and his daughter, Somerset. Since his death last month, Rose has been hailed as one of the greatest Olympic swimmers of all time, a pioneer for distance swimming, Australia's golden boy, a great mate, a bloody nice guy and an Olympic legend.
When I think of Murray Rose, the word 'champion' comes to mind. He set 15 world records and won four Olympic gold medals for Australia in 1956 and 1960. He was just 17 years old at the 1956 Melbourne Olympic Games, where he won three gold medals in the four-by-200-metre freestyle relay, the 400-metre freestyle and the 1,500-metre freestyle. Then, in 1960 in Rome, he held onto his 400-metre freestyle title and won a silver medal in the 1,500-metre event behind fellow Australian John Konrads. Rose missed out on the 1964 Tokyo games because he was studying in the United States and had to sit exams at university. He described this as his biggest sporting regret. John Konrads said Rose missed out on competing in Tokyo and Australia missed out on a gold medal as a result. Murray Rose represented Australia for the last time at the Perth Commonwealth Games in 1962. He won every event he swam in, bagging four gold medals.
In his eulogy, Rose's teammate Dawn Fraser described him as a pioneer for 1,500-metre swimmers. She said he set the example for a list of fine Australian swimmers to follow, including Grant Hackett, Kieren Perkins and Daniel Kowalski, who modelled their strokes on his beautiful swimming style, which was very coordinated and strong.
Throughout this country's sporting history, we have been very lucky to produce athletes that set a good example both on and off the sporting field. I believe Rose is a fine example of an athlete who was not tainted by his national hero status. He remained a true gentleman, an all-round nice guy, both in and out of the pool.
In my electorate we have many young swimmers who are training hard to achieve their goals in swimming clubs and squads across Macarthur. I consider these swimmers fortunate to have had a role model like Murray Rose to set the standard for Australian swimming. One local swimmer in particular is Daniel Tranter, from Bradbury, who has made the Australian team for the London Olympics in the 200-metre and the 400-metre individual medley. Daniel has put in the hard work to achieve his goals. I know that his parents, peers and the Macarthur community are all very proud of him. In a media interview, Daniel's dad, Peter, said that, while growing up, Daniel wasn't always the best swimmer. He said his son was never the one who always came first and, while he had the potential, he did not always have the technique. Peter said Daniel put in the hard work and now has the Australian Olympic team jacket to prove it. Daniel's story is like that of many young swimmers from all over Australia who have dedicated their lives to sport in the hope that one day the hard work will pay off and they will achieve their goals and represent their country. I am sure that, like Murray Rose, Daniel will show the true qualities of an Australian champion both in and out of the pool in London. I wish him the best of luck and so does all of Macarthur.
Dawn Fraser has described the death of Murray Rose as a great loss to the Olympic family, a great loss to the swimming community and a great loss to the wider community. I wholeheartedly agree. Olympic Committee president John Coates described Rose as a person who represents all that is good in life, with a generosity of spirit, values and virtues that embody that of the Olympic movement. He was definitely an athlete that we could be proud of to represent our country, an athlete who set a great example for all generations of Olympic swimmers to follow.
We all know that swimming is a sport that requires unbelievable amounts of commitment and determination. Our Olympic swimmers spend hours and hours in training, morning and night, doing what most will agree is a very challenging and isolating sport. They do this so that they can wear the green and gold and represent this country on the world stage. In doing so, they give younger generations hope and encouragement to work hard and become the best they can be.
Today, I would like to publicly thank Murray Rose for the fine example he set for future generations of Australian athletes and the impressive qualities he possessed that made him a legendary swimmer and a great human being. He was described as part of the swimming DNA of Australia, whose success inspired a generation. I believe he has left behind a wonderful legacy for Australia, not only in the record books but in the example he has set for the future athletes of this country. Thank you.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (17:02): On indulgence: Murray Rose, a national Australian treasure and sporting hero, sadly lost his battle with leukaemia on Sunday, 15 April 2012 at the age of 73. His contribution to Australian sport since the 1950s cannot be overstated, nor can his selfless character, warm spirit or gentle nature.
He was born Iain Murray Rose on 6 January 1939 in Great Britain, and his family moved to Sydney when he was a baby. His lifelong passion for swimming began at the age of five when he commenced lessons with coach Sam Herford, who, upon seeing his dog paddling, immediately informed Rose's parents of his strong potential. There was a man with an eye for talent! He subsequently won four gold medals, three of which were attained by the age of 17. Remarkably, this performance made Rose the youngest triple gold medallist across all sports in the history of the Olympic Games. He excelled in freestyle and competed in the 1956 Melbourne games and the 1960 Rome games, both individually and in relay groups.
When Rose was still competing, he pursued his interest in acting and completed a degree in drama and television from the University of Southern California in 1962. Two years later, he starred in a Hollywood film, Ride the Wild Surf, alongside Barbara Eden and Tab Hunter. It is widely accepted that he would have competed in the 1964 Tokyo Olympic Games had it not been for his missing the national championships due to acting commitments.
I am well aware of the dedication, persistence and passion required to achieve at this highest level. These qualities, combined with Murray's good looks, charm and superb skill, characterised his many extraordinary achievements. I was privileged to have met Murray on several occasions and was struck by his lovely character and surprising diet. Mostly these meetings were charity events where he was giving his time to help others less fortunate.
A well-known vegetarian at a time when restaurants and cafes did not cater for such needs, Rose would often rush to his parents' residence, even when competing, to have a home cooked meal from his mother. It is therefore no surprise that he earned the endearing nickname 'Seaweed Streak'. This story is yet another indication of Rose's desire to achieve irrespective of the sacrifices he had to make. He even attributed his success to the diet and its associated health benefits.
His contribution to swimming was no less remarkable after retirement. At the age of 40 it is reported that he swam even faster than in the 1956 Melbourne games. Rose also contributed significantly as a patron of the Rainbow Club Australia, which provided swimming lessons for mentally and physically disabled children—a true Australian champion. Rose has been survived by his wife, Jodi, and children Trevor and Somerset. I offer my sincere condolences to his family and friends as well as to many others who were touched by his character and inspirational achievements, including the four gold medals and 15 world records.
Murray Rose should be remembered as a gentleman and as a true Australian legend, whose achievements initiated a wonderful period in Australian and world sport. Equally, though, he should be remembered not just as a great champion in the pool but as a champion human being.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (17:06): I rise on this condolence motion to honour Murray Rose. It was the 1956 Melbourne Olympics that put Australian swimming on the world map, and the name Murray Rose is synonymous with that Olympics. In today's condolence motion, I am honoured to pay tribute to one of Australia's greatest ever swimmers and a true Australian legend.
The Melbourne Olympics also featured legends such as Dawn Fraser, John Konrads, Betty Cuthbert and John Landy. At the end of that Olympics, Australia held every freestyle title in men and women's swimming. For his part, Murray Rose won three gold medals in the 400-metre, the 1,500-meter and the four-by-200-metre freestyle relay. This made him the first swimmer in 36 years to win both the 400- and the 1500-metre events at the one Olympics. With Betty Cuthbert dubbed the 'golden girl' of the Melbourne Olympics, 17-year-old Murray Rose became the 'golden boy', with his blond hair and rugged good looks.
His diet was a source of fascination with the media. Rose and his family were strict vegetarians. Rose had never eaten meat, poultry or seafood. To fuel his swimming, his mother fed him a muscle-building formula made from Irish kelp. This earned him another nickname, the 'Seaweed Streak'. He went on to win a fourth gold medal as well as a silver and a bronze at the Rome Olympics in 1960 and four gold medals at the Perth Commonwealth Games in 1962. In total, he won seven Australian swimming championship titles and set 15 world records.
While he is best known for his stellar swimming career, Murray Rose led a varied and interesting life. Following his success at the Melbourne Olympics, he was offered a sports scholarship at the University of Southern California. It was here that he studied drama and television and was best known for his appearance in the 1964 film Ride the Wild Surf, in which he was cast as an Aussie surfer. But a movie contract got in the way of a qualifying competition before the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. While it is thought that he had one more Olympics in him, Rose never got the chance to compete.
Murray Rose was a true Australian, who pined to come home for the 31 years that he lived in the US. From the time of his return in the late 1980s, he became involved in a number of charities, including the Rainbow Club, which provided swimming lessons to children with disabilities. Rose became patron of the club in 1999 and, in 2008, he sought to establish the Rainbow Club Malabar Magic Ocean Swim event, raising more than $40,000 for children.
Murray Rose was inducted into the International Swimming Hall of Fame in 1965, after being voted Australia's greatest male Olympian. In 1985 he was also inducted into the Sport Australia Hall of Fame. He was appointed a member of the Order of Australia for his services to swimming and was also award the Centenary Medal in 2001 for his services to Australian society. As our Australian Olympic team prepares to head to London in a few months, what better inspiration could there be for an athlete than to strive for gold. Certainly, the great Australian swimmers of recent times, including Ian Thorpe and Grant Hackett, name him as an idol and a source of inspiration. Kieren Perkins described Rose as his mentor. I offer my condolences to Murray's wife, Jodi, and his children. He will be known as a great Australian legend.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (17:10): I rise to join many of my colleagues to pay tribute and honour the passing of Australian swimming legend Ian Murray Rose OAM or, as he was better known, Murray Rose. Sadly, Murray passed away on Sunday, 15 April at his home in Sydney after battling leukaemia for four months. Murray was born in Birmingham, England, moving to Australia with the onset of World War II, where he quickly took up paddling at the local Redleaf Pool at Double Bay in Sydney. It was not long before his talent in the pool was recognised, and by 1955 more people started to take note of him, particularly when he won the 220-yard and the 440-yard freestyle event at the Australian Swimming Championships. There was a lot of interest in his unique swimming style. He had what they say was a fluid stroke and a four-beat kick, something that I do not possess.
By age 17 Murray had made his mark, winning gold medals in the 400 metres, the 1500 metres and the four by 200 metre freestyle relay at the 1956 Melbourne Olympics. Simply an amazing achievement! It was not surprising that he was quick to get many fans. Australians love a winner and we are quick to give pet names—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 17:12 to 17:43
Mrs GRIGGS: As I was saying before the suspension, it was not surprising that Murray Rose was quick to get many fans. Australians love a winner and we are very quick to give pet names. After winning three gold medals in his home country, Murray was given the nickname the 'golden boy', which I think is a reflection of not only his gold medals but also his golden hair. Murray was the first swimmer in 36 years to win the 400-metre and 1,500-metre events at the same Olympics. A sports scholarship at the University of Southern California followed, as did another Olympic gold medal in the 400-metre freestyle as well as a silver medal and a bronze medal at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome.
Murray continued competitive swimming but also studied drama and television, trying his hand at acting in 1964 with minor roles in Ride the Wild Surfand Ice Station Zebra. He appeared on television and radio but it was clear where his passion was. Murray Rose set 15 world records and won seven Australian swimming championship titles. He won four British Empire and Commonwealth Games gold medals and four gold medals, one silver medal and one bronze medal in Olympic competition. In 1965, Murray was inducted into the International Swimming Hall of Fame and was voted Australia's greatest male Olympian. In 1985, he was inducted into the Sports Australia Hall of Fame. He was also one of only eight flag bearers at the opening ceremony of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. He was appointed a member of the Order of Australia for his services to swimming and received the Australian Sports Medal. There is no doubt that Murray was a worthy recipient of both of those.
From all accounts Murray was passionate about his charity work and gave time to the Rainbow Club of which he was the patron. The Rainbow Club provides swimming lessons to children with mental and physical disabilities. In 2008, Murray worked with the club to establish the annual Malabar Magic Ocean Swim event, which has involved around 1,000 swimmers and raised $40,000 for children. I understand that Rob Lloyd of the Rainbow Club recently announced that the event will be renamed in Murray's honour. He said, 'Murray was a great man with a big heart. He connected with children and always worked tirelessly, putting his soul into the work. Murray Rose's Malabar Magic will continue to grow and be a reminder of the great charity work of Murray Rose.'
On behalf of my electorate, I extend deepest sympathies to Murray's wife, Jodi, his son, Trevor, and his daughter, Somerset, and also to the many Australians who will be mourning the loss of a true sporting hero.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (17:46): It is with great pleasure but at the same time sadness that I rise to speak on the passing of Iain Murray Rose. In this Olympic year there will be cause for much celebration as we encourage and witness the achievements of our athletes on the track, in the field and of course in Murray Rose's beloved pool. Australian sport has delivered us many heroes over time, but the role models we remember most fondly are those men and women who make a remarkable contribution and leave an indelible mark on the fabric of our society long after their race has been run or indeed swum.
Murray passed away last month after a battle with leukaemia at the age of 73. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Jodi, and their family. He will be sorely missed, most importantly as a husband and as a father, but to a nation he will be missed as a great Australian. Murray picked up the golden hat-trick at the 1956 Melbourne Olympics, winning gold medals in the four by 200-metre freestyle relay, the 400-metre freestyle and the 1,500-metre freestyle. He was just 17 years old at the time. Backing up in Rome in 1960, Murray retained his 400-metre freestyle crown and picked up the silver medal behind fellow Aussie John Konrads in the 1,500-metre freestyle. His final swim for Australia was at the Perth Commonwealth Games in 1962 where he won his four events. The President of Swimming Australia, David Urquhart, said, 'Murray was part of the swimming DNA in Australia' and that his name was synonymous with success in the sport of swimming. Murray was a champion in the pool but perhaps more importantly, Murray was a champion in our community—and I mean even more specifically the community of the Sutherland shire.
He served for many years as the patron of the Rainbow Club, an organisation which I am proud to also be associated with. It is a hardworking, non-profit organisation that offers swimming lessons for children with disabilities and special needs. This is where I came to know Murray. The Rainbow Club provides specially tailored swimming lessons to young people with physical or mental disabilities. The club is a valuable opportunity for these children to make friends, to grow in confidence and to extend their abilities through sport and recreational swimming. Murray led by example with his hands-on approach, his infectious enthusiasm and great passion and commitment for this cause which is helping these kids grow in skill and confidence both in and out of the water. It also plays a crucial role in developing their sense of belonging. The kids feel a sense of ownership over their local club and pride in their local community. Importantly, the clubs also foster support networks between families, giving both the children and the parents opportunities to meet and share with others in similar circumstances to their own. There are 18 Rainbow clubs in Australia, including two in my electorate of Cook—the Cronulla Rainbow Club at Taren Point Swim School and the Sutherland Rainbow Club at the Sutherland Leisure Centre. Each club is run independently under a parent working committee overseen by a national constitution of Rainbow Club Australia which provides the major funding to drive this work forward. The Rainbow Club operates on a budget of about $250,000 a year—without any government contribution. But community input and fundraising is what is critical to ensure its success.
Children with disabilities have particular needs and the Rainbow Club provides specialised learn-to-swim instruction that is tailored to best support each student. In most cases this includes one-on-one classes. The club caters for a wide range of needs. For children with a physical disability that may mean they require greater supervision or progress at a different pace from their peers and children with autism whose condition would make a crowded and noisy 'mainstream' swim class an overwhelming and upsetting experience. Understandably, because of the tailored level of care, Rainbow's operating costs for instructors' wages are very high. But the work they do is critical and it is important the club continues to be supported in the future.
The Rainbow Club gives more than 400 children the opportunity to swim each weekend and employs about 70 instructors. In my electorate alone, there are about 70 kids who have this opportunity to get into the pool each weekend.
Rainbow Club Australia has been operating for more than 40 years now. It was started back in 1969 by a Cronulla local Ron Siddons and his wife, Lily. Ron has asked me, and I spoke to him today, to place on record their appreciation and their own personal tribute to Murray and their sincere condolences to his family. Never in their wildest dreams did they believe someone of Murray's standing, who was in such high demand, would be able to lend his support to their great cause. However, after being asked to take on the role of patron by another great shire identity, Peter Kerr, Murray signed up without hesitation.
Murray was an active patron, not just a name on the letterhead. He understood and participated in the work of the Rainbow Club. He played a key role in fundraising and lifting the club's profile. In 2008, he drove the creation of the Malabar Magic Ocean Swim—an event now enjoyed by 1,000 swimmers every year, raising more than $40,000 for these kids. In 2010, the Rainbow Club won the New South Wales Ministers Award for Most Significant Contribution to Water Safety with a Focus on an Under-Represented Group, in recognition of their contribution.
Rob Lloyd—a board member of the Rainbow Club—described Murray as a 'great man with a great heart and soul'. Murray was also a regular at the Cronulla Shark Island swim where he would often find himself lining up alongside my predecessor in the seat of Cook, the Hon. Bruce Baird, a very accomplished ocean swimmer, and I know Bruce would want to have his condolences and appreciation for Murray registered in this place. Bruce is also a regular at the Shark Island swim and has regularly won his age group, except of course when Murray has been in the water. It was not a bad thing to come second to the great Murray Rose.
When the swimmers line up next March, Murray will obviously not be there, but his contribution, his memory and his legacy will remain. By the end of his swimming career, Murray had broken 15 world records—two more than Olympian Ian Thorpe. These gold medals pay tribute to Murray's golden talent. However, the smiles on the faces of the kids and the families of the Rainbow Club will forever pay tribute to his golden heart.
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (17:53): 'We'd had legends before like Boy Charlton and Frank Beaurepaire and Fanny Durack, but they did not capture the public mood in the same way. It was the right moment for a whole group of athletes and the right moment for Melbourne. I don't think Melbourne was ever the same again.' That is a quote from a Mr Harry Gordon, who is a journalist and an Olympic historian and who wrote that in an obituary for the late Mr Murray Rose quite recently. Of course, he was referring not just to Murray but to a number of other stellar athletes at the time who captured the public imagination during the Melbourne Olympic Games in 1956 but he was particularly highlighting, in an article and an obituary, the performance of Murray Rose and his incredible three gold medals at that event. I would like this evening to associate my name with the remarks which have been made by the member for Cook and other people who have spoken on this condolence motion and briefly add my condolences as to this motion, to Mr Rose's family.
Murray Rose was born in Scotland in 1939. He came to Australia when he was a very young boy. He was educated in Sydney at the Cranbrook School and went on to graduate with a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Southern California in the United States, where he spent much of his time. He started his swimming career, though, very early on, and this is what was so remarkable in some respects about Murray Rose. At the age of only 17 he had won four Olympic gold medals and, amazingly, set 15 world records over the course of his career. At the Olympic Games he was one of the superstars for Australia.
Of course there have been many great swimmers since Murray Rose. Many indeed have won more gold medals. But as was written in the Australian:
His was a languid beauty in the water at a time when there were no underwater cameras to record the furious work beneath the surface, only eye witnesses to the seemingly effortless stroke keeping time for eight or 15 laps of the pool.
He was known as being an incredibly handsome man. He captured the people's imagination. Later in his life he went on to have an acting career in the United States. He played an Australian big wave rider in the 1964 film Ride the Wild Surf and four years later Murray played a military officer in Ice Station Zebra. The New York Times reported that Murray Rose 'has become, in a very short time, an All-Australian Boy among those looking for a hero Down Under'.
Since finishing his swimming career and acting career, Mr Rose went on to make other contributions, and for those he is equally well recognised. As the member for Cook mentioned previously, he was the patron of the Australian charity, the Rainbow Club, which teaches disabled children how to swim. He made an incredible contribution in that and that club still continues to this very day.
A number of prominent Australian swimmers have also pointed out that he was an incredible mentor for them. Grant Hackett described him as a major inspiration for his swimming career. The Prime Minister also said that Murray 'helped shape Australia's destiny as a successful sporting nation overall'. Murray Rose was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia due to his contributions to Australian society. He was married twice. He had a daughter Somerset with his first wife Bobbie. The couple separated and he remarried later to an American, Jodi Wintz, a principal ballerina, and both Jodi and their son Trevor survive him. I pass my condolences to his family members and our prayers and thoughts are with them.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (17:57): On 15 April this year Australia lost one of its greatest. One of our swimming legends, Iain Murray Rose, passed away aged 73 after a brave battle against leukaemia. My thoughts go to Murray's family at this time and I thank them for sharing their husband and dad with Australia for so many years. Murray has been described by the Australian Olympic Committee President John Coates as 'simply peerless, the finest swimmer throughout his era'. Perhaps Swimming Australia's President David Urquhart put it best when he said, 'Murray Rose is part of the swimming DNA in this country.'
Born in Nairn, Scotland in 1939, as an infant Murray moved to Australia with his family soon after the outbreak of World War II. As a child, Murray took to swimming very early on and his first swimming lessons were at Sydney's Redleaf Pool at Double Bay at the age of just five. His first teacher was 1924 diving gold medallist Dick Eve. He was seven years old when Sam Herford became the pool's resident coach.
At the age of just 17 Murray headed to the 1956 Summer Olympics in Melbourne as a swimmer representing Australia. He won three medals at the games—all gold. His wins in the 400 metres, 1,500 metres and four-by-200-metre relay made Murray a household name as well as a national hero. In 1960, as a 21-year-old, he again joined the Australian team for the Summer Olympics in Rome. Murray won the 400-metre freestyle and finished second to John Konrads in the 1500 metres. He also took home a bronze medal, swimming in the four-by-200-metre relay team. Murray was the only swimmer to have won the 400-metre freestyle twice in a row. This honour is now shared by another great Australian swimmer, Ian Thorpe. Murray's last time representing Australia as a swimmer was at the 1962 Perth Commonwealth Games, where he won every event he swam and took home four gold medals. During his swimming career he set 15 world records, including the 800-metre freestyle in 1962, which was not broken until 1966. Murray's talent in the pool was highlighted in his long-distance swims. Another Australian swimming legend, Dawn Fraser, described him as 'the pioneer of distance swimming in Australia'. His service to swimming was recognised in 2000 when he was appointed a member of the Order of Australia. Following his swimming career, Murray pursued an acting career. He had minor roles in two Hollywood movies and periodic performances in television shows.
Murray swam his way into our history based on his natural talent as well as his hard work—and certainly without the streamlined water-repellent body suits the swimmers of today wear. He will always be remembered for his domination in the pool and as an inspiration to Australians as well as to swimmers right across the globe. He proved the Aussie ideal that working hard will allow you to reap the rewards. Murray remained a dedicated swimmer his whole life and believed every Australian should learn to swim. He lived by his belief and was a patron of the Rainbow Club, an organisation that teaches disabled children to swim. Murray was a frequent commentator on different television channels when the Olympics rolled around, and he will be notably absent from the commentary for this year's London Olympic Games.
I will finish with the words of John Coates, who highlighted that Murray's conduct in life beyond the pool was just as impressive as the many records and medals he won:
The record books don't tell us everything …
They don't emphasize this proud truth that throughout his career and life, through his generosity of spirit, his sense of fair play, his modesty, his dignity, his respect for his opposition, his innate sense of decency, his attitude to life, Murray Rose embodied all the values and the virtues that the Olympic movement treasures.
Vale Murray Rose.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (18:01): I rise today to speak on the condolence motion for Murray Rose, a legend of Australian swimming and somebody who will be sorely missed. Born in Birmingham in England in 1939, Murray Rose took up swimming at the age of five. He went on to study in the United States at the University of Southern California and then had wonderful success in the pool. He held 15 world records, including three Olympic gold medals at the 1956 Olympics in Melbourne when he was aged just 17: the 400-metre freestyle, the 1,500-metre freestyle and the four-by-200-metre relay. He went on to win a gold at the 1960 Rome Olympics as well as a silver and a bronze. He won his gold for the 400-metre freestyle and the silver for the 1,500, in which he came second behind John Konrads. He actually would have won more Olympic gold medals—at Tokyo in 1964—had he not missed the swimming trials. He did not qualify because he was undertaking some engagements in the movie industry, which I will speak a little bit about in a moment.
He died after a brave fight against leukaemia at the age of 73. He was described by the head coach of the United States swim team at Rome—Gus Stager, of the University of Michigan—as 'the greatest swimmer who ever lived, greater even than Johnny Weissmuller', whom we all remember as the original Tarzan. But he was not just a swimmer. He was not just a role model. He was also a TV personality. He studied drama and television and had a couple of Hollywood roles, starring in the 1964 movie Ride the Wild Surfwith two people I do not really know, but am told many of my colleagues know about, Tab Hunter and Barbara Eden.
Mrs Prentice: I Dream of Jeannie!
Mr FRYDENBERG: I Dream of Jeannie! He also starred in the 1968 action flick Ice Station Zebra, with Rock Hudson. And when he finished his competitive swimming career he gave something back to younger people and those less fortunate. He was a patron of the Rainbow Club, which supported swimming lessons for mentally and physically disabled children. When Dawn Fraser, another Australian swimming legend, gave the eulogy at his funeral, she said:
… I have lost a true friend and a great team-mate.
Murray Rose was not only a brilliant swimmer, a gold-medal winner, a role model to the community about the importance of giving back and an inspiration to the next generation of swimmers, men and women, whose successes follow in the footsteps of his; his life was also synonymous with the term 'a good sport'. He lived his life to the fullest. It is tragic that he has died aged only 73; but, when we look back on what he achieved in his life, we can say that he made a valuable contribution and will be sorely missed. I pass on my best wishes to his surviving wife, Jodi, and to his son, Trevor. May Murray Rose rest in peace.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (18:06): I rise today on behalf of the residents of the Ryan electorate to remember one of our golden boys of Australian swimming, Murray Rose. At just 17 years of age, Murray Rose was at the peak of his swimming power. While competing at the 1956 Melbourne Olympics, he won three gold medals—in the four-by-200-metre freestyle relay, the 400-metre freestyle and the 1,500-metre freestyle. He followed up that success in Rome at the 1960 Olympics, where he retained his 400-metre crown and took out silver in the 1,500-metre race, behind fellow Australian John Konrads. His final time representing Australia was at the 1962 Perth Commonwealth Games, where he won every event in which he competed and received four gold medals. He then went on to begin a movie career in California, which my colleague the member for Kooyong detailed previously.
Murray Rose was patron of the charity the Rainbow Club, which teaches disabled children how to swim. For his services to swimming, he was appointed a member of the Order of Australia in 2000. He also received the Australian Sports Medal in 2000, and in 2001 he was awarded the Centenary Medal.
Speaking at Murray Rose's funeral, fellow Olympian Dawn Fraser described her friend as 'a true gentleman'. She said:
He will always be known as the pioneer of distance swimming in Australia … Murray was a true gentleman, he will be a great loss to the Olympic family, he will be a great loss to the swimming community, and he will be a great loss to the wider community.
On behalf of the people of Ryan, I extend my condolences to the family and friends of Murray Rose.
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (18:08): I would also like to pay tribute to Murray Rose and express my condolences on his death. Murray Rose was an Olympic great, and he is remembered as the best swimmer of his generation and the embodiment of the Olympic movement. But, most importantly, he will be remembered by those who loved him the most as a true gentleman. His humility, his kindness and his decency were the hallmarks of his life.
Murray Rose was born in Scotland in 1939. His family moved to Australia soon after World War II, when he was very young. He started swimming as a young child, showing a natural ability. At the age of 17, Rose participated in the 1956 Melbourne Summer Olympics. He won the 1,500-metre freestyle and was a member of the winning team in the four-by-200-metre relay. For a 17-year-old to compete in the Olympics is an amazing feat on its own; to also get three medals is truly an incredible and amazing achievement. As you can imagine, winning three gold medals in his home country immediately made him a national hero. He was the youngest Olympian to be awarded three gold medals in one Olympic Games.
At the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome, Italy, Rose again won an Olympic gold medal as well as a silver and a bronze, bringing his haul to six medals. He set an incredible record in the world of swimming. He eventually set 15 world records, including the world record in the 800-metre freestyle in 1962, and this was not broken until 1966.
They kindly named a venue at the Sydney Olympic complex after him in 2000. As we all remember, he was one of the eight amazing bearers of the Olympic flag at the opening ceremony of the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney.
He was a talented actor and went on to have an acting career. He starred in many films, including Ice Station Zebra. The current President of the Australian Olympic Committee, Mr John Coates, stated at his funeral that Murray Rose was simply peerless—the finest swimmer throughout his era. He went on to say:
… throughout his career and life, through his generosity of spirit, his sense of fair play, his modesty, his dignity, his respect for his opposition, his innate sense of decency, his attitude to life, Murray Rose embodied all the values and the virtues that the Olympic movement treasures.
Australia has lost a true champion and I wish to extend my deepest condolences to his family and the friends of this great sporting legend, Murray Rose.
MOTIONS
Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) Affirms:
(a) its support for the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons; and
(b) its support for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as the essential foundation for the achievement of nuclear disarmament and the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime;
(2) Notes:
(a) ratification by the United States and Russia of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START) on 5 February 2011;
(b) unilateral nuclear arsenal reductions announced by France and the United Kingdom;
(c) the strong working relationship between Australia and Japan on issues of non-proliferation and disarmament, including more recently by establishing the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative to take forward the 2010 NPT Review Conference outcomes; and
(d) the unanimous views presented by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in Report 106 on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.
(3) Calls for:
(a) further cuts in all categories of nuclear weapons and a continuing reduction of their roles in national security policies;
(b) states outside the NPT to join the Treaty as non nuclear weapon states;
(c) ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty by all states yet to do so;
(d) the immediate commencement and early conclusion of negotiations for a verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for weapons purposes;
(e) stronger international measures to address serious NPT non-compliance issues;
(f) Iran, Syria and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions;
(g) political and financial support for a strengthened IAEA safeguards regime, including universalisation of the Additional Protocol;
(h) further investigation of the merits and risks of nuclear fuel cycle multilateralisation;
(i) exploration of legal frameworks for the abolition of nuclear weapons, including the possibility of a nuclear weapons convention, as prospects for multilateral disarmament improve;
(j) efforts to establish a Middle East zone free from weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, freely arrived at by all regional states; and
(k) efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism within the framework of the IAEA and the Nuclear Security Summits.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (18:12): Firstly, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for introducing this very serious and important motion. I strongly support the motion that this House affirms its support for the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world, and its support for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. I also take this opportunity to make a few remarks about Australia's relationship with nonproliferation efforts and, in the context of this motion, to discuss the important work that the International Committee of the Red Cross has been doing.
Australia has long been a very tireless worker on the issue of nonproliferation. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, developed the nonproliferation treaty as the world recognised that, following what had occurred in World War II and with the increasingly tense situation developing between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a strong collaborative effort was required to protect the future of our world. As the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the NPT, came into force in 1970, Australia set about ratifying the treaty, and we did so in 1973. I note the very significant work that the IAEA does in the areas of not only nonproliferation but also disarmament in general and the manageable use of nuclear research for peaceful purposes.
While Australia certainly could not be considered to be a nuclear power we do utilise nuclear technology for research purposes—for example, at the Lucas Heights research reactor in New South Wales. Domestically, the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office enforces our standards and facilitates IAEA activities in this country. I commend that office for carrying out the more practical concerns of today's motion. In our own country the safe utilisation of this technology is, of course, a serious issue that we must always consider for the future safety of all Australians.
The sentiment among the vast majority of nations is against the threat or use of nuclear weaponry. This has been increasing for some time. The International Court of Justice handed down the decision in 1994:
There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.
Furthermore, in 2007 the Five-Point Plan on Nuclear Disarmament was submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, which recognises the abhorrence of nuclear war. This global interest in nuclear disarmament continues to grow, with the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom reaffirming their responsibility to take concrete and credible steps towards irreversible disarmament at a United Nations conference on nuclear weapons in May 2010. More recently, as this motion notes, the United States and Russia ratified the measures for the further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms, New START, in February 2011. We have also seen further important treaties and bilateral cooperation between Australia and Japan on this issue. Again, as this motion states, I strongly support the consensus views expressed by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in Report 106: Nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.
Unfortunately, in 2012, there are ongoing significant political and military issues occurring from South America to South-East Asia. There is also significant political unrest in the Middle East, with some countries there having obtained or seeking to obtain a nuclear arsenal. Whilst Australia has maintained on an international diplomatic level our commitment to a nuclear-free Iran, the IAEA is in fact unable to verify whether their nuclear arrangements are indeed peaceful. In many ways, the uncertainty creates more alarm in the region and around the world. I strongly support the call in this motion for continuing efforts to establish a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction.
Significantly, in our area there are still ongoing attempts at nuclear testing in North Korea. As recently as late April there were more reports of North Korea's plan to conduct a nuclear bomb test. Our world does not want to contemplate nuclear war but, with the problems in Iran, North Korea and other parts of the world, we must have faith that diplomacy can overcome a nuclear threat, as it did during the Cuban missile crisis and as it has attempted to do in North Korea. That is why it must be the resolve of all countries that this issue does not go away, so it is up to world leaders such as Australia to put significant resources into encouraging other countries to join the cause. That is why I support the call for states outside the NPT to join the treaty as non-nuclear weapon states.
I would like to take the opportunity in this chamber to record the very significant contribution from the International Committee of the Red Cross in the area of nonproliferation and to acknowledge their continuing work. On Monday, 7 May, I was fortunate to gather with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to celebrate the launch of the Parliamentary Friends of the Red Cross. As a co-convenor of this group, along with my colleagues Mr Bruce Scott, Mr Graham Perrett and Senator Christine Milne, I look forward to working with the Red Cross to see how best this parliament can assist them in the very important work they do. On that day, we principally shared our appreciation for their assistance during the Queensland floods and other work they do around Australia.
The Red Cross and the Red Crescent Movement have been at the heart of the issue of nuclear weapons and nonproliferation from the outset of this debate. By continuing to raise their grave concerns and through their role in developing international humanitarian law, the movement contributed to the creation of additional protocols to the Geneva conventions in 1977. These protocols strengthened the distinction between civilians and combatants and reaffirmed the commitment to no unnecessary harm being caused to civilians during times of war. Of course, the destruction caused by nuclear weapons would fail to meet the no unnecessary harm principle. In 2011, the Australian Red Cross launched its official campaign to raise awareness of the horrific humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. It is a campaign of great consequence, and we all know the absolute destruction these weapons can cause. This is positive progress and the International Committee of the Red Cross and other bodies associated with disarmament should be commended for their work in both helping to ensure increasing interest and capitalising on commitments from the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
Our leaders must focus on the devastating humanitarian cost, as the Red Cross does. Remember that a nuclear weapon does not discriminate. Its path of destruction includes civilians, hospitals, doctors, land for farming, food and water. A nuclear bomb not only wipes out a city; it also wipes out so much more. As the vice-president of the ICRC, Christine Beerli, noted:
… the debate about nuclear weapons must be conducted not only on the basis of military doctrines and power politics but also on the basis of public health and human security.
And further:
Nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time … and indeed to the survival of humanity.
Those are compelling words. We cannot have this debate without considering the humanitarian cost, but neither can we ignore the world in which we live—the instability, the uncertainty and the threats which lie within our anarchistic international system.
Should a nuclear weapon fall into the hands of a terrorist organisation willing to use it, the consequences would be devastating. This is why I support the Prime Minister's motion and why I commend the International Committee of the Red Cross for its strong contribution to this issue.
In conclusion, one of the most iconic images throughout history is, undoubtedly, the ruined Hiroshima peace stone, standing alone amid the destruction of the city. I hope to see nuclear weapons become a part of our past, not our future and, for that reason, I strongly support this motion.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (18:21): I rise to speak on the motion, moved by the Prime Minister on 21 March this year, on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. I speak as a member of a government that has sought to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime and that has played a very constructive role in global disarmament discussions, negotiations and engagement. I also speak as a long-time antinuclear activist and someone convinced that the risks posed by nuclear weapons and materials are grave. I have long argued that our efforts in Australia to advance the cause of genuine binding nuclear disarmament need to be as strong as possible.
It is in our national and global interests that the world rid itself of weapons that are so powerful so that they can never be used. Indeed, I do not think that deterrence, as we once knew it, any longer holds the weight or the coherence that it may once have done. We are a respected middle-size power and our contribution can be substantial and positive to disarmament efforts, especially at this point in the history of global nuclear disarmament politics. The fact is that, four decades after the nuclear non-proliferation treaty came into being, we are at a logjam. As former UN Secretary-General, Koffi Annan, phrased it, 'When it comes to effective nuclear disarmament, the world is at a stage of mutually assured paralysis.' Iran's nuclear ambitions are self-evident, as is the dangerous, quixotic behaviour of North Korea and the threat of the terrible use of a nuclear device by terrorism, given that increased access to and knowledge of nuclear materials is growing. At the same time, within the nuclear non-proliferation treaty regime, parties have not been able to find common ground on agreeing to advance concrete, timely actions for disarmament.
Over a decade ago a review of the non-proliferation treaty saw parties agree to 'reduce nuclear weapons globally with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons'. Since then, virtually nothing has happened. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, long seen as a reasonable bulwark to increased nuclear proliferation, still does not include a number of recalcitrant states—North Korea, Pakistan and India, the latter being a country we are now contemplating selling uranium to.
The motion we are debating calls for ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty by all states yet to do so and follows the 8 December 2010 UN General Assembly resolution, sponsored by all five nuclear weapon states, urging all states to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. And with 179 in favour and only one against, I think the message is clear.
US President, Barack Obama, has indicated that the US will consider immediate and aggressive ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty. The International Court of Justice has unanimously held that states have an obligation to pursue and bring to conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. Following vigorous debate, the 2011 ALP national conference decided to create a special exception of allowing export of uranium to India. I acknowledge and respect that that conference has made that decision, but I observe that this does not mean that such export ought to happen immediately. I think we have a window of opportunity to further press for ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty by all those countries that have not ratified it, as expressed in clause 3(C) of the motion under debate, and consider that any sale to India could be deferred in the meantime.
I note that although nuclear cooperation agreements have been reached between the US and India, India, whilst maintaining its current moratorium on nuclear testing, in subsequent statements has reserved its right to test a nuclear weapon if it so chooses. This issue is challenging due to the actions of Pakistan and its unwillingness to accede to nuclear disarmament agreements. Of course, Pakistan is a very near neighbour to India. But it remains the case that as a valued neighbour, an increasingly important economic power and a democratic nation, India's ongoing rejection of this treaty is highly regrettable. Australia is well placed to be a strong supporter and an important actor in the realm of nuclear disarmament politics. I think the motion before us means that there should be reconsideration of ratification of the treaty by India now.
There has been recent debate around expanded approaches to nuclear disarmament. I will come to one of those shortly, but the fact remains that the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, along with the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, still represents the foundation of the global nuclear disarmament framework. Greater participation enhances the cause of disarmament. The motion before us also affirms support for a world free of nuclear weapons and recognises that we are closer to the unthinkable, the possible use of even a crude nuclear device that would cause untold misery and destruction.
In order for us to play a full and proper role in multilateral disarmament, not only should we continue with the endeavours underway—which now include additional actions identified by the Prime Minister at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul—but, as the motion notes, Australia should participate fully in a more comprehensive global approach to disarmament. The motion calls for an exploration of a legal framework for the abolition of nuclear weapons, including the possibility of a nuclear weapons convention. This would be a positive step, but I believe we should now move more quickly to lead the efforts to secure a new nuclear weapons convention.
This would recognise that every country must disarm and that a decisive circuit-breaker is needed to get the world onto a structured path to genuine total disarmament. A draft model for a nuclear weapons convention has been in place for some time. Indeed, it draws specifically from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and there is international and civil society support that has continued to grow from the mid-90s to the present. On moving to break the logjam, the treaty to ban landmines provides a clear example of what is possible in a relatively short period of time. Likewise, the chemical weapons treaty is an example of what is achievable when major powers buy in and take action.
To repeat, Australia is well placed to be a strong supporter of a nuclear weapons convention following speedy consideration of legal issues and a convention framework. We are parties with Japan and the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. We have contributed substantially through the first Canberra commission and subsequent engagements in policy. We are a member of the seven-nation initiative. We contribute our fair share to the International Atomic Energy Agency and there are a host of other important constructive actions that we are involved in. We are also a major exporter of uranium, the fuel of nuclear weapons.
While assorted multilateral negotiations move at a snail's pace, the need to completely eliminate nuclear weapons in a highly globalised world where terrorism opportunities are considerable has never been greater. The five-step approach laid out in the draft nuclear weapons convention would see the prohibition of developing, testing, stockpiling, threats to use nuclear weapons as well as the prohibition of the production of weapons-usable fissile material. Importantly, it applies to all states without exception. By the way, India has indicated a willingness to join. As the momentum builds internationally, it is very important that Australia not only gets on board but leads the way; continues to press for the remaining nations, who have not yet done so, to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; and commits to a nuclear weapons convention as an essential major step to abolishing nuclear weapons. The safety of our world and our future demands nothing less.
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (18:30): The background to this motion is that it was one of the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which I chair, which investigated the issues concerning nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament in 2009 and reported on them in the treaties committee report, Report 106: Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for introducing and supporting this very important and very unusual bipartisan motion.
I want to again thank my fellow committee members—one of whom is sitting beside me, the member for Shortland—not just for producing a 230-plus-page report, but also for their attitude of cooperation and determination to say something significant and worth while, which they demonstrated in the way they approached this task. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has members from the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Nationals and the Greens, with very different perspectives on a range of nuclear and foreign policy questions, but each member of the committee wanted to play their part in protecting people from the nuclear threat and to ensure that Australia's voice is heard loud and clear around the world on these matters. So we worked through the issues until we achieved an agreed outcome, a platform for progress.
What is that platform? The committee wants to see the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in place. This treaty is incredibly important in halting the momentum for nuclear proliferation and ultimately ring-barking the nuclear weapons tree. We want all the uranium-exporting countries to require that the countries whom they export uranium to have an additional protocol to guarantee international atomic inspector access. We believe that the International Atomic Energy Agency's budget needs to be increased so that it can do its work properly and thoroughly. The committee examined proposals for a nuclear weapons convention and for a multilateral fuel bank. In each case more work needs to be done and we recommended the allocation of research and consultation resources towards the development of a nuclear weapons convention with a clear legal framework and enforceable verification.
It is important to understand that the friction between the nuclear haves and have-nots is alive and well. Throughout the history of the non-proliferation treaty, the nuclear haves have stressed nonproliferation—that is to say, making sure no other country gets nuclear weapons—while the nuclear have-nots have stressed disarmament—that is, obliging the nuclear-armed countries to get rid of their bombs. The countries of the non-aligned movement, essentially have-nots, are frustrated by the lack of progress on disarmament. Too often this difference of approach has led to international stalemate. Clearly, we need to have action on both fronts—nonproliferation and disarmament.
I am aware of resistance from within the non-aligned movement and the developing countries to the idea of the International Atomic Energy Agency carrying out the nuclear security function. But my view is that every country has a stake in stopping other countries from developing nuclear weapons. It is not enough to say that because we do not have nuclear weapons we are doing everything we can. The non-nuclear-weapon states could campaign for universal adherence to the additional protocol and should campaign for states to give up their aspirations for an indigenous enrichment capacity in favour of a multilateral fuel bank.
The road to nuclear hell is paved with defensive intentions. The United States developed nuclear weapons after it was attacked during the Second World War by Japan, and both the United States and Russia developed nuclear weapons as a defensive strategy during the Cold War. Because they have nuclear weapons, China, which at various times during the nuclear age has had poor relations with both America and Russia, developed nuclear weapons as well. Because China had nuclear weapons, India felt threatened and developed nuclear weapons. Because India had nuclear weapons, Pakistan felt threatened and developed nuclear weapons. The strength of religious fundamentalist groups in Pakistan has created an ever-present and alarming risk that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of non-state actors, terrorists groups who have no respect for human life and who will take no notice of doctrines of deterrence and mutually-assured destruction in the way that governments might not unreasonably be expected to. We must do all that we can to break every link in this dangerous nuclear chain.
Back in 2009 President Barack Obama gave what is known as the Prague speech, setting out a vision of a world without nuclear weapons. It was more than welcome. The progress in discussions between the United States and Russia on a replacement nuclear weapons reduction treaty for START was also welcome. In February 2010 US and Russian negotiators reached an agreement in principle on a successor treaty to START that would reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons to between 1,500 and 1,675 each from the 2,200 agreed in 1991. There would be a reduction in nuclear delivery systems, and there was a joint understanding signed by President Barack Obama and then President Dmitry Medvedev in July 2009 which led to this. We also had a new Russian military doctrine announced at that time, moving away from earlier rhetoric on nuclear use closer towards the sole purpose of nuclear weapons being to deter nuclear attack, and that declaration is a positive step too.
It is America and Russia who have the vast majority of the world's nuclear weapons, so other countries can hardly be expected to disarm if there is no leadership coming from America and Russia. But the efforts of America and Russia alone will not make the world safe from nuclear attack—far from it. They must be complemented by steps taken by the other nuclear powers to also disarm. China, India and Pakistan will, like America and Russia, need to have bilateral or trilateral discussions so that reducing their nuclear hardware will not be seen within their own countries as prejudicial to their national security. Our task is to re-energise the international political debate against a background of a decade or more in which the international community has been sleepwalking when it comes to nonproliferation and especially disarmament.
It is good news that the Australian government has been heavily involved in the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, co-chaired by the former Japanese foreign minister Yoriko Kawaguchi and the former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans, who has an outstanding international reputation and has done first-class work around the world, building the case for action. That commission released its report in late 2009.
Those developments, the announcements by Barack Obama and the negotiations with the Russians have been very good news. But there has been plenty of bad news on the nuclear front. North Korea has tested rockets that could be used for long-range missiles and conducted a nuclear explosion, in flagrant breach of the United Nations rules. Iran has also engaged in nuclear and ballistic missile activity. It locked out the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose job it is to make sure that countries producing nuclear power to generate electricity are not also trying to produce nuclear weapons.
The fact that we have now survived over 60 years of the age of nuclear weapons without descending into nuclear holocaust has been the cause of lot of analysis and discussion, with reference to the doctrines of deterrence and mutually assured destruction. I think one of the factors that should be acknowledged is the role of organisations around the world dedicated to peace, stubbornly refusing to recognise any legitimate role for nuclear weapons and helping to ensure that a climate in which the use of nuclear weapons might seem legitimate could not arise.
One of those organisations which I want to acknowledge this evening is the Australian Red Cross and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Late last year the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement met in Geneva to discuss a global resolution, and a landmark resolution was endorsed. This was done by representatives of 186 national societies from across the globe. Given the wide credibility that it has, I will take the liberty of reading it to the House:
Working towards the elimination of nuclear weapons:
The Council of Delegates,
deeply concerned about the destructive power of nuclear weapons, the unspeakable human suffering they cause, the difficulty of controlling their effects in space and time, the threat they pose to the environment and to future generations and the risks of escalation they create,
concerned also by the continued retention of tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, the proliferation of such weapons and the constant risk that they could again be used,
disturbed by the serious implications of any use of nuclear weapons for humanitarian assistance activities and food production over wide areas of the world,
believing that the existence of nuclear weapons raises profound questions about the extent of suffering that humans are willing to inflict, or to permit, in warfare,
welcoming the renewed diplomatic efforts on nuclear disarmament, in particular the commitments made by States at the 2009 United Nations Security Council Summit on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Disarmament, the 2010 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms,
welcoming also the commitments made by States at the highest levels in the above fora to create the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons through concrete actions in the fields of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament,
… … …
drawing upon the testimony of atomic bomb survivors, the experience of the Japan Red Cross and ICRC in assisting the victims of the atomic bomb blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the knowledge gained through the ongoing treatment of survivors by the Japanese Red Cross Atomic Bomb Survivors Hospitals,
… … …
… emphasizes the incalculable human suffering that can be expected to result from any use of nuclear weapons, the lack of any adequate humanitarian response capacity and the absolute imperative to prevent such use,
… finds it difficult to envisage how any use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with the rules of international humanitarian law, in particular the rules of distinction, precaution and proportionality,
… appeals to all States:
- to ensure that nuclear weapons are never again used, regardless of their views on the legality of such weapons,
- to pursue in good faith and conclude with urgency and determination negotiations to prohibit the use of and completely eliminate nuclear weapons through a legally binding international agreement, based on existing commitments and international obligations …
Robert Tickner from the Australian Red Cross has said that it is their hope that they are able to achieve cross-party support from all the major political parties in Australia for the principles raised in the resolution. I want to register my support for the important contribution the movement has made in seeking the development of international law to clarify the illegality of the use of nuclear weapons.
There are so many nuclear weapons in the world that we can expect to be occupied for the remainder of our lives in the fight to get rid of them. We have a long way to go before we have to look too closely at what a world without nuclear weapons would actually look like. But I think it is necessary to have at least a little bit of a look at such a world, because otherwise we run the risk of bumping our heads up against resistance that seems illogical to us but is there all the same.
I believe that a world without nuclear weapons would be a safer world but the reality is that, in every country which possesses nuclear weapons, there are defence planners, policy makers and, indeed, ordinary citizens who are anxious that if they give up all their nuclear weapons they may be vulnerable to attack from another country—a country with superior conventional weapons, a larger army or a motive to attack them. Because of this, I believe that ultimate success in ridding the world of nuclear weapons will also depend on being able to achieve substantial disarming of conventional forces and weapons as well.
There needs to be more bilateral, multilateral and global discussion about reducing the size and reach of the armies of the world. We need to do more to address the underlying causes of war and terrorism. Analysts spend a great deal of time assessing the political and religious factors leading to the scourge of terrorism and of war in the modern world but they spend less time noting the underlying cause—conflict over scarce resources, scarce land, scarce water and scarce oil brought about by increasing population. So we need to be able to visualise a world without nuclear weapons, and that means thinking about what risks as well as benefits come with that and intelligently planning to address them. Borrowing a little from the late Edward Kennedy, the dream of a world without nuclear weapons is a dream that must never die. We must never accept that it is alright to live in a world where some people have the power to kill tens of millions of their fellow human beings and make the planet uninhabitable in a heartbeat.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (18:45): I rise to support the Prime Minister's motion. In doing so I thank both her and the Leader of the Opposition for putting this unanimous motion to the parliament. It is a motion that I think is extremely important and one for which I do not think there is any option other than to support.
As a person who has been a long-term advocate for a nuclear-free world, I believe it is important that we move forward and take action. The Prime Minister's motion gives us a ground for doing so. But, more importantly, I think report No. 106 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—which I was privileged to be a member of the last parliament—really highlights the issues that revolve around nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. It highlights the actions that can be taken to get to a world without nuclear weapons.
When it comes to nuclear weapons, there is no winner. The country that has the biggest and the most weapons, the country that has the largest stockpile, is not the winner. Any nation that is depending on its nuclear war stock is never going to be a winner. Other countries around the world are not winners either. There is a definite divide within the international community between those who have nuclear weapons and those who do not have nuclear weapons. Those that have nuclear weapons want to make sure that the countries that do not have nuclear weapons remain in that position. I do not think that in itself does anything to move this debate any further forward. Nuclear weapons do not make our world safer. Nuclear weapons actually create an environment of instability and, at the same time, create an environment where the very safety of everybody on this planet is at risk.
Currently there are five listed nuclear powers. They are Britain, China, France, Russia and the US. There are three that lie outside the NPT. They are India, Israel and Pakistan. I would now add a fourth, and that is North Korea. We have seen over the last 12 months both North Korea and Iran flexing their muscles and moving to a situation where they are becoming a nuclear threat. Although I said that there are four nations, I should have added Iran as another nation that is in refusing to allow inspectors to come in and is openly boasting of having a nuclear weapons program.
We cannot be complacent. It is complacency that has led us into the position we are in now. The threat is still very acute. There is a combined stockpile of over 20,000 nuclear weapons. Of these, 5,000 warheads are launch-ready and 2,000 of these warheads are in a state of high operational alert. This places the very existence of the planet we live on at risk. I believe the motion the Prime Minister has moved acknowledges just how important this is.
On 2 July 2009 I attended the Conference on Disarmament. The thing I found most disturbing of all was that the debate that took place on that day was determining the agenda for discussion of nuclear disarmament. Moving the issue forward and actually working on disarmament was not happening, because those countries at the Conference on Disarmament could not even agree on an agenda and the format those discussions would take. I do not think that is good enough. I think it is very, very important that we get to a stage where all countries acknowledge that nuclear weapons are dispensable and that the way to deal with the threats of tomorrow is not through nuclear threats.
It is very important that we coax and coerce North Korea back into the NPT, because you cannot deal with issues such as this unless all the players are involved. So I strongly urge that part of the role that Australia plays in nuclear nonproliferation is to encourage and engage with all those countries that have nuclear weapons and that wish to engage in nuclear weaponry.
I would like to refer to the Treaties Committee that I mentioned earlier. In total there were 22 recommendations, and those recommendations were unanimous. They were the recommendations of a committee that had people from both sides of this parliament, and people with very diverse views. Recommendation 1 was that the government support and achieve the ratification of the CTBT by the United States Senate. We saw that as very important, and the committee was involved in a number of discussions around that. But that has not happened. It needs to happen, as do the other recommendations in this report. Diplomatic efforts to encourage ratification of the CTBT need to be pursued. Australia has a very strong role in that because of the relationship we have with the United States.
The committee also recommended that the government use all its diplomatic powers to promote negotiations on a verifiable fissile material cut-off treaty. The committee felt very strongly about the issues that were raised and the recommendations that were made. The committee had the support of the government at the time, and the Prime Minister reiterated her support for nuclear disarmament in her speech in the parliament. One of the recommendations I thought was very important was recommendation 5, which recommends that the Australian government encourage all other uranium exporting countries to require countries to which they export uranium to have an additional protocol in place. It is absolutely paramount that countries that receive uranium from Australia are parties to the NPT, and I strongly support the additional protocol. I do not think as a nation we should be exporting our uranium to anyone that has not signed up to the treaty.
There were a number of other important recommendations in the treaties committee report. The committee members that were involved in that inquiry, particularly those that visited other countries, felt that Australia really does have a leadership role. They felt that not enough was happening, that there were enough nuclear weapons in the international community to pose a real threat to the lives of everyone on this planet and that the one-upmanship of ensuring that those countries that have nuclear weapons and maintain those weapons was not really leading anywhere—along with the fact that it created that desire of those countries that did not have nuclear weapons to seek to obtain those weapons.
I refer to a paper by Professor Ramesh Thakur, Director for the Centre of Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament at the ANU. I see that the member for Fremantle is here. I know that she was responsible for having the professor come and talk to us. He put it very well:
The case for abolition is simple, elegant and eloquent. Without strengthening national security, nuclear weapons diminish our common humanity and impoverish our soul. Their very destructiveness robs them of military utility against other nuclear powers and of political utility against nonnuclear countries.
As long as any country has any, others will want some. As long as they exist, they will be used one day again by design, accident or miscalculation.
That very much sets out the scenario for nuclear weapons.
The doctrine of deterrence does not work. The current treaties do not include groups involved in terrorism. War and terrorism need to be addressed in ways other than through nuclear weaponry and through nations demonstrating the level of power they have by the number of nuclear warheads they own. There need to be more multilateral and bilateral agreements entered into. Australia needs to take the lead and be involved in diplomacy, moving to a situation where we have a nuclear-free world. Australia has a close relationship with Israel—and I notice that nowhere is it mentioned the fact that Israel have nuclear weapons. They also need to be involved and agree to limitations on the nuclear weapons they hold.
This is a question that can easily be answered. We need to move. I fully admit that within my lifetime we will not reach the stage where we have a nuclear-weapon-free world—
Ms Parke: Why not?
Ms HALL: but I will do everything in my power to see that that happens. I was actually in Tahiti in 1995, when the nuclear testing took place there. Australia and New Zealand have always been leaders in the fight against nuclear weapons.
I will finish where I started, by congratulating the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on agreeing on the motion that is before the parliament; I just ask that the motion be given a few more teeth.
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (19:00): I am very pleased to speak on this critical issue, and I thank the Prime Minister for her timely motion in support of nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament, which has in turn been seconded by the opposition leader. Every single point of the motion must be pursued with urgency if this most ominous of threats to worldwide peace and stability is finally to be eradicated. The spectre of nuclear war has haunted human civilisation for the past 66 years. By the time the Cold War ended, the US and the Soviet Union between them possessed more than 70,000 nuclear warheads.
In the 20 years since its creation, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also known as the NPT, and the further related instruments that have flowed on from the agreement, including the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, or CTBT, have operated to greatly reduce the stockpiles of nuclear weapons. But the fact remains that any outcome short of total disarmament is unacceptable, because it leaves us, the global community, at risk of suffering the effects of a nuclear explosion. No greater destructive event exists. As Professor Ramesh Thakur, Director of the Centre for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament in the Crawford School and Professor of International Relations, both at the Australian National University, has noted:
Since the end of the Cold War, the risk of a Russia-United States nuclear war has diminished, but the prospect of nuclear weapons being used by other nuclear-armed states or nonstate actors has become more plausible.
I also thank Professor Thakur for sharing his expert view on the gravity of the nuclear status quo when he addressed Australia's UN Parliamentary Group in March.
While the Cold War persisted, the rally cries and wide public calls for nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament were loud and impassioned, but in the last couple of decades they have lessened. Grassroots protesters have, quite rightly, become a bit disillusioned by the slow pace of progress and by the apparent lack of political will that have come to prevail, notwithstanding the escalation of nuclear threats in the Middle East and Asia. As US senior statesmen Henry Kissinger, William J. Perry, Sam Nunn and George P. Shultz said in their collaborative efforts to re-energise the nuclear debate:
The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how and nuclear material has brought us to a nuclear tipping point. The world faces a very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands.
The steps being taken to address these threats are not adequate to the danger. With nuclear weapons more widely available, deterrence is decreasingly effective and increasingly hazardous.
In September 2009, following its inquiry into nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, of which I am a member, delivered its report—and I am very pleased that its 22 recommendations are acknowledged by the Prime Minister's motion. As the committee chair, the member for Wills, noted in his foreword to report 106:
We must do all that we can to try to break every link in this dangerous nuclear chain. Every one of us has a responsibility to help re-energise the international political debate, against a background of really a decade or more in which the international community has been sleepwalking when it comes to both non-proliferation and especially disarmament.
… … …
We must never accept that it is alright to live in a world where some people have the power to kill tens of millions of their fellow human beings, and make the planet uninhabitable, in a heart beat.
The prospect of the global community sleepwalking its way through a period in which the nuclear threat goes unchallenged or grows would be unacceptable to any thinking person. But, unless we see a resuscitation and intensification of the debate in due course, that is exactly the scenario we will face. On this point I again defer to the words of Professor Thakur:
… not one country that had an atomic bomb in 1968 when the NPT was signed has given it up. Judging by their actions rather than the rhetoric, all are determined to remain nuclear-armed.
… … …
To would-be proliferators, the lesson is clear: Nuclear weapons are indispensable in today’s world and for dealing with tomorrow’s threats
… … …
The most powerful stimulus to nuclear proliferation by others is the continuing possession of the bomb by some. Nuclear weapons could not proliferate if they did not exist; because they do, they will.
As the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Treaties found in 2009, other countries can hardly be expected to disarm if there is no leadership coming from America and Russia, which harbour the vast majority of nuclear weapons. While the US has not yet ratified the CTBT, it was encouraging in 2010 to see the US and Russia negotiate, sign and ratify a new strategic arms reduction treaty, namely START II, which is intended to reduce nuclear arsenals by one third. I am hopeful that the START II process will eventually pave the way to significant near-term disarmament and that the proposed Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, an instrument that would prohibit the further production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices, will be implemented. But, clearly, we are some way from that. Professor Thakur has warned of a palpable and growing sense that START II could mark the end of nuclear disarmament progress instead of being the first step on the road to abolition.
The chairman of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Tilman Ruff, associate professor in the Nossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne, recently warned on ABC Radio that Australia needs to be mindful of not sending mixed messages, for example, wanting the US to keep a strong nuclear arsenal while also advocating nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. Professor Ruff asked: are we walking the talk or are we saying one thing and doing another?
In the view of many, including the Australian parliament, the world needs to be looking at an agreement for wholesale nuclear disarmament rather than being satisfied with the halting incremental steps that have been taken to date. A nuclear weapons convention, which would build on the 1968 NPT to prohibit the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and provide for their elimination has been championed by ICAN and is supported by more than 200 nongovernment organisations in 60 countries as well as by more than 700 members of parliament from more than 75 countries who have joined the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Group.
I would like at this point to acknowledge the fine work of the Honourable Gareth Evans, co-chair of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament as well as the co-chairmanship of Japan to the commission building on the compelling case for action made earlier by the Canberra commission which said:
So long as any state has nuclear weapons, others will want them. So long as any such weapons remain, it defies credibility that they will not one day be used, by accident, miscalculation or design. And any such use would be catastrophic for our world as we know it.
I applaud the Prime Minister for reinvigorating this critical debate, a debate in which Australia has always played and should continue to play a loud and active role.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (19:09): I move:
That order of the day No. 1, committee and delegation reports, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Economics Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (19:09): I rise to speak on the review of the 2011 annual report of the Reserve Bank of Australia by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics and the committee's hearing with senior members of the Reserve Bank, including the bank's Governor Glenn Stevens, in February this year. As a proud member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics I relish the opportunity to participate and discuss monetary policy settings with my colleagues. The committee also has the opportunity to question the Reserve Bank on monetary policy settings, and that happens twice a year.
When questioning the Reserve Bank about monetary policy and the management of the Australian economy, we cannot ignore the government's fiscal policy settings. This is a feature of the report and has been a feature of much economic analysis subsequent to the report. Unlike the Labor Party, coalition members have a view that Australia's seemingly good fortune is not a derivative of Labor's fiscal management nor the government's finely tuned fiscal policy settings. Rather, the opinion of the coalition members—and we did seek to verify these views in the report with respect to responsible economic management—is that it is really a legacy of the former coalition government.
That is not to say that it has all been bad, but the evidence was there from the Reserve Bank. Much of Australia's ongoing economic success and the resilience and strength of the Australian economy were also due to our geographic location more than they are from any brilliance by the current Treasurer. One of the reasons why our terms of trade are fantastic at the moment—record highs—is because of demand in our resources sector. Make no mistake: China wants our raw materials. Our trading partners want coal, they want iron ore, they want our bauxite. We are well placed as a nation to continue to serve them.
The testimony of the Reserve Bank governor was clear. Australia will continue to have economic challenges in the future as we undertake a very significant period of structural reform across the economy. When the Reserve Bank governor says that Australia will continue to have economic challenges in the future as we enter very significant periods, I counsel my colleagues, when pinning their economic credibility to a wafer-thin surplus in such a volatile market, that we should move into the economic arena with caution, in particular with our forecasting of budget surpluses or deficits.
We will continue to see pressures being placed on the banks with respect to their funding costs, and there will need to be continual revisions of interest rates and the official cash rate by the Reserve Bank to get the balance right between inflation and economic growth for Australia into the future. Since the report was tabled we have seen the inflation rate fall under the inflation range and we have seen the Reserve Bank move to stimulate the economy in the way of a movement in the cash rate.
However, talking of banks, it is perplexing to the Australian people that, while banks claim the cost of funds is a major source of their increasing costs, they still manage to somehow produce record profits. Since this report was tabled we have seen inflation move, as I mentioned before. I thank heaven for the independence of the Reserve Bank and its ability to act to stimulate the softening economy. I particularly note the comments in paragraph 2.9, page 7, of the report:
There are sectors of the Australian economy which are experiencing average performance. Some are weak relative to historical averages, others stronger.
In paragraph 2.13, it says:
Global growth is now expected to be below trend in 2012 …
I come from the electorate of Wright where I have very little or no linkages to the resources sector, so I do not experience the spin-off of the two-speed economy when the resources sector is going gangbusters. I have made the comment many times in the public arena that the electorate of Wright is the economic weathervane of the nation when it comes to that softer part of the economy—the mums and dads who have no linkages to the resources sector. I can assure the committee and the House that there are sectors in my electorate that are doing it extremely tough in the current conditions. With reference to the labour market, the RBA advises that the unemployment rate is drifting up, to 5.5 per cent, and those predictions were emulated by Treasury modelling recently. It will be interesting to hear the response of the RBA to the participation rate, which by all accounts is falling and having an impact on the capacity of families to meet the growing demands of household cost-of-living pressures and, additionally, having an impact on the small- and medium-sized business sectors.
Speaking of the participation rate, we need to be mindful that, whilst we may see reports that the labour market is at 5.5 per cent for unemployment, if those unemployed are doing 38 hours a week, and through economic pressures their labour participation drops back down to 20 per cent, it will not influence the 5.5 per cent or the overall percentage rate but it will have an impact on families, especially on the money that flows through the household. It will be interesting to hear the RBA's response to the participation rate, which by all accounts is falling and having an impact on families.
If this government had managed the surplus, or the buffer as it is now referred to, to the tune of the $20 billion that we left them, our fiscal and monetary positions may well have been very different from those today. I would like to offer my respect and gratitude to the outgoing members of the RBA board, particularly Donald McGauchie and Warwick McKibbin. We do appreciate the incredibly valuable service that both gentlemen provided to the RBA. We welcome the appointment of the new members to the RBA and we trust that they will provide counsel and wisdom to the Reserve Bank of Australia in the same capacity as their predecessors. We appreciate the expertise they provided for the good of Australia and its people in developing sound monetary policy settings. I wish them well in their new chosen fields and their continuing contribution to the betterment of the Australian economy and the fiscal and monetary outlook.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (19:17): My contribution will focus on the broader context in which the Reserve Bank conducts its business. As you would know as a member of the committee, Mr Deputy Speaker Leigh, much of the discussion and interchange at the hearings we have with the governor and deputy governors of the Reserve Bank focus on the broader economic context in which economic policy is made, and those are some of the areas to which I would like to direct my points.
The 2011 annual report of the Reserve Bank that we are discussing today is in large part based on the hearing held in Sydney on 21 February. Since that hearing, we have seen some significant movement in the central bank's approach to interest rate settings, something that has been very welcome to me because, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I represent an electorate that has traditionally had a very strong manufacturing base. It also has a university, and a high percentage of its workforce is employed in the retail sector. We are being buffeted by the very strong headwinds that are largely impacting regions like my own, particularly as a result of the high Australian dollar. If I have been critical of some of the direction of monetary policy in this country over the last two to three years the criticism would be that the Reserve Bank, to its credit, has been a real tiger when it comes to chasing its mandate on inflation but it has been less quick off the mark when it comes to considering the unemployment and employment parts of its mandate. For people in this place who represent electorates like my own we know that, whilst there is a necessity to take account of the mining boom that is going on around the country, electorates like Throsby and large parts of eastern Australia are not enjoying the benefits of the mining boom around which so much of our monetary and economic policy is based. I do welcome the significant move that the Reserve Bank made in reducing interest rates by 50 basis points. I repeat the calls that have been made by the Treasurer and others on this side of the House who would like to see the major lenders in this country following suit and passing on those interest rate cuts in full.
If you listen to economic debates around this House, you could be forgiven for thinking that the state of the Australian economy is in lockstep with the economies of Europe or even North America. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. Having recently spent a week in Europe, I can tell you I never met a person who would not trade places with us when it comes to employment opportunities and the economic circumstances being faced by Australians. Australia has been through the worst global recession in 80 years, with an aftermath in some countries as long and as turbulent as that which was experienced during the Great Depression. Despite all of this, our actions have helped to ensure that the domestic economy is now more than 10 per cent larger than it was before the global financial crisis. By contrast, output in the United Kingdom, Europe and Japan is today still well below where it was at the beginning of 2008, with the UK and much of the eurozone back in recession.
Australia's economy is expected to grow at a further 8.5 per cent by mid-2014. Again, this is more than any of the big developed economies that we normally compare ourselves with. With the Australian economy returning to a trend of growth, it is right that the government moves back into surplus, allows room for business to expand and gives the RBA more flexibility when it comes to rate cuts as and when it sees fit. For the first time in our economic history, the Australian economy has been rated triple-A by all three global credit rating agencies. It is a small and elite club. The European sovereign debt crisis means nine countries either lost their triple-A ratings or were put on a negative watch. The United States has lost its triple-A rating and a few years ago this would have been simply unthinkable. I make these observations because as you travel the halls of this place and read some of the commentary, not the informed commentary, within the popular press, you could be forgiven for thinking that Australia was in the same position as many of the other economies that I talk of. We are in a small club that has a triple-A rating and, for the first time in our history, we have achieved that triple-A rating by all three of the global credit rating agencies.
As a share of GDP, tax revenue is at the lower level it has been for nearly 20 years. This is an important point to make, given that this debate is occurring not 24 hours after the Treasurer of Australia stood in the House of Representatives and handed down a budget which will bring us back into surplus in this financial year. This is at a time when the GDP-tax revenue ratio is at its lowest for 20 years. It is a remarkable achievement. If you consider that the previous coalition government saw revenues increase by almost two percentage points of GDP during its term, as the Treasurer observed in an address to the Press Club earlier today, this is nothing short of a remarkable achievement. Since the 2007 federal election, over five budgets, revenues have fallen by more than 1½ percentage points of GDP. If we had had the same average tax-to-GDP ratio as the previous government, revenue in 2012-13 would be $24 billion higher. That would give us a budget surplus of around $25 billion, the largest nominal surplus in Australia's history in some of the most challenging economic times that our nation has faced. We have steered the country through the global financial crisis and kept unemployment rates below six per cent—as far as I am concerned that is still high, and I know you would share that view, Mr Acting Deputy Chair. We have kept a lid on debt, ensured that we are still growing as an economy and ensured that we have a plan not only to bring this budget back into surplus but to put in place the long-term reforms that are going to be needed to ensure that we remain in surplus on average over the economic cycle so that we are not building structural deficits into our budget. This is something that when the economy was raining gold bars on those opposite they never managed to do. They never took any of those big, tough decisions to remove the structural—the underlying—deficits that were built up under their watch. They never managed to do that. So it is nothing short of a remarkable achievement when the Treasurer is able to stand in the House of Representatives and deliver a budget which will see us in surplus over the financial year.
I will interrupt here and make this point, because there has been a lot said in this place and in the popular press on the subject of surpluses. It seems to be an article of faith from those on the other side of the House that there is something intrinsically good in delivering a budget surplus, that irrespective of what the economic circumstances are they are committed to delivering budget surpluses. I cannot think of a more boneheaded approach to economic policy than that which I often hear espoused by those on the other side: it is an article of faith that we deliver surpluses. When they stand and make statements like that they are saying that it is an article of faith for those on the other side to tax the Australian people more than they need to to run the operations of government. That is ultimately what they are saying: if they are saying that they are committed to running budget surpluses irrespective of what the underlying economic circumstances are, then they are saying that they are committed to running budget surpluses and taxing the Australian people more than they absolutely need to.
So we do have some challenges and we do have some threats. Unemployment is higher that it should be in some areas, while we have labour shortages in other areas. We have infrastructure bottlenecks, largely due to the deficit in infrastructure spending led by those on the other side. And we do have some confidence issues, as we have those on the other side trawling for economic misery. That cannot help but impact on consumer sentiment and investor sentiment. But despite all of this, in the words of the Reserve Bank governor: as he travels around the world he has never met a central bank governor who he would rather trade places with.
So I commend the report to the House, and I congratulate the Treasurer on the excellent job he has done in ensuring that fiscal policy is in step with monetary policy in this country.
Debate adjourned.
Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Dr STONE (Murray) (19:28): I have a minute and a half left, which is, sadly, not enough to do justice to this report—from an excellent inquiry—In the wake of disasters: VolumeTwo: the affordability of residential strata title insurance. It was particularly in relation to the affordability of residential strata title insurance in northern Australia.
We have a lot of bad weather in northern Australia; that goes without saying. The trouble is that we have total market failure now when it comes to insurance, particularly for bodies corporate in residential strata title structures. We found in this inquiry that there was real tragedy occurring. People had sold their properties down south in Australia, had bought their dream apartments up north and now face body corporate insurance payments, divided up, obviously, between the number of units in that dwelling. The cost of that insurance is now well beyond the capacity of those, often retired, people to pay. There is virtually only one insurer left in the market, and in some cases even that one insurer quotes such unrealistic prices for the insurance product that you can say that in effect there is complete market failure.
We made a number of recommendations which were very important. We want the government to look closely at the problem of why there was heavy discounting in the price of that insurance some time ago, which drove others in the marketplace out of contention. We want to have a 12-month moratorium on stamp duty charges on strata title insurance for properties north of the Capricorn, and we felt that should be implemented in the next financial year.
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:31
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, and Employment and Workplace Relations: Portfolio Entities
(Question Nos 811 and 823)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 7 February 2012:
How many departments, agencies, commissions, Government owned corporations or other such bodies have been created within the Minister's portfolio since 24 November 2007 (excluding existing departments that have been re-named or merged into a larger entity), what is the name of each such entity, and how many fulltime equivalent employees did each such entity have at the end of 2011.
Mr Garrett The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Please see the below table detailing the full time equivalent (FTE) staffing for the department and agencies as at *31 December 2011.
Department/Agency name |
FTE staffing* |
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) |
5223.76 |
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) |
96.2 |
Fair Work Australia (FWA) |
297.29 |
Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) |
825.4 |
Safe Work Australia (SWA) |
113.23 |
Attorney-General's: Credit Card Breaches
(Question No. 914)
Mr Briggs asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 20 March 2012:
In respect of departmental credit card use in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, and (c) 2010-11, (i) how many times has the use of a credit card breached departmental guidelines, (ii) what was the dollar value of each breach, and what sum was repaid in each instance, and (iii) were any employees disciplined for such breaches.
Ms Roxon: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) 2008-2009
(i) There were 16 instances of non-compliance with departmental guidelines relating to the use of departmental credit cards for non-official purposes.
(ii) The dollar amount of each instance is outlined in the table below. The full amount in each instance has been reimbursed to the Attorney-General's Department (the "Department").
(iii) All officers that were non-compliant were counselled on the proper use of the cards and their responsibilities as cardholders. 13 non-compliances involved accidental use of a departmental credit card. Three non-compliances involved the use of a departmental credit card to pay a single account that included both official and private expenditure. The Department has since amended its internal guidelines to permit the use of a departmental credit card for coincidental private expenditure which is permissible under Regulation 21 of the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997. The Department guidelines require that expenditure of this type must be reimbursed to the Department as by the card holder in accordance with its acquittal procedures.
(b) 2009-2010
(i) There were six instances of non-compliance with departmental guidelines relating to the use of departmental credit cards for non-official purposes.
(ii) The dollar amount of each instance is outlined in the table below. The full amount in each instance has been reimbursed to the Department.
(iii) All officers that were non-compliant were counselled on the proper use of the cards and their responsibilities as cardholders. All non-compliance involved accidental use.
(c) 2010-2011
(i) There were eight instances of non-compliance with departmental guidelines relating to the use of departmental credit cards for non-official purposes.
(ii) The dollar amount of each instance is outlined in the table below. In relation to non compliance 7 and 8, the full amounts have been reimbursed to the Department. Responsibility for the recovery of the amounts listed for non-compliance 1 6 became the responsibility of the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport when the Territories Division moved to that Department as a result of the Administrative Arrangements Order of 14 October 2010.
(iii) In relation to non-compliance 7 and 8 the officers were counselled on the proper use of the cards and their responsibilities as cardholders. These instances of non-compliance involved accidental use. Responsibility for disciplinary action for non-compliances 1–6 is with the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport.
Non-Compliance by Year
Non-Compliance |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
2010-11 |
|
($) |
($) |
($) |
1 |
261.85 |
82.10 |
45.51 |
2 |
12.00 |
55.00 |
61.38 |
3 |
8.96 |
39.08 |
144.00 |
4 |
35.00 |
59.50 |
40.40 |
5 |
24.90 |
164.35 |
38.85 |
6 |
40.50 |
56.18 |
140.00 |
7 |
12.20 |
|
28.56 |
8 |
97.35 |
|
105.05 |
9 |
186.38 |
|
|
10 |
48.84 |
|
|
11 |
99.79 |
|
|
12 |
60.57 |
|
|
13 |
31.00 |
|
|
14 |
600.00 |
|
|
15 |
4.90 |
|
|
16 |
448.85 |
|
|