The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Keenan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice) (09:01): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014.
Serious and organised crime poses a significant threat to Australian communities. The government is committed to ensuring our nation is safe and secure, and to taking tough steps to strike at the heart of organised crime. It is for this reason that we are today taking action to strengthen Commonwealth laws that target 'unexplained wealth'.
Unexplained wealth laws turn the tables on criminals who live off the benefits of their illegal activities at the expense of hardworking Australians. They also provide an avenue to target the criminal kingpins who enjoy the proceeds of crime, without committing actual crimes themselves. In appropriate circumstances, unexplained wealth laws allow a court to order a person to demonstrate that his or her wealth was lawfully acquired. If they are unable to do so, the person may be ordered to forfeit their illegitimate wealth.
Unexplained wealth laws are a highly effective tool in the fight against serious and organised crime. Taking the profit out of crime undermines the entire business model of criminal groups and prevents illicit funds being reinvested to support further criminal activity.
In our Policy to Tackle Crime, the coalition government promised to strengthen Commonwealth unexplained wealth laws to ensure we have the toughest framework possible to target criminal proceeds. This commitment followed the 2011 inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement (PJC-LE) into the Commonwealth's unexplained wealth laws and arrangements.
In its final report, the PJC-LE found that the unexplained wealth provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POC Act) were not working as intended. The committee made 18 recommendations aimed at improving the investigation and litigation of Commonwealth unexplained wealth matters. While some of these recommendations have been implemented, there are a number outstanding. We are seeking to rectify this situation as part of our commitment to make the Commonwealth's unexplained wealth laws as effective as possible.
Measures in the bill
The measures in the bill are designed to:
ensure the most effective framework for law enforcement to investigate and take action to target unexplained wealth
streamline the processes for obtaining unexplained wealth orders while ensuring appropriate safeguards, and
close loopholes in the Proceeds of Crime Act that potentially make it easier to escape unexplained wealth actions and frustrate court processes.
I will now outline the amendments in each of these categories in further detail.
Effective law enforcement framework
To ensure that law enforcement powers are sufficient to target and restrain criminal assets, the bill will amend existing search and seizure powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act to allow authorised officers to seize material relevant to unexplained wealth. This amendment will address some uncertainty that exists under current arrangements and ensure that material relevant to unexplained wealth proceedings can be seized when searching premises under a warrant.
Other measures will enhance the ability of law enforcement to share information obtained under the Proceeds of Crime Act with appropriate state, territory and foreign authorities. This will ensure agencies are able to work cooperatively to effectively recover all proceeds of crime, including unexplained wealth.
To balance the expansion of these powers, the bill requires the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police to report annually to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement on the number of unexplained wealth investigations and applications. This will strengthen the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's oversight of the use of the provisions and ensure appropriate checks on the use of unexplained wealth investigative powers.
Streamlining processes for obtaining unexplained wealth orders
As well as ensuring that law enforcement agencies are better placed to attack the profits of criminal syndicates, the bill also responds to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency and fairness of unexplained wealth laws.
Under the bill, a court will no longer have an overarching discretion to refuse to make unexplained wealth orders for suspected wealth of $100,000 or more. The PJC-LE considered that there were adequate safeguards already contained in the act. The court will retain its discretion for orders for suspected wealth of less than $100,000 and will still be able to refuse to make an order if satisfied that it is not in the public interest. Removing the general discretion will improve certainty for all parties, while also maintaining appropriate protections for those subject to unexplained wealth orders.
The bill will also reduce unnecessary duplication in affidavit requirements by repealing certain requirements where police have already presented the same affidavit material to support an earlier related application.
The bill will also improve the court's ability to enforce an unexplained wealth order by setting out a process to allow restrained property to be used to pay a debt owed to the Commonwealth under an unexplained wealth order. This will improve the enforcement of unexplained wealth orders and bring the scheme into line with other types of orders in the Proceeds of Crime Act.
Closing loopholes in the Proceeds of Crime Act
The bill will also close loopholes in the Proceeds of Crime Act identified by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement and by law enforcement agencies.
The bill will prevent restrained assets, which may have been unlawfully acquired, from being dispersed on legal expenses by people who are trying to frustrate an unexplained wealth case. They will instead be able to seek representation through legal aid, as is the case with other proceeds of crime orders.
The bill will also clarify that a person whose property is subject to a preliminary unexplained wealth order is prevented from frustrating unexplained wealth proceedings by simply failing to appear when ordered to do so.
Conclusion
In addition to the further minor amendments made by the bill, these changes represent a major reform of Commonwealth unexplained wealth laws. The measures have been informed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's comprehensive inquiry and extensive consultation with law enforcement agencies and other stakeholders.
I highly commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (09:09): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights I present the committee's third report of the 44th Parliament, entitled Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011: bills introduced 11-27 February 2014, legislative instruments received 1-21 February 2014.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e)
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON: by leave—This third report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in the 44th Parliament sets out the committee's consideration of 17 bills introduced during the period 11 to 27 February 2014, 87 legislative instruments received between 1 and 21 February 2014 and seven responses relating to 20 bills and legislative instruments on which the committee had commented in its First Report of the 44th Parliament.
The committee considers that seven of the bills and 81 of the legislative instruments it has considered do not give rise to human rights concerns.
The committee has identified nine bills, two legislative instruments and a number of responses for which it will seek further information before forming a view on compatibility with human rights.
In considering the legislation that comes before it, the committee strives to provide advice to the parliament in as timely a manner as possible to inform the consideration of legislation.
At a recent symposium on the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, the chair of the committee, Senator Dean Smith, reflected on the role of the committee and its work to date. In his address he noted expectations that the committee, together with the requirement for statements of compatibility, would play a significant role in ensuring that human rights are explicitly and systematically taken into account in the legislative process. A key element of the work is the dialogue it maintains with executive agencies regarding the consideration of human rights in the development of policies and legislation. The committee's concern is to ensure that statements of compatibility provide adequate analysis and explanation of any proposed limitations on rights.
At the same time, the committee's work is squarely focused on the consideration of legislation by the parliament. The committee not only aims to complete its work while legislation is still under active consideration by the parliament but also seeks to draw its work to the attention of other parliamentary committees charged with examining particular bills and instruments at the earliest opportunity.
The committee's comments on legislation are intended to draw the parliament's attention to any potential conflicts with Australia's human rights obligations and to contribute to the effective identification and consideration of human rights implications throughout the legislative process.
The chair noted the committee's efforts to ensure that its reports are clearly expressed, are not overly legalistic and are reasonably accessible.
He also observed that there is considerable scope for enhancing parliament's consideration of human rights and stated that in the 44th Parliament the committee intends to focus greater attention on enhancing the parliament's awareness and understanding of human rights.
With this in mind, I take this opportunity to advise the House that, of the bills considered in this report, those which are scheduled for debate during this current sitting week include:
the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Bill 2014;
the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014;
the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013; and
the Higher Education Support Amendment (Savings and Other Measures) Bill 2013.
I can also advise that the committee has decided to defer its consideration of the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014, which was introduced on 27 February 2014, to enable closer consideration of the human rights implications of the bill.
Not all parliamentarians are familiar with human rights and most are not legally trained. The committee has therefore given some thought to how it can assist parliamentarians to develop their understanding of human rights issues and make effective use of the committee's reports in their work within the parliament.
The committee has developed a plain-English guide to human rights, which it intends to publish on its website. This guide focuses on 25 of the key rights found in the seven treaties against which the committee considers questions of human rights compatibility.
The guide is not intended to be comprehensive or legalistic. It is intended to complement other human rights sources, in particular guidance and resource material available on the Attorney-General's Department's website and the Australian Human Rights Commission's website. It is intended to provide a short and accessible overview of the key rights that the committee considers when examining legislation, includes examples to illustrate how each right can be applied in practice and points to other information and sources that may assist those seeking a more comprehensive analysis of the rights discussed.
A further way in which the committee is able to contribute to the consideration of human rights within the parliament is through its ability to undertake thematic inquiries into legislation that raises significant or complex human rights questions. The committee's ability to look at acts has provided it with the flexibility to give careful consideration to key human rights concepts, even after legislation has been passed by the parliament, while at the same time retaining a strong, practical focus for its work.
In the 43rd Parliament, our predecessor committee applied this approach to the examination of the Stronger Futures package of legislation, and used its 11th report of 2013 to set out its understanding of the concept of special measures and the circumstances in which special measures may be permitted or required under human rights law. In considering those measures described as special measures in the Stronger Futures legislation, the committee noted the importance of continuing close evaluation of such measures and concluded that the committee could usefully perform an ongoing oversight role in this regard. The committee recommended that in the 44th Parliament it should undertake a 12-month review to evaluate the latest evidence in order to evaluate the continuing necessity for the Stronger Futures legislation.
The committee has given careful consideration to our predecessor committee's recommendation and has decided to undertake a review of the Stronger Futures package of legislation, commencing in June 2014. The committee proposes to write to the minister and advise him of its intention to undertake this review, invite him to respond to the conclusions drawn by our predecessor committee in its 11th report of 2013 and alert him to the range of information the committee will seek from him and his department as part of the review. The committee proposes to report the conclusions of this review in 2015.
In conclusion, I also commend the work of the committee secretariat. This particular committee, more than any other that I have been on in the last two decades, is very dependent on its staff. Obviously, as is noted about the broader parliament, most members do not have legal qualifications and there would be few of us who would have a total understanding of the human rights conventions that this country has signed, and their implications. In that tone, I particularly want to recognise the work of Jeanette Radcliffe, the committee secretary, who has obviously been a driving force behind the support provided to the committee. I wish her the best in her new responsibilities.
Publications Committee
Report
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (09:17): I present the report from the Publications Committee, sitting in conference with the Senate Standing Committee on Publications. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House notes that:
(1) the Government repeatedly stated before the election 'that if debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer';
(2) the 2013-14 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook showed a $17 billion blow-out in the 2013-14 budget deficit, which at the time represented a $167 million budget blow-out per day since the Government took office;
(3) 60 per cent of the predicted budget blow-out in 2013-14 was due to the decisions of the Government alone;
(4) the government has sought to pave the way for deep cuts to the federal budget by deliberately blowing out the budget and establishing its Commission of Audit; and
(5) these cuts would be another example of this Government saying one thing before the election, and doing the complete opposite after it."
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (09:18): I rise to continue my remarks on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014 and the related bills. As I finished last night, I was reflecting on the fact that the Forde electorate remains one of the fastest-growing regions in South-East Queensland but has often been overlooked for infrastructure. There continues to be a huge potential for small business to thrive, not only in Beenleigh and its surrounds but throughout the electorate and the entire country, thanks to the coalition's positive plans for the future.
I recently spent some time doorknocking in the Upper Coomera area of the electorate. It is always wonderful to get out into our communities and have a listen to what they have to say, unfiltered by the daily glare of the media. In Upper Coomera the No. 1 issue is infrastructure related. Exit 54 on Days Road is notorious for its lengthy delays and congestion during peak hour and at school drop-off and pick-up times. One of the residents who takes her children to school just outside the electorate at Helensvale said that her return journey would normally take 10 to 15 minutes, but during peak hours when she is taking her children to school it can take up to an hour to complete.
Last year we put together a petition for the local residents to sign, to voice their concern over the issue, and that petition remains open and has already received more than 1,000 signatures. Along with my colleague Stuart Robert, I have recently raised this issue with the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, and we will continue to pursue the upgrade of this area until this issue is resolved. This issue is important because, in the surrounding area, there are nearly $1 billion worth of planned developments over the next five to 10 years, and it is critical that we get this infrastructure in place to facilitate those developments.
Other issues raised by local residents include cost-of-living pressures, particularly with the cost of electricity, and the need for more local jobs. I have just touched on the $1 billion worth of planned developments, and, with that, local job opportunities will be created. I spoke to a construction worker who said he had to travel three hours a day to get to a job site because of the lack of local jobs. However, he was confident and positive that things were picking up in the building industry and he hoped to be working closer to home in the not-too-distant future.
Most of the residents I have spoken to feel confident about the direction and actions the government is taking. It is great to get a positive response to the work we have been doing since being elected. But we still have a lot to do. The Rudd-Gillard government's six years of chaos, waste and mismanagement delivered higher taxes, record boat arrivals, and debt and deficit as far as the eye can see. It would have been nice to inherit a $20 billion surplus. We would have been able to do so much more for our communities. Not only did Labor inherit a $20 billion surplus; they left behind a $30 billion deficit and turned nearly $50 billion in the bank into projected net debt of well over $200 billion—the fastest deterioration in debt, in dollar terms and as a share of GDP, in modern Australian history. They left us with over $10 billion a year in net interest payments and they left us with a jobless queue almost 200,000 people longer than when they started. More than 50,000 illegal boat people arrived on Labor's watch, creating an $11.6 billion blow-out in border protection costs. I could go on. Suffice to say, the purpose of these bills, along with the other actions we are taking as a government, is to end the waste and bring the budget and the financial situation of this country back to order so that we can fulfil our promises and leave a positive inheritance for future generations to come.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (09:23): I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014 and the cognate bills. I notice this debate is one of three items listed for today. One of the other items is the address-in-reply. Normally these debates would be taking place in the Federation Chamber but, because this is a government that essentially has not got any legislation before the House, the debate is taking place in this chamber. The positive element of that, Madam Speaker, is your presence in the chamber here this morning. Therefore I am very pleased to make a contribution about the appropriations bills on the floor of the main House of Representatives chamber.
Governments need money so they can maintain the business of government while also funding the implementation of their legislative programs. But when we consider appropriations, it is reasonable that we also ask ourselves how the government has been performing. The amendment before the House goes to that, and that is what I would like to make a contribution about today.
Members, of course, would remember that during the last term I frequently accused the then opposition leader, now the Prime Minister, of being addicted to negativity. I argued that the then opposition leader did little more than recite three-word slogans about how Labor was bad and the coalition was good. It was a bit like the farm animals in the famous George Orwell book Animal Farm bleating their slogan, 'Four legs good, two legs bad, four legs good, two legs bad.' But instead it was, 'The coalition good, Labor bad,' whatever the issue.
We have seen that played out in the parliament today and in recent days over the issue of Qantas, where the coalition have purported to argue that it is the pricing of carbon that has made a difference to Qantas, whereas the facts, of course, are that Qantas and Virgin both asked and lobbied to be included in the scheme, and that was one of the changes that were made. They lobbied me as the transport minister, they lobbied then Minister Combet and they lobbied all of the government ministers about being included in the scheme. That is not surprising, because aviation is a global industry in which the pollution caused, including carbon pollution, is an externality that has a price to it. If you remove the pricing of an externality in the production process, what you are doing is deferring payment onto someone else. That is the way that it works. But still the coalition, addicted to the old slogans of opposition, are continuing to put them forward.
It is a problem, because a coalition that spent all of its time being negative clearly just did not do the hard yards on what it supported. It did not develop new policy. Its only policy is to undo Labor reforms, and that comes through in the comments with regard to the government's now preferred option of removing any foreign ownership restrictions from Qantas. Back in December 2009, the government of the day produced the first ever aviation white paper, a program to take aviation forward for decades and not just for a year or a political term. It recommended the removal of the 35 and 25 per cent restrictions on Qantas. It was a minor change compared with the government's rhetoric of today, but it was rejected by Joe Hockey, who was then the shadow Treasurer, and by Warren Truss, who was then the shadow transport minister and, of course, had been the transport minister at the end of the period of the Howard government. They rejected it because they said that any weakening of any of the foreign ownership restrictions in the Qantas Sale Act would lead to a loss of the national interest. Warren Truss, as the shadow transport minister, stated very clearly that it was particularly against the interests of regional communities that there be any weakening of those restrictions. So, together with the Greens political party, the coalition blocked a suggestion of a minor change to the Qantas Sale Act, yet it says today that it wants to throw out the whole of the section that makes Qantas an Australian airline.
They did not do the hard yards in opposition; they just said no to everything. We have seen very clearly over recent months confirmation of the fact that the coalition had a plan to get into government but they did not have a plan to govern. Today they are still acting like an opposition. Mr Truss, as the now transport minister, said very clearly in December that it would be a waste of political energy to attempt to get rid of the Australian ownership provisions in the Qantas Sale Act. He said that because it was a fact in terms of the composition and stated position of the current make-up of the Senate as well as the future make-up of the Senate after July, but he also, very interestingly, said that a majority of the Australian people had that view as well. Today that does not seem to matter to those opposite.
Today we are in a position whereby we are debating these bills and the address-in-reply. The address-in-reply could keep going till 2016 the way this mob are going. They have no legislation before the House—no plan. They spent three years saying no to everything and coming up with three-word slogans, and now they are finding out you cannot put three-word slogans into legislation. That is why today we are having these propositions.
In my area of infrastructure, transport and tourism the government has done nothing but talk big about how investment in infrastructure can drive economic growth, but at the same time it is planning a budget in which it will cut billions of dollars out of infrastructure funding. They are saying they will remove the $3 billion that has been allocated for the Melbourne metro project. They are saying they will remove the $715 million for the Cross River Rail project. They will remove the $500 million that has been allocated for public transport in Perth.
What they are doing, of course, is going around the country and reannouncing projects that have already been funded and that are near completion. These are projects like the upgrade of the Brisbane Gateway Motorway north, which is nearing completion of one section; Brisbane's Legacy Way project; and the Midland Highway project in Tasmania. They are reannouncing funding of $210 million for Cape York. The have announced the package to upgrade Western Australia's Great Northern Highway and North West Coastal Highway and are pretending that these are new announcements.
It was a rather amusing political shambles by the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, who went down to Tasmania and announced funding for Huon salmon which had already been announced by Minister King of the federal Labor government last year. It was rejected then by those opposite but announced on the same day that the government's media spin was that they do not fund any projects in regional communities. This was an extraordinary proposition. You have minister after minister running around the country, embracing any announceable even if the 'noalition', as I described them so accurately in the past, opposed it when it was first delivered by Labor.
Then there is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Bob Baldwin, who apparently—it is not quite clear—might have some responsibilities for tourism. The parliamentary secretary announced on 29 October last year that the incoming government would scrap Labor's TQUAL grants scheme to encourage tourism operators to invest in lifting the quality of their products, but only a month later Mr Baldwin visited a New South Wales koala sanctuary, where he purported to announce a TQUAL grant worth $110,000. Mr Baldwin tweeted a very cute photo of himself with a koala. It is unclear which one the koala is—I notice those opposite trying to discern a distinction. Mr Baldwin made an announcement of a project which, a month earlier, they had said they were scrapping. What is more, a Senate estimates committee hearing on 21 November heard evidence that Mr Baldwin had a very limited role in tourism despite his enthusiasm to associate himself with the industry. The general manager of Tourism Australia, Deborah Lewis, told the appropriate Senate committee:
The role for Parliamentary Secretary Baldwin is to wind up the current discretionary grants program and then his role will cease in tourism.
What sort of government gives someone a job to cut things and wind things up, and then that is it, with no future vision, no role going forward? We should not have been surprised by that because when the Prime Minister announced his first cabinet after taking office, he forgot to announce who had responsibility for tourism. It is one of the nation's biggest industries, employing more than half a million people, yet there is no minister for tourism among those opposite. They also do not have a minister for science. They just forgot who was responsible at the time. They could not even determine which department tourism is allocated to—an extraordinary proposition and a huge embarrassment for those opposite.
Most governments come to office chock full of ideas—but not this one. They are a group of people ready to say no, no, no, as they did when they were the opposition—no ideas, no plan and no vision. That is what happens when people are addicted to negativity. When it comes to policy development, they want to turn Infrastructure Australia from an independent adviser into a politicised lap-dog. They want to remove the ability of Infrastructure Australia to publish its findings. They want to ensure that there is no independent ability to look at projects. Indeed, they want to remove the ability to look at whole classes of infrastructure. What might that be aimed at? That is aimed at not looking at public transport. They do not have vision and every single day that is reinforced. You cannot run a government with three-word slogans, and the mob opposite are proof of that.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (09:38): I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014. These bills seek appropriation authority from the parliament for the measures announced since the 2013-14 budget. The most significant items for appropriation are just over $8.8 billion to the Department of the Treasury for a one-off grant to the Reserve Bank to meet its request to strengthen its financial position; and just over $2.5 million to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade re-appropriating amounts previously provided to the former agency AusAID which are required this financial year for expenditure by DFAT.
This debate is an important chance to discuss how our government is working hard to build a strong and prosperous economy, to get Australia back on track, to tackle the $123 billion of accumulated deficits that we face in the forward estimates the $667 billion of debt that is crippling our nation unless we take the appropriate action in the next few years.
I noted with some bemusement the member for Grayndler's discussion about negativity that we have just heard in this chamber. It is remarkable that the Labor Party spent most of its six years in government condemning its prime ministers—first Prime Minister Rudd and then Prime Minster Gillard—in what was the most destructive campaign, the most negative campaign that we have probably ever seen in this parliament, tearing down not just one prime minister but two prime ministers. The Labor Party was ripping itself apart. I have to say I find these quaint comments about negativity fairly amusing. Look at what happened in my electorate as a result of the former member, Darren Cheeseman, coming out and condemning Prime Minister Gillard's leadership. I know the member for Ballarat was fairly upset about that. By doing that he ensured that the rollout of the NBN in Corangamite was basically left off the list. The people of Corangamite were punished because of what the former member did. He also placed in jeopardy a whole range of other projects because of his conduct in ripping down a prime minister. As I say, when we look at negativity the Labor Party knows no bounds.
In contributing to this debate I reflect on my own electorate of Corangamite and the damage that Labor has caused over the past six years. Look at the carbon tax. Again I find it amusing that the member for Grayndler is holding up the carbon tax as a great achievement for the airline industry. The fact of the matter is that the carbon tax is costing Qantas $106 million and Virgin $27 million in one year alone. Let me quote Mr Borghetti, the CEO of Virgin:
The best assistance the Government and the Opposition can provide is the removal of the carbon tax, which has cost this industry hundreds of millions of dollars and to that end may I say we applaud the Government's position on this.
What we are trying to do is unshackle the airline industry, put Qantas on a level playing field and get rid of a tax which is causing a hit to manufacturing of $1.1 billion a year. The carbon tax in my electorate is a tax on manufacturing. It is a tax on jobs. It is a tax on the people of Geelong.
When I hear about the infrastructure achievements of the previous government, I reflect on the so-called support that Labor provided for one of our most iconic tourism roads, the Great Ocean Road. We were very proud of our $50 million commitment, combined with the state, for the upgrade of the Great Ocean Road—one of the great tourism icons of our nation. What did Labor do? Labor campaigned against it in a very destructive and negative way. Our minister for tourism is in the chamber, and I can say that we are incredibly proud of our commitment to tourism. We know how important tourism is to our economy. We have shown that in our actions and we are delivering on the commitment that we have made in my electorate to the Great Ocean Road.
Another great infrastructure project we are investing in is the duplication of the Princes Highway—$257.5 million for the duplication of the stretch of road between Winchelsea and Colac. On 26 May 2010 the member for Grayndler claimed, obviously quite incorrectly:
The Federal Opposition has abandoned its promise to duplicate the Princes Highway between Winchelsea and Colac, exposing the spin and dishonesty of Phoney Tony’s candidate for Corangamite Sarah Henderson.
Clearly, the member for Grayndler was not cognisant of the facts. He was not cognisant of what we were planning to do, and within a month, unlike Labor, we proudly announced our commitment, and Labor was left kicking and screaming just a couple of days before that election in matching our commitment. Here already we have seen a couple of examples on those very big infrastructure projects where the member for Grayndler has let Australians down and has also misled the people of my electorate.
We are very proud of the work that we are doing in my electorate to create jobs. I would like to draw your attention to this morning's Geelong Advertiser:
Job scheme starts rolling: hundreds of positions likely as government, car industry help fund factory.
This is an example of the work we are doing to create new jobs, to bring new opportunities to our region and to look at the new industries that we need to invest in.
Yes, we have had some tough times but let us not forget that we have seen thousands of jobs lost under Labor in my electorate: 510 job losses just at Ford alone, and there were Qantas, Target, Fonterra and Boral. It has been a very sorry couple of years because of Labor's policies and what they have done. The Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund, which is a combined fund from the federal and state governments and also Ford—and we do thank Ford for its contribution of $5 million to this fund—is getting on with the business of investing in new industries and new opportunities.
Yesterday, it was with great pride that we announced $5 million to Carbon Revolution to invest in a $23 million project which will take Carbon Revolutions manufacture of carbon fibre wheels from around 4,000 a year to 50,000. This is going to help make Carbon Revolution a tier 1 auto component manufacturer, selling their product to the world. This is a great story; carbon fibre is a great story for our region. This is an example of the sort of work that we are doing in advance manufacturing.
I also want to note on that point that round 2 of the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund is now open. It opened yesterday and it is open until 29 May. This provides businesses in my region, in my electorate, with a great opportunity to look at how we can work with industry to grow new opportunities and to deliver more jobs to our region. I do want to make the point that despite the name of the fund, this fund also extends to the Colac Otway Shire. So this is a great opportunity for the communities in the western part of my electorate to have a look at how we can support industry and work closely with industry to create jobs and to drive innovation in our region.
We are also working very hard as a region to bring an incredibly important project to Geelong. This is the LAND 400 Defence project, one of the biggest army projects of this generation. I have to commend my community in Geelong, led by the City of Greater Geelong mayor, Councillor Darryn Lyons, for being so proactive in championing our city and in telling the nation of our capacity, skills and potential to be the home of a LAND 400 project.
On Friday, the Assistant Minister for Defence, the Hon. Stuart Robert, will be visiting Geelong and providing a briefing to industry and community leaders. I am very excited about the prospects of us putting our best foot forward to become the home of LAND 400.
We are very proud of the election commitments that we have made in Corangamite, and it is a good opportunity today as part of this debate to remind the nation and to remind the people of my electorate about what we are doing. We have heard, of course, about our commitment to the duplication of the Princes Highway, which is so important in so far as bringing new industries, new opportunities and new investment to our region. Of course at the moment there is the $171-million duplication works underway on the stretch between Waurn Ponds and Winchelsea. It is terrific to see that work underway and we are hoping that we will be able to unveil that road by the end of this year.
We have made some really important local community infrastructure commitments: $3.5 million to build a new sports pavilion at Shell Road Reserve in Ocean Grove. It is great news. That application has gone into the City of Greater Geelong and has been returned. So we are moving very quickly to deliver that funding, because for the people of Ocean Grove not having a proper sports pavilion has been an open wound in their community for some 20 years.
We are doing the same in Colac at Colac Central Reserve—$2.5 million towards the upgrade of a new pavilion there. We have committed $300,000 to the Surf Coast Solar Towns Project. That is a wonderful opportunity and it shows our commitment to renewable energy. We will be making an amount of $300,000 available so that local community groups—the surf clubs, the senior citizens clubs—can apply for some funding support to put solar panels on their community buildings. I am a great believer in the strength of solar. I think every house has the potential to power its own future with the use of solar. This shows a great commitment to the environment and to renewable energy.
We are also investing $200,000 for new lights in the Burdoo Reserve in Grovedale. These commitments are very important because they go to our commitment to local communities. For the people of Grovedale I know how much this is going to mean for the young teams in football and in netball for the adjoining Grovedale College. Again, another example of our investment in local communities.
We have our Green Army projects being rolled out. In my electorate there are four Green Army projects. This is a great commitment not just to the environment but also to engaging and employing young men and women to give them the opportunity to work on a project, to build pride, to build skills and to give them opportunities for the future.
I am also very proud of some significant commitments that we have made since the election. We have committed $3 million to the Geelong Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases. This was also a commitment of the previous government. But, unfortunately, like so many commitments that we saw, they never got around to signing the contract. As we know, without a contract, it is very hard to deliver the project. One of the things that I have said to every group who has been successful in achieving some funding through us is: 'If there are any pick-ups, if there are any problems, come to us straight away. We will cut through the red tape, we will cut through the bureaucracy, to make sure that we deliver these projects quickly and efficiently, unlike what happened under Labor.'
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (09:49): I want to talk today about the budget hysteria that has been provoked by the government and to talk a little bit about what the reality is. I want to set out some of the facts. According to the Treasurer and according to so many people from the government side who have spoken on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014 and cognate bills, we have a debt crisis in Australia. The first thing to note is that in November 2011 the Labor government achieved something that the Howard government had not been able to achieve during its entire 11 years of tenure, and that is three AAA credit ratings—AAA credit ratings from Moody's, S&P and Fitch. So let us get this very clear: when we look at those bodies that have been established to make an assessment—an objective, non-political assessment—of the financial standing of a government, it was only the Labor government that was able to achieve a AAA credit rating. I repeat that: during Mr Howard's entire reign, not once did they have a AAA credit rating during the entire 11 years. I think that is fact No. 1 that we really need to get very clear.
And then we talk about the debt. We tend to talk about the debt with reference just to the absolute numbers. It is like saying that a debt owned by Andrew Forrest is the same as a debt owned by Ivy the pensioner from down the road. Clearly the issues that surround debt are relative, and of course we have, in the analysis of government, a way of assessing the size of that debt in terms of its relationship to the GDP to give us an appropriate scale. Because if you are dealing in debts, then debts of billions of dollars have less significance than if you are someone who has only got an asset base that can be marked in millions. So when we go and have a look at the net debt to revenue ratios, we find in Australia that our net debt to revenue ratio, again as assessed by the IMF, is around 11.9 per cent. We are right down there at the bottom of the world's advanced economies. The United States has a debt to revenue of 84 per cent; France, 84; Belgium, 82; United Kingdom, 81; Germany, a very solid economy, 57; Netherlands, 32; Korea, 33; and I think, from recollection, Singapore is right up there around that level. So when we look at the large world economies, their net debts to GDP are vastly smaller than ours. All of this pontificating about the absolute figures is just completely amateurish. We must always consider our debt position in relation to our GDP.
There was an interesting contribution by the member for Reid the other day in this debate. He was saying he had found some very disturbing figures, because he did not like the ones that the opposition had been putting forward that had been decided by the objective bodies of the IMF and the world's three government sovereign credit rating agencies. He did not like those, so he thought he would come across an analysis. It was very interesting. He did a comparison of Australia's performance with that of the EU, and he said, 'In Australia, over the last six years, we've had a GDP growth of 16.7 per cent compared to the GDP growth in the EU of 1.4 per cent.' So 16.7 to 1.4—I think that sounds pretty good for Australia. He then looked at our terms of trade growth. Our terms of trade growth over that time was 18 per cent. And he looked down and he says, 'In the EU, their terms of trade growth was -1.9.' Around those two very clear parameters, Australia clearly is doing so much better than the other advanced economies of the world. But then he finds that because the debt deterioration position is around the same—the GDP 20 per cent and in Australia 22 per cent—then that is proof we have got it all wrong.
I would say it is proof of the absolute opposite. We all went through a global financial crisis, this was a crisis that affected the world, and economics around the world had to engage in various processes of fiscal stimulus. What these figures show is that Australia—while engaging in, you might say, a quantum of fiscal stimulus that was equal to around that which was used within the EU—has been able to produce extraordinary results. So, far from this demonstrating some deficit in the performance of the Labor government, it just shows how carefully targeted our plan was. Of course, with any massive rollout of a fiscal stimulus we can point to a school hall here or a pink batt there that was less than optimum in its delivery—there is absolutely no doubt about that. We are not saying that you could ever claim that when you are rolling out a multibillion dollar fiscal stimulus and attempting to get it underway in a very short space of time in order to stop the economy going into the sorts of spirals we have seen elsewhere around the world.
I know every side always wants to develop and protect its legacy and every other side wants to pull that down. But we go back to the objective analysis and the fact that, notwithstanding this global financial crisis, it was under a Labor government that we achieved something that the Howard government was never able to achieve, and that is three AAA credit ratings. And we have a very, very low level of debt. Of course we recognise that before the GFC the debt levels relative to GDP were indeed lower—we absolutely acknowledge that. But you must also acknowledge that the extraordinary circumstances that confronted us during the GFC needed to be responded to. I believe a very clear demonstration of that is that we have been able to see the growth levels that the member for Reid was talking about the other night. I am glad he pulled those figures out because they are important, and it is good to see the government members acknowledging that we had GDP growth of 16.7 per cent compared to the EU's GDP growth of 1.4 per cent and that our terms of trade improved 18 per cent.
But there is a very clear agenda here, as well as the cost-cutting that is going on. We are seeing a deterioration in employment levels. We are losing many jobs. The government are presenting a very clear picture—almost clear: the exception is Cadbury's—of not being prepared to step in and protect Australian jobs and provide assistance to industry, so we are seeing the employment position worsening. There are a number of things we have to be careful of. One of them—and there are many commentators who are now saying this—is that, at a time when the economy appears to be contracting and there are an increasing number of job losses, it is very dangerous to be cutting public sector expenditure to the extent that is being proposed. This is particularly the case when the government have confected—to borrow the most favoured word of the government of today—a budget crisis. It is dangerous, in sexing up this confected budget crisis, if they are going to engage in a process of cost-cutting that has the risk of undermining what was a pretty solid financial performance over the six years of the Labor government. Many commentators have said this, including Moody's senior sovereign ratings analyst Steven Hess, who said there may indeed be 'economic consequences'—of a negative type—if spending cuts sapped demand. I think there has to be a great deal of caution.
We understand that the Treasurer is confecting a crisis, squirrelling away money, taking money out of the budget to put in the Reserve Bank well in excess of anything that could be reasonably required, and cutting and cutting in order to create a circumstance in two or three years time when he can say, 'We've got everything sorted, everything has been turned around and all of this crisis in our economy has been dealt with.' I put to you that there is no debt crisis. We have got three AAA credit ratings. We have got a very good performance.
Look at our big companies. If the carbon tax and the mining tax had truly been significant constraints on business you would not have seen the sorts of results we are seeing. The CommSec analysis the other day showed 93 per cent of the 138 companies reporting half-year results were in the black and two-thirds had grown their profits—and these are performances that occurred under Labor's watch. It showed 69 per cent of the companies lifted their dividends and it said:
The profit-reporting season has been outstanding and clearly the earnings results stand in marked contrast to the doom and gloom portrayed about the economy portrayed in the media … corporate Australia is in strong shape…
We have had the Treasurer and his band of merry men who have been talking on this appropriations legislation talking down the Australian economy, but Rio Tinto had a profit of $3.7 billion; BHP, a profit of $7.8 billion; FMG, a profit of $1.7 billion. These are record half-yearly profits for all those companies. And these are the companies that are paying the mining tax, so you have to ask yourself where is the evidence that the mining tax is driving down the performance of the mining sector.
There is a great need for us to ensure that we have proper investment in Western Australia and in Queensland, that we ensure that those mining states that are bringing home the bacon are given sufficient funds to deal with the very rapid growth that has been generated by these industries. But let us get the diagnosis right. We have got these mantras time after time which on any balanced representations of the facts just do not reflect the state of our economy, do not reflect the soundness of the management that Labor undertook over the last six years. We certainly were not perfect but we made the right and difficult calls during the GFC, and as a result we are so much better placed than the other advanced economies in the world.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (10:08): I am pleased to take the opportunity in this debate to speak about what I believe is a very positive, cost-effective and productive part of the Abbott government's education policy. At the outset I have to say that the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government's record on education is perhaps one of its worst legacies. Yes, Labor managed to rack up record debt and cripple the economy, but it was in the area of education that they starkly displayed the most shocking record of waste, ineffectiveness and empty rhetoric.
It would take more time than I have today to detail the litany of failures. The school hall rip-offs resulted in between $6 billion and $8 billion being utterly wasted. Just stop to think about that amount of money. How much could have been achieved to actually boost teacher training and increase school standards? Then there was the failed laptops promise which resulted in another budget blow-out of some $1.4 billion. There was the promise of $10,000 to promote excellence in teaching and reward those teachers who were doing exceptional work. Not a cent was delivered to teachers and that policy was dropped. There was the Gonski plan, which generated an incredible amount of discussion, which promised so very much but which Labor ultimately reduced to a battle about funding models. Once again it was a lot of rhetoric and no real substance. We actually saw falling standards in literacy and numeracy under Labor's watch despite billions of dollars being spent. A report released last year by the Programme for International Student Assessment found that Australia has slipped from 13th place to 17th in maths skills, a significant drop.
The coalition government, thankfully, is taking a vastly different approach to Labor. Our approach is to unashamedly put students first. We want students to achieve their best possible outcomes and we will ensure we have the best quality teachers, the most relevant and practical curriculum and a culture of excellence in our schools.
I wanted to specifically talk today about the government's independent public schools program. One of the saddest aspects of the Gonski debate was the demonising of independent schools, a variation of Labor's old class warfare politics. The fact that we have a thriving independent sector means that we can afford to spend more on public education. State and federal governments would have to spend an extra $8.3 billion annually on education if we did not have an independent school sector. Much of the growth in the independent sector has been in low-fee schools, and part of the reason that parents choose to set aside that extra money to send their children to an independent school is so that they can have greater say and choice. That is precisely why the independent public schools initiative has been so warmly received. Both internationally and in Australia, evidence shows the advantages of school autonomy as part of a comprehensive strategy for school improvement. It is about making our public schools better and helping ensure that public school students are not comparatively disadvantaged. Let me be clear: independent public schools do not charge school fees. They remain part of the public education system. However, our policy allows these schools to enjoy many of the benefits of the autonomy and flexibility of an independent school.
I would also like to acknowledge that the Queensland LNP government is committed to helping schools transition to being independent. They began their program of transition in 2013, and I am delighted that our policy can further assist Queensland schools in this regard. In my electorate of McPherson we already have several public schools which have taken up the option of becoming independent public schools. One shining example is Varsity College, a P-12 public school with over 3,000 students. The school is both huge and hugely successful. Varsity College is the only P-12 school in Australia to have the distinction of being a 'Microsoft World Tour School' and is one of just over 30 in the world with this award for demonstrating innovation in education. Microsoft acknowledged Varsity College as a global leader for its ICT platform and has joined the school as one of its exclusive partners in learning. The school also has the only Chinese language immersion program in Queensland. The college clearly already had a culture of innovation and excellence and this is set to grow and expand even further with the autonomy it now enjoys since becoming an independent public school earlier this year.
Varsity College already has a strong maths and science program. As someone with an engineering degree who is passionate about encouraging more students to study maths and science, it is truly awesome to see such a program being run at one of my local schools. This special program will encourage and support those students with an interest in excelling in maths and science. Parents have absolutely supported this concept, with more than 400 attending a public meeting back in October. It is this sort of parent, community, business and school partnership that the independent public school model supports and encourages. Other schools in my electorate, including Palm Beach-Currumbin State High School and Tallebudgera State School, have also become independent. I congratulate the principals, teachers and other staff, and parents of these schools on being pioneers and striving to improve their schools.
There is no doubt that, with proper support, there are many benefits for schools that choose the independent model. I commend the government on this initiative, as I said at the outset. This is a very practical and cost-effective way we can help schools achieve better results. The $70 million we are investing in the Independent Public Schools Initiative is no doubt money very well spent. It is a fraction of the billions Labor wasted on school halls, but the big difference is that it is actually proven to get results, and that is where Labor got it so wrong on its education policy. It is not about how much money you throw at the sector; it is about what actually improves standards.
On that note, I would like to also say that I am delighted that we have appointed practical and pragmatic academics in Professor Kenneth Wiltshire and Dr Kevin Donnelly to head the review of the national curriculum. Once again, our national curriculum needs to be focused on student outcomes, not on ideology. It needs to ensure that students are equipped with the basic skills they will need, rather than concepts that are the fashions of the day. My hope is that a more balanced curriculum will put the focus back on subjects like mathematics and science. It is a great concern that we have seen a decline in the number of students and teachers in these disciplines. The Director of the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute, Geoff Prince, has outlined the extent of the problem. In an interview late last year he said:
Australian graduation rates in the mathematical sciences run at only half the OECD average for men and one-third for women.
… … …
More than 30 per cent of secondary maths classes are taught by staff not trained as maths teachers.
The fact is that since 1995 there has been a 30 per cent drop in students enrolling in intermediate and advanced maths, which has a flow-through effect on the supply of graduates, teachers and mathematically literate Australians in industry. This is causing a devastating ripple effect throughout higher education, research and industry. Sadly, we have seen this coming for some time. In 2010 a Group of Eight review carried out by the nation's leading universities into education in mathematics, data science and quantitative disciplines showed:
From 2001 to 2007, the number of students enrolled in a mathematics major in Australian universities fell by about 15 per cent.
The number of students taking advanced maths at high school fell by 27 per cent between 1995 and 2007.
Industry demand for mathematics and statistics graduates was predicted to grow by 3.5 per cent a year until 2013.
A positive attitude towards maths drops by half between Year 4 and Year 8.
In 2007, 40 per cent of senior maths teachers did not have three years of university study.
Professor Peter Dowd, from the University of Adelaide's Faculty of Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences, warned at the time that South Australia would not be able to produce 'even half' the engineers needed to keep up with major defence and mining projects in that state. The time is clearly well overdue to address this shortage.
I note that the New South Wales government, according to reports last month, is considering making the study of maths compulsory following an inquiry into the state's skill shortages. The Chair of Applied Mathematics at the University of Sydney, in arguing the case for further maths study, outlined examples where basic maths has been lost to the workforce. She said:
"In centuries past we still had brick layers who could count three by four metres—nowadays we don't anymore.
"A lot of people, for example those who want to go into nursing, don't think they need maths, but when they come to university they get a shock when they find out they need to know statistics, be able to deliver drugs in proportion to weight and take into account risk factors."
Yet the problem is that senior students are being encouraged to do other subjects that present as 'easier' as a way to boost tertiary entrance scores. It is clear that the primacy of maths and science in the curriculum needs to be recognised and promoted if our nation is to address the skills shortages we currently face. I am personally working with the university I graduated from, the Queensland University of Technology, to help encourage more girls to study engineering. I encourage all members of this place, whenever they visit a local school, to discuss what steps are being taken to encourage the study of maths and science.
Finally, in the time that I have left in this debate, I want to implore members opposite to right another great wrong of their time in office and support our legislation to repeal the carbon tax. A great deal has been revealed about the devastating effect this pointless tax has had on the economy since we first debated the repeal legislation last year. It really beggars belief that Labor continues to arrogantly ignore the fact that the Australian public voted to get rid of the carbon tax at the election last September. It was the coalition's central policy platform, promise No. 1, yet Labor are taking a 'we know better than you' approach on this issue and thumbing their nose at the Australian people. What is worse is that they have the hide to stand up in this place and cry crocodile tears because businesses are being forced to close under the weight of the economic mess they left behind, including the burden of the carbon tax. Labor told us that the carbon tax would only hit the 'worst 500 polluters', when in fact it has been revealed by the report of the Clean Energy Regulator that the carbon tax has actually directly hit some 75,000 businesses—not 500 but 75,000. Alcoa, which recently announced the closure of its Point Henry smelter, was slugged with a carbon tax bill of some $127 million last year.
And to what end? Those opposite will constantly declare it is all about 'saving the planet'. They prefer to characterise the carbon tax as being about the environment. It should be perfectly clear that the carbon tax has never been about the environment. The carbon tax does not reduce emissions. The previous government's own modelling, which it submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, shows that our domestic emissions increase under the carbon tax from around 560 million tonnes in 2010 to 637 million tonnes in 2020. Australia's emissions were 557 million tonnes in the year to March 2013, the first period under the carbon tax—the same level as the previous year, according to the latest emissions data. The carbon tax was never about genuinely reducing Australia's carbon emissions; it was environmental symbolism and wealth redistribution. It was, as the Prime Minister has described it, 'socialism masquerading as environmentalism'. The Productivity Commission report in May 2011 stated:
… no country currently imposes an economy-wide tax on greenhouse gas emissions or has in place an economy-wide ETS.
As more countries around the world reject the notion of a carbon tax as a means of improving environmental outcomes, it becomes more and more obvious that the carbon tax was just another ill-conceived Labor policy among so many.
If truth be told, the carbon tax was about keeping Labor in power. It was about appeasing the Greens in order to hold on to office. To the Leader of the Opposition I ask this simple question: if you want to make a break with the Labor mess of the past, why would you cling to legislation that represents Labor's ultimate betrayal? Why would you support legislation that adds to the power bills of families, pensioners and small businesses?
Once again, the Clean Energy Regulator found that the sector hardest hit by the carbon tax was the energy sector, paying $4.1 billion extra a year. Power companies have had to add that cost to every single electricity and gas bill. It is putting pressure on already stretched family budgets, and it is putting further strain on businesses, particularly in the manufacturing sector. The first quarterly CPI figures released after the introduction of the carbon tax recorded a 15.3 per cent rise in electricity, with household gas rising by 14.2 per cent. This was the largest quarterly increase ever, two-thirds of which, on average, came from the carbon tax.
As businesses close and energy costs rise, and as the world turns away from the concept of a carbon tax as a practical way to address environmental issues, it is simply foolhardy in the extreme for Labor to stand in the way of repealing the carbon tax. I urge those members opposite to do the right thing, put pressure on the opposition leader to change Labor's position and prove that they respect the democratic process of the last election. The Australian people voted to get rid of the carbon tax, and they want it gone.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (10:23): I too rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014. In doing so, I note that one of the main items that the government is seeking to achieve through these appropriations bills includes the funding of an $8.8 billion injection into the Reserve Bank. This government has said on many occasions—at least while it was in opposition and in the run-up to the last election—that, if debt is the problem, more debt is certainly not the answer. I am wondering: how do you justify an $8.8 billion grant to the Reserve Bank from the Commonwealth from a government that finds itself in a $17.7 billion deficit and a $54.6 billion deficit in the government's forward estimates?
I know we went through the charade a little earlier this year about doubling the capping on the government's debt. As you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, the government brought a proposition to this House that it wanted an unlimited debt ceiling. It was not until it did a deal with the Greens that a debt ceiling of $500 billion was implemented. Before an election, the rhetoric about debt is wonderful. When you put it in terms of what this government is doing now, it is hypocritical in the extreme.
This grant under the appropriations bill is to ensure that the Reserve Bank is adequately resourced to conduct its operations. I would not normally be troubled by that if the bill did not also seek to cut millions of dollars out of the Health and Education portfolios. These cuts clearly demonstrate where the priorities of this government lie. Ensuring that our children have the best start in life, the best opportunity to secure their future, and improving the health system are clearly not the priorities of this government. The cuts that are being made clearly indicate that the government is backflipping on a number of key electoral promises that were made. That can be no clearer than in what it is putting forward now in cuts to health and education.
I will just concentrate a little on education. We heard before the election campaign, with a lot of hype, about the issue of education. Certainly the opposition, as they then were, were reeling not only from Labor's education revolution but from its plan to improve school funding. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that they used the words: 'When it comes to education, we are on a unity ticket.' They tried to indicate that there was not a hair's breadth between what the then Labor government were doing in respect of the school-funding initiative, the education revolution, and what they purported to do if they were given the opportunity to form government.
But I ask you to reflect upon what has occurred. If they truly had been on a unity ticket with Labor, they certainly would not have abandoned the school improvement initiative. This is scrapping a historic funding agreement with the states. This was the first time where the federal government not only increased exponentially the investment in education but also sought to achieve co-funding agreements with the states and ensure that they would also maintain their levels of funding as required under the agreement.
What has occurred now is that the states have been formally released from their co-funding responsibilities, so they are now free to go out and, if they so choose, cut their funding to schools. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that, by announcing recently that the growth in education spending is unsustainable, the Abbott government has now signalled that there will be further cuts to school funding. And, by the way, what that is going to achieve is not so much the bottom line of budget here; it is going to compromise the prospects for the future of our young people.
Local families have already been disadvantaged because of the decision to cut the schoolkids bonus, to cut the payment of $410 for primary school students and $820 per year for high school students. It certainly has directly impacted on some of the most vulnerable families in our community. It certainly impacts on their ability to provide for their kids at least the basic necessities for a successful education. The provision of stationery, books and other essentials which are so important at the beginning of a school term was taken away. This is very much directed to the most vulnerable families in our community.
As you are aware, my electorate—which I am particularly proud to say is the most multicultural electorate in the whole of Australia—is, regrettably, the second most disadvantaged electorate on socioeconomic rankings. That means that it is an area of disadvantage, and I know full well that almost 14,000 families were directly affected by this one change. These are families who are in great need and who require assistance, and it is their children who are being punished through this measure.
One of the other significant things about my electorate is that it has a disproportionately high number of people who live with various disabilities. Within a 20-kilometre radius of the Liverpool CBD are 52 per cent of all the families in New South Wales who live with autism. Obviously, what comes with disability is financial disadvantage. This is another thing that has heavily impacted upon my community. The state government have been allowed to withdraw funding. We have seen this played out in a very practical way in New South Wales at the moment when it comes to kids with disabilities. The New South Wales Liberal government have now slashed $1.7 billion from education funding. They have been allowed to make these changes to the funding agreement and that has impacted across the board. It not only impacts government, private, Catholic and independent schools; it impacts the kids with disabilities. It is the ones who have special needs who have been impacted the most.
Some of these kids have been forced from special needs classes into mainstream education. I know it is always the ambition for any parent to ensure that their child will be in mainstream education, but it is not always in the best interests of the child. Because of these cuts, we are seeing those special classes abandoned. We are seeing young people, many on the autism spectrum with special needs and requiring special attention, now being forced into mainstream classes. It is not the system that is suffering; it is the kids who are now suffering. I know from my own experience within the electorate that there are many families this year alone who have withdrawn their kids from school. They are now opting for home education because of the difficult position that the families now find themselves in, principally because the kids are struggling in mainstream education.
In this bill, $4.8 million is to be cut from education programs. I suppose this adds to the $1.5 billion overall cuts to education and there are cuts to health of $13.2 million. What also affects my area is the $11.5 million cut to the Building Multicultural Communities Program. I said earlier that I have the honour of representing the most multicultural electorate in the country. As such, I am very disappointed with the Abbott government's decision to withdraw funding under the Building Multicultural Communities Program. In my electorate, 11 organisations were successful in going through the very detailed, exacting and competitive application process for a grant. After receiving formal advice from the Commonwealth that their projects were approved and grants would be provided at the specific funding level, there was certainly much excitement in the community. People had put in a lot of hard work to help get these projects up and on their way. Consequently, plans were established, architects engaged and engineers drew up detailed work plans for these projects.
When the new Liberal government decided to withdraw funding it was like Armageddon for a lot of these organisations. They were deeply disappointed that the Commonwealth had reneged on what had been approved. Also, they were financially engaged, in many cases, in arrangements for the commencement of these projects. The government's attempt to cover this up is just a breach of faith. The Building Multicultural Communities Program was never an election promise. However, these grants were fully funded and included in the previous budget.
There are many organisations around my electorate that provide much-needed assistance to people settling in Australia and contribute to maintaining harmony and social inclusion. These grants would have helped them very much in the work that they undertake. What they do is good for our whole community. One such organisation whose funding was withdrawn is the Australian Chinese Buddhist Society, which is in Bonnyrigg. It was originally awarded $150,000 to go part way to the construction of the new community hall. James Chan is the chairman of the organisation. He recently wrote an impassioned letter to the department expressing his grave disappointment and also that of the community. This organisation has been providing a great service to our community for the last 32 years. After being initially advised of the approval of the grant, it was greatly encouraged that it was being supported by the Commonwealth and was confident that it was conducting its responsibilities appropriately on behalf of a very significant multicultural community.
I was honoured to announce the grant on behalf of the government at the 32nd anniversary celebrations of the society. There were over 1,000 people present, including various local dignitaries, departmental officers and the leaders of the Chinese community. After the widely publicised and celebrated announcement that the grant would go ahead, regrettably, the organisation was kept in the dark for many months as to the future funding. This was despite their attempts to try to see when the cheques would be issued. But they were assured, not so much that the cheque was in the mail but that the approvals had been given and they felt suitably encouraged to engage architects and engineers to commence the planning work for the project. Part of the condition of the grant was that work must be completed by 30 June 2014. It was another imperative why they could not delay in ensuring that the planning process was properly entered into and that the DA process through council had been achieved. As I said, these projects are not only community projects but ones that engage a whole series of organisations helping to support them, as well as the Australian Chinese Buddhist Society. Indeed, the local council ensured that every step was taken to assist in terms of the approvals of these projects as well.
This again goes to a government that was prepared to say one thing in the lead-up to the election and then do something entirely different after the election. This is not the government that people thought they were electing.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (10:38): I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014. I think that it is important that in this debate we focus, in the lead-up to the budget, on some of the myths that have been perpetuated not only in this chamber but also outside this chamber as to our current fiscal position and what it is that we need to be able to do in order to meet the challenges of the future. So I want to take the opportunity here today to raise some of the questions about what really 'saved us' from the global financial crisis. I would like to start by exploring this concept. It is true that there was great global economic uncertainty in 2008 and it is equally true that the Labor Party was in power at the time. However, this is where the heroics start and end.
First, let me deal with the concept that there was a 'global recession'. By using the term 'global' it is intended to create the impression that every country was equally affected by the economic downturn. This is simply not true. Take Australia's largest two-way trading partner, China. In 2008 China's GDP growth 'slowed' to 9.6 per cent from 14.2 per cent the year before. This is still considered rapid by any standard measure. Significantly, APEC countries, our largest trading association, also continued to grow including: Indonesia 6.0 per cent, Russia 5.0 per cent, Malaysia 4.8 per cent, the Philippines 4.2 per cent, and Thailand 2.5 per cent. Other major economies such as Brazil 5.2 per cent and India at 3.9 per cent, and even Australia's at 3.8 per cent, prove that the financial crisis was not so global but rather isolated to Northern America, Europe and individual countries on other continents. If those opposite do not wish to believe me, then maybe they should take it up with the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens, who said in the 2010 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics hearing:
It was really only a global crisis for six or eight weeks, I think. The rest of it is mainly a North Atlantic story.
I suppose, as they say in the classics—and I think that Karl Rove has oft been quoted in this regard—never let a crisis go to waste, and certainly the Labor Party in government did not do that. The first time they had the opportunity to go back on their promise that they would be economic conservatives, they took it. They increased spending dramatically, so much so that they increased spending by more than $100 billion over and above that which was spent by the previous coalition government. And it was not just a one-off thing. They continued that spending program throughout their time in government.
During the height of the North Atlantic financial crisis, Australia experienced its greatest terms of trade in our history. In fact, Australia's terms of trade were 15 per cent higher during the previous government than at any time under the Howard Government. So it is pretty surprising then to hear the Labor myth that the situation was very dire and difficult for them in order to raise revenue when terms of trade were so high.
One of the reasons we were shielded from the impact of the financial crisis in the global economy was in fact not because we went on a massive spending program, as postulated by those opposite, but because in fact we came in with an incredibly strong position thanks to the Howard-Costello government. Unlike Labor, we on this side actually like to leave money in the bank for an incoming government. We like to do this as we understand that it is not our money, but rather the money of the people of Australia. We all know that in 2007 Labor inherited about $70 billion of assets and around $20 billion in a surplus. There was no other country in the world that had a similar fiscal position going into the crisis. This is a point that is conveniently ignored by those opposite.
There is another reason why we were buffered from the impacts that did flow, and that is monetary policy. The RBA prudently and responsibly managed interest rates, allowing for businesses and individuals to continue to invest during the period. This view is supported by Selwyn Cornish, a leading economist from the Australian National University, who said:
As it turns out, there was too much fiscal stimulus—there's even too much fiscal stimulus now. I think (the RBA) did what it had to do extremely well and the problem at the present time is not with monetary policy, it's with fiscal policy.
What also helped shield us from the impact was a regulated banking sector. We must give credit where credit is due, the banking sector was initially deregulated by Hawke and Keating. When we look back to that time we see two Labor leaders who understood that in order to unleash Australia's productivity and innovative potential, we had to unshackle the burdensome chains of regulation and take away the heavy hand of government, insofar as we could. But this sentiment, this principle and this view is sadly lacking in the members who currently sit opposite in this chamber.
We can also thank former Treasurer Peter Costello and former Prime Minister John Howard for their stance in making the Reserve Bank of Australia independent and for undergoing serious microeconomic reform and the corporate law economic reform programs, CLERP 1 through to CLERP 9, that ensured that we had an appropriately regulated banking sector that was principles based, unlike the approach taken in the US which was Sarbanes-Oxley, which was all about ticking the box. This approach did not allow them to endure the crisis particularly well. We were able to avoid the worst aspects of the subprime market, because we were appropriately regulated and our banks had the right regulations in place and the flexibility to respond.
Let me recap the key points as to why Australia avoided serious damage during this crisis. Firstly, it was isolated mostly to the Northern Hemisphere. Secondly, Australia's trade continued at record levels. Thirdly, Australia had money in the bank going into the crisis. Fourthly, we had responsible monetary policy. Finally, we had a well regulated banking sector, not a heavily regulated banking sector. These were some of the key reasons, but of course it is not an exhaustive list.
Why is it important that we understand the impacts of the now famous GFC? It is important because it provides the context in which to measure the response of the previous government. The previous Labor government would like you to believe that the coalition opposed the entire stimulus package that they put together. Certainly, we did oppose the second tranche, but we did agree with them that it was important to have a very small, well targeted and well defined amount of stimulus in the very beginning. But when Labor got into the habit of spending other people's money, they simply could not stop.
Under Labor, real government spending grew at around 3.5 per cent over the five years from 2007-08 to 2012-13. This explosion in spending led to record deficits and debt. Between 2008-09 and 2012-13, Labor delivered deficits totalling $191 billion. The net debt figure for the financial year 2013-14 is due to be $192 billion, rising to $280 billion in 2016-17. The accounts Labor left us mean gross debt will continue rise to two-thirds of a trillion dollars within a decade if no corrective action is taken.
Along with the pink batts, the BER that was not appropriately targeted nor appropriately regulated, set-top boxes and over $11 billion in blow-outs in border protection, amongst other things, there was also the $900 cheques that were sent out to people for no reason other than the government wanted to spend money. This final point is a very good example of the fiscal incompetence of the previous government. Let me make a couple of points on that. In the financial year 2012-13, 15,000 cheques were issued, totalling around $13 million of borrowed money, five years after the financial crisis. Since its introduction, more than 16,000 stimulus payments, totalling around $14 million, have been sent directly to taxpayers living overseas. More than 21,000 payments have been made to deceased taxpayers, totalling more than $18 million. This includes the payment of 40 stimulus cheques to deceased individuals so far this financial year. To date, $7.7 billion worth of stimulus cheques have been handed out. When you put that in context, it is enough to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme for an entire year.
We know that the previous government was fiscally incompetent. There is no other conclusion that can be drawn from their six years in government. We know that we face some big challenges ahead. We do not want to leave our children a debt legacy. We do not want to be irresponsible in the way that the previous Labor government was. We know that at this time in our history we face particular challenges that we need to be conscious of, challenges outlined in the previous Intergenerational report that say even if we just go on along the current path we are going to need to triple health-care funding, quadruple aged-care funding and double individual welfare payments—and that is before you take into account the importance of bringing in such schemes as the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
What we need to do in the upcoming budget is to make sure that we reduce the size of government and that we live within our means. We need to give business the confidence to invest, to grow and to employ because when they employ that leads directly to jobs. Business grow jobs, not government. How are we going to do that? We will reduce the red tape and regulations that are currently strangling business and not allowing it to invest, grow and employ. There is some regulation that is good but there is a lot that leads to very bad outcomes, and it is that regulation that we will be abolishing in this place. In the budget, we are going to see measures that support the Prime Minister's claim that he will be an infrastructure Prime Minister. There will be investments in productivity enhancing infrastructure that will again help us to grow our economy. We are going to put an end to all of the waste and quango schemes—the never-ending schemes—that the previous government came up with in order to spend taxpayers' money because we want taxpayers to keep as much of their own money in their own pocket.
This brings me to the final point I make which is that we want to lower the tax burden on taxpayers because we appreciate how hard it is to earn that dollar and how awful it is to see when that dollar is squandered. We know that individual taxpayers know best how to spend their own money. These are going to be some of the things that we are focused on in shaping the budget and getting our economy to grow in Australia. We know that Australia has a bright future ahead of it, but we have to get the framework right. That is going to mean that we will need to make some difficult decisions, some challenging decisions, in this place. I implore the Labor Party and the opposition to support us in making the changes that need to be made to make sure that Australia will be great again and that our future is bright.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (10:53): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014. May I start with commending the member for Higgins for that fine contribution, in particular for pointing out some of the myths in relation to Labor's claims that it saved the world through its stimulus package in 2008-09. It was Prime Minister Paul Keating who said, 'When you change the government, you change the country.' It was an apt comment. I believe it is true because when you reflect on 1996, with the Howard government coming into being, it did change the nation. It brought a period of prosperity, fantastic relationships with our neighbours and allies, and incredible wealth creation for families across the country. Similarly, in 2007, when the Labor government was elected, the nation changed. I would argue that the changes were not always for the better when the Labor governments came. Indeed, they re-regulated the economy and we saw waste and debt like we have never seen before in the history of this country.
We are now almost six months into the Abbott government. As with the election of other governments in 1996, in 2007 and prior to that, the nation is changing and will change with this government. I would like to use this appropriations debate to outline how the nation is changing for the better already and to specifically report back to my electorate, through this parliament, on the progress against the key commitments that we made before the last election to improve this nation. Of course, our starting point has been to fix Labor messes because, unlike the incoming Labor government in 2007, we did not inherit a strong economy and a $20 billion budget surplus. Rather, we inherited what can only be described as a mess.
The clearest example of this was in border protection, where, over the period of the Labor government, over 55,000 people arrived by boat, at least 1,200 people died at sea, and people waiting in refugee camps were denied places in Australia. As former Prime Minister John Howard has noted, it was probably Labor's greatest failure because they alone were the author of the crisis through their deliberate dismantling of the system which was painstakingly put in place under the Howard government. That system ensured that almost no boats were arriving, that there were no children in detention and that in fact there were only four adults in detention in 2007. It also ensured that our entire refugee intake, which is about 13,500 people per annum, was taken from the United Nations refugee camps, which, I believe, is the right process for this country. Having created the crisis, Labor then used every justification imaginable as to why they could not fix the crisis, but the simple reason they could not fix it is that they lacked resolve. We have no such lacking of resolve in addressing this crisis.
Operation Sovereign Borders commenced 11 days after the election. While it is too easy to say that the boats have stopped, they are certainly stopping because over the last three months we have seen not a single boat arrive; whereas, in the same three months in the previous year we saw hundreds of boats arrive. The measures we have put in place and which Scott Morrison continues to put in place for the government in this area are not easy measures. Tough decisions had to be made in order to put those measures in place. But I strongly believe that our policy is fair towards genuine refugees and is saving hundreds who might otherwise be lost at sea. Importantly, when borders are secure, there is stronger confidence from the public in our overall immigration program. That overall immigration program has underpinned the progress of our great multicultural cities like Melbourne, where I live.
Repairing the economy has been the next great task of this government. Having inherited a $20 billion surplus, Labor then recorded the four biggest budget deficits in the history of this country. We have made this point before, but it is worth stopping to reflect on that. The four biggest budget deficits in the history of this country were recorded under the Labor government, despite inheriting a $20 billion surplus in 2007. If settings do not change, there will be another $123 billion worth of deficit over the next four years and our gross debt will go up to $667 billion. They are extraordinary numbers. But this is Labor's legacy that they have left the nation and that they have left this government, the Abbott government, to deal with. They borrowed from the future to pay for things like pink batts—as the member for Higgins pointed out—for overpriced school halls, for set-top boxes, for $900-cheques to dead people and for other things which can only be described as wasteful spending. We should never forget that wasteful spending and never forget who undertook it or why it was undertaken. No government should repeat such wasteful spending again and certainly this government will not do so.
As well as the budgetary situation, the macroeconomy was seriously weakened over the last six years. For the first time, the government reregulated the Australian economy in industrial relations, in environmental regulations and with other red tape. Twenty thousand new regulations were put in place. Taxes, including of course the job-destroying carbon tax and the mining tax, were put in place, and investment decisions by companies were postponed or rejected. Multifactor productivity declined by four per cent per annum since 2007 with only the record high terms of trade causing us not to have a weakening of living standards.
Our approach to these very difficult financial and economic challenges is based on some fundamental principles. The Prime Minister very neatly summarised some of these principles at the World Economic Forum in Davos just recently. He had four pithy principles: first, you cannot spend what you have not got; second, no country has ever taxed or subsidised its way to prosperity; third, you do not address debt and deficit with yet more debt and deficit; and fourth, profit is not a dirty word, because success in business is something to be proud of.
These principles are very different principles than those which operated under the Labor government, and we are putting these principles into action, into practical steps. I will provide some examples to the House here. Perhaps one of the most substantial examples of that is the $400-billion worth of projects that were in Labor's too-hard basket but which have now been approved by environment minister Greg Hunt. Think about what employment $400-billion worth of projects creates, what wealth that creates, what money into the country that brings. I commend the environment minister for making those decisions, a man who is not only passionate about the environment but who also knows we must have a strong economy in order to sustain job creation and wealth creation.
The trade and investment minister, Andrew Robb, has already concluded a free trade agreement with Korea. That is worth $5 billion to the economy. Likewise, he is working on free trade agreements with Japan and China. All three of those free trade agreements were stagnant, they were stalled, they were on hold over the last six years. They did not go anywhere. But already under the principles which the Prime Minister has articulated, under the open-for-business principle, a $5-billion free trade agreement has been signed with Korea. We are hoping we will have free trade agreements with Japan and China signed very soon. When that occurs, it will mean that we have free trade agreements with our four largest trading partners. What that means is golden opportunities to our exporters. It also means cheaper imports as well. There will be billions of dollars worth of wealth creation from those trade agreement. Again I commend the trade and investment minister, Andrew Robb, for leading those free trade agreements.
On the tax front, we have scrapped dozens of Labor's announced and budgeted but not enacted tax changes. Of course this included the $1.8-billion hit on the novated car lease industry. The carbon tax and the mining tax repeal legislation, as everybody knows, has been introduced into this House and has passed this House but is now stuck in the Senate. If Labor stops blocking those pieces of repeal legislation then families will be on average $550 per annum better off. But Labor right now is in the Senate, blocking those pieces of legislation which would see the abolition of the carbon tax and the mining tax. When we abolish those, that will also lift the burden on businesses as well.
We will cut the company tax rate by 1.5 per cent. We will remove over $1 billion of red and green tape so that our businesses can focus on improving their performance and not on form filling. To repair the budget we are putting through this parliament already $20-billion worth of savings. And we have a full Commission of Audit which is identifying waste, inefficiency and duplication between layers of government. We have got the East-West Link project about to begin construction and we have other major infrastructure projects in every state across the country that will soon begin. All of these measures are designed to build business confidence, to encourage investment, to allow businesses to be more profitable, which ultimately allows jobs growth and salary growth.
There are many businesses which are struggling, including in my electorate. When those businesses struggle, jobs are lost. It is ultimately only profitable businesses that create wealth for this nation. When we have profitable businesses, we have job creation and that is our overall objective. We want to support these businesses and the best way to do that is to make the business environment as attractive as possible. So our measures are designed to lower taxes, to have less regulation, to have better infrastructure, to have lower energy prices, to have a more flexible industrial relations system and to have consistency of decision making. We are seeing this approach already translating. We see business confidence is higher. We see in the papers today that both private sector housing and non-residential building approvals have risen by more than 20 per cent, surpassing levels from before the GFC for the first time. We still have record shipments of coal and iron ore, returning the trade account to a surplus. I regularly hear from companies that investments that were put on hold pre-election are now being made; the decisions are being made. All of those are terrific signs. So there is great room for optimism despite the difficulties that some of the older industrial companies are having.
Stopping the boats, ending the waste, getting the budget under control, growing the economy more strongly again and reducing the cost of living were the core commitments we made during the election, and we are delivering upon them. We are strongly moving forward on our social policy agenda as well, including giving unprecedented attention to our nation's greatest social policy challenge, the plight of many Indigenous Australians. There will be other opportunities for me to outline in greater detail the progress on this front.
There are so many challenges and so much to do as a nation. As a government, we cannot fix Labor's messes overnight. We cannot turn the economy around on a dime. But we are off to a good start, and the pieces are being put in place. In time, the government's finances will be restored. The economy will grow strongly again, and there will be more opportunities for all Australians and greater wealth creation.
Paul Keating may not like it, but the nation is changing, and it is changing for the better. We ask the Labor government to support this program—
A government member: Get on board.
Mr TUDGE: Get on board so that wealth creation, job creation and business investment can occur.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (11:09): In summing up I will deal with the amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, moved by the member for Fraser, and some of the issues raised in the quite extensive debate on these three bills: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014. These bills underpin the government's expenditure decisions, including pre-election commitments and decisions made in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
I have found it quite remarkable to listen to some of the contributions made by those opposite. Instead of even some token acknowledgement from Labor about the mess it left behind, we were subjected to a steady dose of deception, denial and hypocrisy from members opposite. Labor's budget strategy, it seems, is to simply hoodwink the Australian people and pretend that the past six years never happened, to pretend that 7 September, election day, never happened. But it is worth reminding the House what actually happened over those long and terrible years. Labor has tried hard but, no matter what it says, it cannot rewrite history. Let's look at the facts—the facts that those opposite seem so determined to airbrush from history.
In 2007, when we left office, we left a $20 billion surplus. In 2013, we inherited a $30 billion deficit. Labor would have us believe that it did not rack up record debt and record deficits; not a single surplus, not one in its six budgets. Instead, what we have been saddled with are huge deficits, or 'temporary' deficits, as only the masters of spin-offs could say with a straight face. In fact, Labor has not delivered a budget surplus since 1989, long before the member for Bowman was even born.
But how could anybody forget Labor's solemn promise in 2010 to deliver a budget surplus in 2012-13—a surplus that they promised to deliver on more than 650 occasions? The member for Lilley said it would be delivered 'come hell or high water'. The then minister for finance, Senator Penny Wong, said that a surplus was 'non-negotiable'. Have you ever? When asked what would happen if her government was not able to deliver on that promise, former Prime Minister Julia Gillard said: 'Failure is not an option'.
As the boy who cried wolf discovered: if you consistently make the wrong call, people will eventually stop listening—they stopped listening on 7 September—and call for change. But Labor will not let us get on with our mandate. Labor will not listen to the people's will. The Australian people did stop listening to Labor's pie-in-the-sky plans and instead turned to a coalition that they know they can trust—they always have been able to in the past and they will now—to get the finances of the nation back on track.
In an attempt to distract everyone from Labor's record, those opposite had the audacity to accuse us of—would you believe?—cooking the books. If you listened to Labor, you would think that the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook was just a piece of creative accounting. According to Labor, we have painted everything a darker shade of grey in a piece of fiscal window dressing. The reality is that MYEFO adopts more realistic assumptions, and assumptions which better reflect subdued global economic conditions and the transition that the economy is going through, as the terms of trade ease off, and what this might mean for investment and employment. Recognising that forecasting key economic variables is a challenging task, MYEFO included information illustrating measures of uncertainty around the key forecasts included in MYEFO. That is all perfectly reasonable, all perfectly defensible and all very transparently set out by the government in the MYEFO document.
These bills are important because they are part of this government's clear commitment to deliver on the plans and the promises we took to the Australian people. Unlike Labor, we deliver on our promises. Importantly, we have made the necessary provision in this bill to enable the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to stop the boats. To that end, we have committed almost $750 million for offshore processing and to disrupt people-smuggling activities. With the passage of these bills, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection will be properly funded to deliver a credible offshore processing regime. And it is working. It is more than 75 days now since we have had a boat arrive on our shores illegally. We will address the funding shortfall of around $1.2 billion—that we inherited from the previous government—over the forward estimates.
This government is fulfilling this promise to the letter, and I commend Minister Morrison for his work. It is 75 long days since we have had a successful illegal maritime arrival. We are stopping the people-smuggling model. It has been more than two months since a boat has arrived. That is not to detract from the seriousness of the situation that emerged on Manus Island; in respect of that matter, we have established a fully independent investigation that will find out who was responsible, at the end of the day, for these matters.
In the area of Defence, we have included more than $660 million to further enhance Australia's military capabilities in order to promote stability and security in the region. Under Labor, Defence spending fell to 1.49 per cent of gross domestic product, the lowest level since 1938—and we all know what happened the year after that. The coalition remains fully committed to restoring Defence to two per cent of GDP. I can tell you, as someone from a home town of tri-city service obligations—with the Army, Air Force and Navy all in Wagga Wagga—that what Labor did to Defence was an absolute disgrace.
The largest item that these bills make provision for is $8.8 billion to enable the Treasury to make a one-off grant to the Reserve Bank of Australia. This grant will bring the balance of the RBA's main capital reserve—the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund—to 15 per cent of its assets at risk. At the point we came to government the fund had been depleted, partly because of losses associated with the sustained appreciation of the Australian dollar but also because of dividends taken out by the previous government, from a level of $6.2 billion in 2006-07—11 per cent of assets at risk. By 2012-13 the fund's balance had deteriorated to $2.5 billion, which is 3.8 per cent of assets at risk. This is a prudent step which will ensure that the RBA is properly resourced to meet the challenges of a volatile international economy. It puts beyond doubt that the RBA can and will be able to perform its core monetary policy and the foreign exchange functions in the face of financial market volatility.
The opposition makes out that this is all a huge surprise, when in fact the Treasurer flagged as early as February 2013 that this is something that we would discuss with the RBA on coming to government as a matter of urgency. Labor argues that it is too much, that we should have to tender a request slip from the RBA governor and, worse, Labor accuses us of doing this just to manufacture a larger deficit in 2013-14. What hypocrisy! What nonsense! It goes to show that the opposition just does not get it. According to Labor, you should only intervene at five minutes to midnight when you think politics demands it. But we understand that, in a volatile international environment, the best thing we can do is to instil confidence in the Australian financial system—and that is to ensure the RBA is primed and ready to respond.
We saw Labor's piecemeal approach on show when we brought before the parliament legislation to increase the debt limit to $500 million, which was what we understood was needed plus a prudent buffer. But all we got from Labor was again a game of political brinkmanship—an attempt to hold the country and its people, Australians, to ransom. What a shameless thing it was to watch those opposite rack up future debt when they were in government and to actually build it into the forward estimates but then not allow us to fund some of the programs we inherited. Then they had the hide to criticise us for negotiating with the Greens to not only allow us to fund some of Labor's very own programs but also improve transparency in the process. I appreciate that negotiation is a foreign concept to those opposite—those whose modus operandi in government was just to give in to whatever the Greens wanted.
Confected outrage about so-called broken promises, grants to the RBA and the abolition of the debt limit is one thing, but fearmongering about changes to social payments and Medicare is quite another. In all of Labor's hysteria about broken promises, they can still not list a single promise that we made prior to the election that we have walked away from—none. It just goes to show how reckless and irresponsible those opposite are. They will say anything to distract from the mess they left behind. It is further proof that Labor accept no responsibility for the dreadful fiscal mess they created.
Let us be clear: the Abbott-Truss government is committed to a strong and sustainable safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves. We have no plans to cut the Disability Support pension; in fact, we are actually increasing the DSP on 20 March. Scaremongering by Labor about a cut to the DSP is causing unnecessary angst amongst DSP recipients and shows how low Labor will go. While we have no plans to increase the age for the age pension, we need to have a conversation about what we can afford in the next 20 to 30 years about the taxpayers' outlay. That needs to be combined with a robust discussion around the tax and regulatory settings which influence how and when people save for their retirement. That is so important.
The coalition recognise the importance of primary health. That is why we are doubling the incentive for GP training to help build a health workforce that can support people in identifying health risks early and taking preventative action. But our healthcare system has to be sustainable.
We saw a lot of hand-wringing about jobs from those opposite while they were refusing to abolish the carbon tax. I might just quote from a speech given by the Australian Forest Products Association Chairman, Greg McCormack. Last night at the annual dinner, he said that the most difficult times he has seen in business have been in the past five years. He talked of green and red tape and said to the large audience:
Imposing a carbon tax which Australian producers had to bear when imports didn't has further made exports and locally produced products less competitive.
Domestic processors have carbon tax costs embedded in their cost of production through higher electricity prices, transport costs etc, imports do not have these cost imposts.
Similarly in export markets Australian producers not only have to cope with a high exchange rate, but have carbon tax costs embedded in their production costs that other competing countries do not have in their costs.
He had this message:
Prime Minister we urge you to remove the carbon tax as soon as possible.
I know what a valuable role the forestry industry plays in Australia. Indeed, it underpins the economies of the Tumbarumba and Tumut shires in my Riverina electorate. Australia has 80,000 direct forest and forest product employees and perhaps 200,000 indirect jobs. We need to follow exactly what the AFPA chairman has said and remove the carbon tax. Labor should get on board with us there.
In relation to both Holden and Toyota, let us be very clear that by those companies' own admissions there is nothing the government could have done to keep their factories open beyond 2017. It is worth remembering also that workers at these factories have several years to plan. They know what is coming; it is unfortunate that it is coming but it has been on the cards for some time and at least they have some time to do something about it. No-one is pretending that it will be easy for them or that it will not be stressful for the workers involved. We know it will be. We are putting the economic factors in place to grow the economy and to grow Australian jobs. As my parliamentary secretary colleague beside me, the member for Aston, said, we do have the infrastructure Prime Minister. We are going to create the economic conditions to grow our nation.
It is typical of Labor that its answer to every problem is more government, more regulation, more intervention. As the Australian Forestry Products chairman said, remove the carbon tax, get on board and let's get on with cutting red and green tape. I would go so far as to say that under Labor there is no problem so big that they do not maintain that regulation will fix it. But we are getting on with the job of removing regulation. Ironically, Labor wants the government to do the impossible to save industries which cannot be saved while refusing to do the one thing that would be good for all businesses operating in Australia and that is: repeal the carbon tax. That would have been of so much benefit to the automotive industry. Repealing the carbon tax would be good for manufacturers such as SPC Ardmona, it would be good for Qantas, good for Virgin Australia, good for Rex and good for small business. In short, it would be good for anyone trying to run a business and trying to run a family budget. If the Leader of the Opposition were fair dinkum about jobs, fair dinkum about helping out businesses operating in Australia and fair dinkum about families, he would get on board with us and tell his senators to get rid of the carbon tax.
Those opposite will not get behind our efforts to free Qantas from the regulatory shackles of the Qantas Sale Act—a piece of legislation that applies to Qantas and not its competitors. Instead, we hear the member for Grayndler fearmongering about regional services, when they are not even mentioned in the Qantas Sale Act.
With the greatest respect to the member for Fraser, his amendment is nothing short of a grand piece of showboating. While putting sentiment into law might seem like a worthy pastime to those opposite, there is no place in the statute books for grandstanding and hyperbole. It was just a try-on from the member for Fraser, and we have seen it before. This is the very same member who trivialised the $250,000 in savings achieved through the passage of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill. According to the member for Fraser, this amount is too small—too modest to even consider worth saving. But $250,000 in the scheme of things is $250,000—and it is $250,000 worth of taxpayers' money. This type of attitude just sums up the modern Labor Party so well. Labor today have no respect for taxpayers' money and no credibility when it comes to managing our budget.
In closing I would say to the Australian people that this government is absolutely committed to implementing the plan which we took to the election. We were up front with the people. We said that we would remove the carbon tax. We said that we would remove the mining tax. We are trying to get on with the job of doing just that—of stabilising the economy and getting things back on track. We are getting no help from the party of negativity opposite, but we will get there.
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: Absolutely. Thank you for agreeing with me, Member for Adelaide. The plan is to get Australia back on track, to rein in wasteful spending, to restore the economic fundamentals, to build prosperity and to create new jobs. This bill delivers on all those commitments.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fraser has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (11:25): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (11:26): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (11:27): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (11:28): I rise to speak to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014, which seeks to change the operation of TEQSA, Australia's national higher education regulator. I move:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House notes that the:
(1) Government has failed to offer an adequate response to the Review of Higher Education Regulation;
(2) bill does not adequately demonstrate how the international reputation of the tertiary education sector will be protected; and
(3) Government has failed to provide appropriate time for consultation and consideration of the bill."
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Is there a seconder to the amendment?
Ms Kate Ellis: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Ms BIRD: Australia needs TEQSA. We need a genuine national regulator for our higher education sector. We need to preserve our international reputation as a higher education provider and we need to provide reassurance for all students. This is especially so since the government has indicated that it wishes to deregulate and expand private provision.
We need a regulator who is independent yet accountable. The public has a right to be assured that public moneys are well spent on universities, including through appropriate probity guarantees. Genuine quality assurance by universities, particularly given that they are self-accrediting institutions, needs to be verified through a regulator.
We recognise that there are different approaches in research and in teaching, just as we recognise the importance of institutional autonomy. It is important that we have a clear quality assurance framework in place that allows us to work in partnership with the higher education sector. The TEQSA Act should be part of that framework, but it is not in itself the answer.
I will firstly put the establishment and operation of TEQSA in its historical context. The last time those opposite were in office, a number of new entrants sought to operate in the higher education sector in Australia. The coalition sought to expand the sector but gave too little thought to protecting quality. Unsurprisingly, unscrupulous operators sought to make money without any concern or care for providing genuine, high-quality education. What followed were a series of scandals which were quite damaging to the sector. One example is the case of Greenwich University, which operated on Norfolk Island and marketed itself as an Australian university. Another was St Clements University which, it was later discovered, was run out of the same premises as a whisky wholesaler.
There were clearly real and emerging problems in the sector. Operators were misusing the names of reputable international institutions to establish degree factories and exploit immigration loopholes. Such institutions damaged the reputation of our sector as a whole. When Labor formed government, we determined that this was not only unacceptable but that strong action had to be taken. As a result, we established the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Authority to provide a robust regulatory framework.
When, after a period of operation, concerns of administrative overreach were raised, we responded by appointing two very capable and respected professors, Kwong Lee Dow and Valerie Braithwaite, to conduct a review of higher education regulation. When we were provided with the review last year, we welcomed it immediately. It was a considered and comprehensive piece of work. It reflected broad consultation and a deep understanding of the sector and the forces at play in the regulation of the sector. The report recommended changes to administrative practice and legislative interpretation. Some of those recommended changes are reflected in this bill. The emphasis, however, was on a change in culture. Quality had to be understood as a mutual goal—partnership was the key. This was the defining principle of the university compacts process Labor introduced and the review recognised it as the key to success. The review emphasised—indeed it emphasised it again and again throughout the report—the importance of building relationships in the sector. It emphasised the importance of data sharing and the importance of reducing duplication and aligning work, especially between TEQSA and ASQA.
These are just some of the areas where the government has fallen short with this bill. Two key questions remain: does the current bill genuinely respond to the findings of the review of higher education regulation and, just as importantly, how do we ensure the accountability of the new agency? There are red flags here from the start. This bill was rushed into parliament without any consultation with the reviewers, universities, other providers or students. As far as we can tell, the bill has been given very little consideration. It was also presented without an exposure draft and without any sensible policy responses to the review. It stands in isolation.
This very concern was raised in the review. It said:
It is easy to recommend apparently straightforward amendments to legislation which appear agreed by everyone. But this is worryingly simplistic, patching individual pieces of legislation can fix functional irritations, but will not necessarily change the way in which the legislation is being applied and why.
It is a shame that in response to such a considered piece of work, we have what appears to be a hasty piece of work, an impression heightened by the fact that the minister apparently did not foresee it just one month ago. Why do I say that? Just one month ago, the minister appointed a new commissioner to TEQSA.
I acknowledge that the minister gave directions to the chief commissioner late last year, but again these do not form a full policy response. Information passed between the commissioner and the minister does not form a public policy position that is open to scrutiny and to the input of the sector. Without time to consider, without consultation and without knowing what other actions are proposed in relation to this issue, it is very difficult to know the full ramifications of the changes proposed in this bill. For example, the review recommended that the government put in place a mechanism for TEQSA to consult with the sector and suggested an advisory committee. But where is that proposed advisory committee? The review also strongly recommended the government work to identify duplication both of activity and of legislation, particularly with respect to the Higher Education Support Act, the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act, the Education Services for Overseas Students Act and the TEQSA Act. There is no evidence to suggest that the government has given this any consideration and the concern is that, perhaps ironically, we will see a patchwork of amendments and regulation down the track to address this omission.
Similarly, there is no evidence in this bill that the government has given consideration to aligning the activities of TEQSA with those of ASQA, the national vocational regulator, as recommended in the review. And the all-important issue of sharing data across the sector, and using existing processes, such as the higher education compacts, is nowhere to be found. While all of this cannot, and should not, be included in such a bill, the government's position should at least be clear. Just as TEQSA needs to fit with the broader architecture of the higher education system, this bill should form part of a broader response to the sector's concerns about red tape.
There are recommendations of the review that seem to align with sections of the bill. It recommended that TEQSA's function be reduced so that it can focus on its core activities as a regulator and it recommended that TEQSA be able to assign decision making to case managers and other TEQSA staff as appropriate. But again, without proper consideration and consultation with the universities, with higher education providers and with students, we cannot know what adverse consequences may arise from the way in which these are to be implemented. In particular, we need to fully explore the implications of being able to delegate such a broad suite of activities to any Commonwealth appointee. It is one thing to legislate more freedom to delegate, but we should also do our best to avoid perverse consequences from this legislation, and proper scrutiny through a parliamentary committee with input from universities would be the best way to do this.
That raises one of the greatest concerns about this bill: the precedent set by the removal of properly appointed government officials through legislation. You need to look back very far indeed to find a similar use of legislation, and that makes it very concerning, to say the least. And it leaves us to ask: who is safe? Where else will the government seek to use the parliament to depose properly appointed officials? This bill requires examination, because our higher education sector—our universities, our private providers—should continue to be places of excellence. This is particularly important not only for our domestic students but also for our international education sector, which is, as many in this place know, our fourth largest export industry. This sector sustains more than 100,000 jobs and generates some $15 billion in annual revenue. It is our largest export earner after the commodities of iron, coal and gold. Prospects for sustained growth are good. The OECD estimates that there could be three million more students worldwide by 2020 who will be seeking an offshore education. Asia will continue to be a source of growth in the years to come. But we face profound challenges to ensure and retain Australia's market share in international education. Competitors, especially in North America and Europe, are making up for a shortfall in revenue following the global financial crisis through a renewed and active emphasis on international students, conspicuously from Asia and our region. This competition will only increase in the foreseeable future.
Australia's reputation for quality must be preserved. It is one of our most precious resources and a great competitive advantage. At a minimum, there needs to be consultation, there needs to be a policy statement and there needs to be recognition of the principles that are at stake. Quality must not be sacrificed in a blind haste to cut red tape. That is why Labor will be moving that this matter be put under further scrutiny in the other place, with a view to amending the bill if necessary. TEQSA can, with the right changes, regain the confidence of the higher education sector. It can, with the right approach, become the trusted regulator Australia needs. The bill before us sits too much in isolation to do the job we are asking of it. This is our concern, and we feel that further consultation and consideration of its detail needs to occur, which is why I commend the amendment that the opposition is putting before the House to members and seek their support for that opportunity.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): The original question was that the bill be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Cunningham has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (11:43): I rise today to speak on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014, which gives effect to the government's decision to implement recommendations from the Review of Higher Education Regulation report by Professor Kwong Lee Dow and Professor Valerie Braithwaite. The coalition government is determined to implement an appropriate deregulatory agenda to support higher education providers to deliver the highest quality teaching, learning and research. The coalition has a vision for a high-quality sector which strives for excellence and is competitive nationally and internationally. We believe such a system is best managed within a framework where providers themselves are predominantly responsible for maintaining and enhancing quality and are supported in doing so. Our educational institutions on the whole comprise people at all levels committed to ensuring quality and striving for excellence for their students and in support of the Australian community more generally.
In an increasingly competitive and global education market, it is crucial that Australia continue to demonstrate and further develop the quality of its higher education sector. To ensure Australia's ongoing competitiveness, an effective regulator is a necessary and crucial component of the higher education regulatory architecture. To ensure that universities are able to focus their energies on what they do best and spend less time on compliance and reporting, the government has accepted all of the recommendations of the Review of higher education regulation report and is committed to deliberate action to remove red tape.
The Australian Council for Private Education and Training issued a statement saying that the introduction of the TEQSA amendment bill comes as very good news. I quote:
It shows a government clearly committed to lifting onerous and unnecessary regulation on high performing higher education institutions.
This bill will enable TEQSA to delegate its functions and powers to appropriate level staff within the organisation, which will speed up decision making and ensure faster processing of applications. The amendment will also ensure providers wishing to appeal a TEQSA decision will be able to access an internal review mechanism first rather than having to seek review through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, currently the first step. This bill will also allow TEQSA to extend the period of registration and accreditation of providers, allowing for greater flexibility in TEQSA's regulatory response. The Australian universities industry has reacted positively to the government's plan to accept all 11 recommendations of the Review of higher education regulation report. This demonstrates that this coalition government is delivering when it comes to reducing red tape and the burden of regulation on industry.
Professor Kwong Lee Dow, co-author of the review, commented on this bill, saying that as it follows the recommendations of the review they had prepared for the previous government he is, not surprisingly, in agreement with the key elements of the bill. Professor Lee Dow noted that we need a single national regulator for higher education and went on to acknowledge that it is widely agreed that, as the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency we have now took 2½ years of policy formulation, drafting and reworking legislation to set up, there is no point in redoing all that work and expecting to commence in 2016. He said:
The most fundamental change is to shed the quality assessments, and thereby the broader quality assurance function, and so to focus on core regulation.
He noted that it is important to encourage continuous improvement and to keep quality assurance issues in front of institutions and their people, and he said:
That remains a top order issue, but it is not feasible for the regulator to do justice to it, given its other commitments, the timing required to discharge those commitments with proper dispatch, and the kind of staff needed to give confidence to institutions that quality assurance is understood by the regulator. Quality improvement and so assurance requires peer review, often at a course level, and a different approach to that required for hard edged regulatory decisions about whether institutions and their offerings meet minimal standards.
Since commencing its regulatory functions in January 2012, TEQSA has developed a significant backlog in provider re-registration applications and course accreditation and re-accreditation applications. This backlog has been caused in part by TEQSA's inability to delegate decision-making responsibilities to appropriate TEQSA staff.
The TEQSA Act requires the agency to establish and maintain a national register of higher education providers which is publicly available. The national register is the authoritative source of information on the status of registered higher education providers in Australia. Providers being assessed for re-registration are listed as 'registration pending' on the national register. The timely delivery of provider re-registration applications is crucial to give assurance to students who are considering enrolling or are currently enrolled with providers that are 'pending registration'. TEQSA also has a significant backlog of new course accreditation and renewal of course accreditation applications. To ensure Australia's higher education sector remains competitive in a dynamic, global environment, it is vital that providers can develop and offer courses in a timely fashion. Unnecessary delays in course accreditation applications may impact on the sector's competitiveness and may discourage innovation. The restriction on the delegation of a number of powers has contributed to delays in finalising provider applications.
Where decisions have been made at the highest levels within TEQSA, applications are prevented from accessing TEQSA's internal review mechanism. As a result, applicants seeking to appeal a TEQSA decision must request the review through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The amendments to be made by part 2 of schedule 1 would allow decisions to be delegated to a single commissioner. This would enable faster decision making and provide applicants with greatly improved access to internal review of TEQSA's reviewable decisions.
The review did say that the agency should concentrate on regulation of minimum standards, leaving broader quality assurance to universities, and that it could get by with fewer commissioners. The University of Melbourne's Richard James, pro vice-chancellor for equity and student engagement as well as a member of the Higher Education Standards Panel, said the bill was 'clearly a major shake-up of TEQSA, but one consistent with the thinking of the Lee Dow and Braithwaite review'.
This TEQSA Amendment Bill sets the stage for the next round of efforts to focus and streamline TEQSA's regulatory role. In line with TEQSA's refined functions and increased efficiency, the measures in this bill will provide the minister with greater flexibility to determine the number of commissioners to be appointed. It will remove the requirement to appoint a specific number of part-time and full-time commissioners and will separate the roles and responsibilities of the chief commissioner and the chief executive officer. It must be reiterated that all current individual TEQSA commissioners, including the chief commissioner, are eligible for reappointment if this bill is passed.
A significant recalibration of the relationship between the sector and the regulator lies ahead. Excellence in higher education is essential to Australia's competitiveness in the Asian century. There is an international consensus that the reach, quality and performance of a nation's higher education system are key determinants of its economic and social progress. Moreover, an effective, high-quality and streamlined regulatory approach is a fundamentally important component of a competitive higher education system.
The University of Queensland, one of Australia's leading research universities and a member of the Group of Eight, has its main campus in my electorate of Ryan. The University of Queensland is embracing the government's New Colombo Plan and currently attracts thousands of international students across all faculties. I look forward to seeing the University of Queensland achieve even more as the coalition government removes the strangle of red tape on the higher education industry. I commend this bill to the House.
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (11:52): It is really interesting, in this debate on the quality of Australian universities and how we are going to preserve that quality, that the focus of the government has been on cutting red tape. I can imagine similar debates going on where we actually forget the fundamentals of what we are trying to do here with the regulation of universities and the development of TEQSA, which was a Labor government initiative in 2011. Of course, every organisation is, quite rightly, constantly reviewed and does have to develop a culture of continuous improvement. Indeed, we were responsible for initiating the review which has led to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014, which is before us today.
The member for Cunningham set out very well our concerns about the bill. We are concerned as to whether or not we have really captured in a properly nuanced way all of the concerns that came back from the review. For all the talk about cutting red tape, can I please, please, implore you to be very mindful that preserving the quality of Australian universities is absolutely critical to us maintaining our place, not only in ensuring that we are able to produce students of the highest order to really be part of the knowledge economy. But also we have to be concerned about the view that our neighbours have of us and about the international students who we believe are a very important part of Australian university life.
I do not think the real focus of bringing international students is or should be on subsidising our university sector. It really should be on the enrichment that comes from bringing together the brightest and the best from around the world, and international students play an important role in that regard. It is quite interesting looking at the different approaches that different countries have to attracting foreign students. I think that unfortunately Australia has tended to focus on it as some sort of cash cow to fill in the gaps rather than seeing it as part of what we need to do to create dynamic, competitive and intellectually engaging institutions.
I was just doing a bit of background research on this. I was interested to see that last year the Council of International Students Australia president, Arfa Noor, told an education conference that Australia:
… would not attract the best and brightest from overseas until universities lifted their game.
"I don't mean to be harsh or anything but universities need to make sure that they are good enough to attract a very intelligent student," the Pakistani business student told more than 100 academics at the Universities Australia conference.
"You do hear sometimes from students who come from very good institutes back home, who work a lot, and they come into university and they say it feels like they're back in grade 2 …"
The Melbourne Institute of Technology student said her organisation had complaints some tutors could barely speak English, class sizes were too big, and lecturers simply stood and read from slides.
"If you're from a country, especially from the Asian region, where education is very competitive … you would have a certain level of expectations, and a lot of students are disappointed by the quality of education," …
She did go on to say that lots of students do actually enjoy their lifestyle in Australia, so they really have a good time, but we need to be very, very conscious of this.
As we talk about, as we put our focus on, cutting red tape—and I am not saying that there is not an argument for sharpening up some of the things we do—the fundamental thing that we must do is ensure the quality of our universities. If, with this review and with this legislation, we are taking our quality assurance backwards, I think that would be a very, very negative impact.
It is not only PISA. We have had many discussions in this place about the PISA studies that are showing that our performance vis-a-vis our OECD and Asian neighbours is falling in primary and secondary schools, but we have to look at what is happening to our universities. It is very alarming that Australia's top universities have lost ground in the latest Times Higher Education index. I know that there are various indexes and that there will be variability among them, but one of the themes that seems to be coming out is that Australian universities are slipping down the rankings, and many of our Asian neighbours are beginning to move up. For example, Australia's top-ranking University of Melbourne fell by six spots to 34th in the latest Times Higher Education index world rankings. By contrast, Singapore moved up to 23rd, placing it 11 spots ahead of Melbourne instead of one spot behind. The story is pretty sad generally across the place, with a few exceptions. So we have to be very focused on this. This issue of rigour has to extend to our universities. I just think that the intellectual leadership that the government is able to provide is very lacking if the government's focus on the qualities of universities is all on the cutting of red tape.
We had some interesting debates in parliament on the appropriations earlier today, where members of the government were recognising some of Labor's legacy from the 1980s, when we put in place a proper regime for regulation of the banking system. That meant that we did not have the subprime crisis that we saw in the United States, which sparked the global financial crisis. But here I place a word of caution. If we are looking at in some way dumbing down and reducing the size, the scale and the operation of the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency, we have to think what the long-term consequences of that might be. In Asia we have a very, very competitive environment. Those students that are looking to come here are not going to come to Australian universities if they are considered to be lowbrow, even though they might enjoy the lifestyle. They will be selecting universities elsewhere, in the United States and the United Kingdom, where these standards have been maintained. And, among our own students, we will see more and more of our brightest and best wanting to leave and go to universities elsewhere if our universities are not held in high regard.
Unfortunately there are Australian universities—and I do not think this is confined to Australian universities, but I hear this very frequently from academics—where they feel compelled to pass fee-paying students. That word soon gets around, and the quality and the prestige of those degrees decline. When we are in this global environment, in a region that is marked by a growing rigour in the education of our Asian neighbours, such that they are zooming up all the educational charts, the idea that our focus on higher education would be on the cutting of red tape seems to me to be absolutely absurd.
This issue is critical to our future. I repeat a statement I made the other day which I think is very important. When we are looking at the standing of our universities, our top universities must have decent levels of research funding, because, through those decent levels of research funding, you get the top operators within any field, and that becomes the basis of the universities' prestige and the interest that both Australian and overseas students will have in coming to those universities. If we want to truly have centres of excellence, we need very high, rigorous quality assurance standards as well as a very high level of well-funded research.
I do not have a lot of confidence that the government is going to show a great deal of intellectual leadership here in the area of higher education. To have your first piece of legislation dealing with higher education all about the cutting of red tape and reducing the levels of quality assurance augurs rather poorly for the future of our universities. But I ask members to have a look at where we are going—not just where we are going in primary and secondary schools vis-a-vis our Asian neighbours but where we are going in our universities. We cannot continue to have this view that, as this little white bastion at the bottom of Asia, we are going to be continually able to outperform and attract students from that region. We need to lift our game. We are in a globally competitive world and our Asian neighbours are lifting their game much more rapidly than are we.
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (12:05): It is often said that good legislation, like sausages, should never be seen being made. The TEQSA Bill 2011 was never seen being made, but it is about as healthy for higher education as a plate of week-old snags. I commend the government and specifically the Minister for Education for bringing forward this Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014 with such deliberate haste. The Minister for Education knows only too well that the strength of our higher education and research sector is critical—critical to our high standard of living, critical to our competitiveness and critical to the sustainability of job creation and growth. However, after six years of Labor's myopic and misguided misrule, the higher education sector is in critical condition. This amendment bill is the first step in putting our country back on track. There is no reason why Australia cannot be the best country in the world for research and learning. I will speak to the specifics of the bill and later offer some of my own prescriptions for energising the research industry in Australia. I speak with the authority of being the only research scientist in this place and the authority of someone who has been involved in competitive research. Einstein once said, 'Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it'—hence why I am here.
Firstly, the TEQSA amendment bill is designed to improve efficiency. The coalition committed at the election to cut red tape, and this bill is proof of that promise in action.
The bill will limit the TEQSA authority to its core activities—that is, it will focus on provider registration and course accreditation. It is about time too, as I was stunned to read that currently there is no internal review of decisions. There is no right to appeal a TEQSA ruling to TEQSA. Instead, any review and any appeal is directed to the hugely expensive Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This is indicative of a lack of trust by the former government in the people they hired to head up their ideas. Not only did the former government not trust the people they picked to head up the institutions they set up; they did not trust their own ministers. If they did, why did the minister of the day not have the ability to give direction to TEQSA regarding its performance? Why did the minister not have the ability to query the fees TEQSA charge or even have a say? Labor have trust issues. The Labor Party never trusted the institutions they set up, they never trusted the people they appointed to them and they never trusted themselves. I am only too glad that the good people of Australia broke up with that Labor government.
This bill and this Liberal government are restoring hope, reward, opportunity and, most importantly, competition. TEQSA needs to justify its fees and be open to market forces. I support the move to give the Minister for Education oversight of the fees that may be charged. The Labor Party never got the big picture, and this TEQSA bill is indicative of that. The bill details specific numbers of commissioners and specific full-time and part-time commissioners. Where is the justification for these restrictions and requirements? Perhaps it was just another case of answering the union's call and giving jobs for the boys at the expense of the Australian education sector.
As someone who is passionate about education I cannot stand idly by while there are ways of doing things better in our universities. While this bill is a good start, it is but a start. I want more because the people of Australia want and deserve more. The world demands more from our educational institutions, specifically of our scientific and research capacity. I have, through some toil, refined some recommendations I wish to share. They are in the spirit of this bill.
Our government must revise the funding regulation of universities, such that the material rewards for imposing higher standards on graduate learning outcomes are stronger than the material rewards for racing to the bottom. It is vital that the quality of graduates is more important than the number of graduates. I urge the minister to legislate against the use, in any form, of student feedback as a method or a metric of quality in teaching. The practice of using student satisfaction approval, instead of learning outcomes, as a measure of quality is demonstrably fraudulent and should be treated as such by law. It is essential that this is done in a fashion which cannot be circumvented by educational bureaucracies which originated and imposed this damaging practice. There needs to be a shift from central Commonwealth funded regulatory regimes to a simpler self-regulatory model. Current regulatory bureaucracies are expensive and have produced no useful outcomes in the last decade, only numerous detrimental outcomes. This will be a saving to the Commonwealth.
There is so much flotsam and jetsam left by Labor that just one repeal day is not enough. The Abbott axe is the tonic the ignored research sector needs. The industry wants to axe the ERA. The Excellence in Research in Australia policy has failed. The three most accurate ways to measure short- and medium-term research performance are: traditional expert peer review and research appraisals, professional society standing assessments or grades performed by internationally recognised subject matter experts, and the number of patents and disclosures that are produced. These should be the only methods of research performance measurement accepted in Australia.
Australia should return to a much more limited regulatory regime, akin to that predating the Dawkins era, and rely primarily on self-regulation of research by universities, which have a vested interest in maximising the quality, integrity and standing of their research. This bill demonstrates that there is the political will and ability to do such, and again I applaud the minister for such. It is a fact that research collaborations between science based industries, universities, CSIRO and DSTO have frequently suffered as a result of not only bureaucratic regulation but also bureaucratic interference typically motivated by the belief the industry collaborator should be exploited as a source of funding, free IP and free consultancy advice.
I further recommend that, in order to protect our vital national interest in defence and technology, the following be adopted as a matter of national priority. In relation to the Australian Research Council, the distribution of research funding must be biased more on high-risk and high-pay-off research than backfill research that does not yield a high pay-off in research outcomes. There must be the maintenance of a sufficient diversity in Australian research to ensure that there is sufficient breadth in Australia's research portfolio to support national policy development, national industry and national tertiary teaching demands. To achieve this I suggest allowing researchers to suggest three people with requisite backgrounds who agree to act as referees to determine the worthiness of proposals where Australia has inadequate depth to allow people within Australia to evaluate research. There must be fostered cross-disciplinary and multidisciplinary research. This offers potentially very high payoff in research outcomes but it has suffered from the current policy of rewarding research stove-piping. A suitable model would be an expanded ARC Centres of Excellence program.
Funded ARC projects must be funded fully. This may mean that fewer projects are funded, but it does mean that the researcher or research group will be fully accountable for achieving outcomes without the fallback of inadequate funding. Fund ARC bureaucracy to about five per cent instead of the current level of less than two per cent. This will remove the wasteful bureaucratic processes that researchers need to undertake with their research proposals. Allow initial research proposals from experienced researchers to be much abbreviated, removing bureaucratic burden. Effectively, this could be a plan on a page. If rejected, that would be the extent of it. If the ARC otherwise has the view that the idea is potentially worth funding, then it could ask for more detail. Remove any research priority on issues, such as climate change, that are politically hot. I know of researchers who are sceptical about the consensus position on climate change but still use key phrases to enhance the probability of winning a research grant.
The National Science Foundation in the US contracts with universities to apply a contingency allowance of around 50 per cent for grants, which allows for indirect costs associated with the project. The ARC should adopt a similar measure for funded projects. There is a need to have more than one round of ARC linkage grants per year and to create a grant for multidisciplinary research that can be funded by the ARC. We need to increase the proportion of fellowships granted compared with project grants. It is necessary to specify a minimum percentage of linkage grants that have to be new industry linkages as opposed to extant linkages. Finally, I believe my colleagues on both sides would do well to heed the advice from American zoologist Marston Bates, who said, 'Research is the process of going up alleys to see if they are blind.
I believe it to be imperative that our Liberal government remove the 30 per cent outside-funding requirement for CSIRO, using graduated steps. This requirement distorts the research undertaken. I know of research undertaken that is known to be 'BS', but the research is done simply in order to gain the funding. Make this a gradual process so that natural attrition will cover any potential loss of funding.
These recommendations are clear and consistent. Additionally, they are cheap to implement. The effects will be colossal should they be implemented quickly and fully. This TEQSA amendment bill points the way as to what is possible. What is important about this bill is not the size of the change but that there is change. It is not the speed of the movement but that there is movement, if only an inch.
As I said earlier, Einstein once said, 'Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it;' hence why I am here. It should not and does not have to be this way. Einstein also said, 'Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.' Let us do the right thing and let us do it now.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (12:19): I rise to make a few comments on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014 and the amendment moved by the member for Cunningham. The one thing about this bill and the proposed amendment that struck me is quality. The bill focuses on the quality of our higher education sector. The quality of our higher education sector is the subject of a very important and timely debate because of what is occurring at the moment in our higher education, whether it be in our universities or our vocational sector.
This bill is a response to the review into higher education regulation and to sector concerns about regulatory overreach. It is true that, particularly within our international education sector, there have been a number of providers who have not lived up to the standard to which Australia markets itself. There has been some need for improvement and for the government to step in. The reputation of our higher education sector internationally is very important and it should be protected. Many times already in this sitting of parliament we have heard speakers talk about how higher education is becoming a large, if not the largest, exporter in our country. It is important for our local economy and for earning export dollars.
However, our universities and other higher education providers are self-accrediting, which demands a quality assurance process that can verify that accreditation. To do that we need a strong national tertiary education regulator. We needed to ensure that self-regulation is done in a way that produces the best results. A strong education sector is crucial to having a prosperous community and it is crucial to our economy.
This bill seeks to spill the positions of all five TEQSA commissioners, which is consistent with the recommendations of the review. But most of the proposals of this bill do not focus on the removal of the quality assessment function. There is that word quality again. If we are to have a strong education sector it is crucial that we focus on that word quality. I will highlight the quality aspect in relation to the university in my electorate, La Trobe Bendigo, which has, unfortunately, made the news in the past few days. They announced last Friday that they would be shedding 350 jobs from the campus. They are going through a restructure. Their strategic plan, Future Ready, is what they are talking to their staff about. As I speak, departments at the university are meeting with staff and are proceeding with restructuring plans.
You might ask why Latrobe are proceeding down this path right now? Losing 350 jobs from any organisation is significant. It represents 15 per cent of their workforce. At the moment, we do not know where the jobs are going to be lost. We do not know if they will be lost from my home campus of Bendigo, from Wodonga, from Shepparton or from Latrobe. The university is going through that assessment as we speak. They believe they are responding to a need to remain viable; they want to make sure they have a future. Like many universities, they had a quota for how many students they were trying to get through their international section. They thought that they would hit higher numbers of international students and when they did not it affected their projected budgets. They also thought that they would attract more domestic students through their demand-driven model. Whilst they have, they believe they are now getting close to a cap on how many students locally wish to obtain a university degree. This goes to our current higher education debate and how we choose to go forward.
When I met with the vice-chancellor of Latrobe University, just yesterday, we discussed what is going to happen at the campus in my electorate and what is going to happen across the board. One of the things he said to me that struck home was 'we do not want to compromise quality, we want to ensure that the students coming in our doors to study have a certain level of academic ability and we are not willing to sacrifice quality.' That represents a campus in a university that is trying to be proactive about ensuring their standards of quality. They may never need to be drawn before the TEQSA regulator. They are one of the organisations in the industry who care about their reputation and their quality. But there are a number of others who do not.
In a previous role of mine working for United Voice as a union organiser I spoke to international students about their workplace rights. It was not too long before the conversation started to focus on the academic rights of students and their treatment in their place of study. We have all heard of the stories where students rocked up to places where there was a front door and a phone but no desks; people were squashed in like sardines; a promise that a course would be delivered for 13 weeks but then the program was only for four weeks; and a hospitality course which really involved going to work for the local fish and chip shop for free for 10 weeks—a manipulation of not just the education experience but also the workplace rights of students. There are some dodgy players out there who are bringing down our reputation overseas. That is why it is so important that in any discussion on higher education we focus on quality.
I also want to touch on the idea that international students are our largest export industry. At least in the state of Victoria that is becoming the case, and it is the fourth-largest export industry in the country—sustaining over 100,000 jobs and generating over $15 billion annually. It is a big industry and some might think its relative size came about by a bit of an accident—we have had a drop in manufacturing, we have had a drop in agriculture and we have had an explosion of international students coming to study here. Overnight—in the last decade—we have had this big industry. It does go to a broader problem that we have with how we as a nation are creating our future industries. Should we have a strong higher education sector with a large international component? Yes we should. But should it be our largest exporter? That is an area of debate we need to focus on. In another forum we need to discuss the future make-up of the industries in this country.
By 2020, over three million students worldwide will be seeking the offshore education experience, so we do have an opportunity to continue to attract students to our country. To play a significant role in that space we need to make sure we are delivering quality. That is why it is so important that we have an independent regulator with oversight of the area. To refer to the example of La Trobe again, with the staff cuts and restructuring going on—I fully understand why the university is taking this path—questions are being asked about the quality of courses. We need to make sure students receive a high quality product, that classes are not too big and that they have tutorials every week and not every second week. Even in a campus like La Trobe Bendigo, there are always questions being asked about quality and about making sure students get the best opportunity and experience.
Apart from the quality of courses and the experience of the students, job losses put pressure on remaining staff. If you have fewer staff delivering the same workload, the workload of each individual staff member increases. It could be an extra 15 per cent, if you want to use basic mathematics, or it could be the picking up of extra students or larger tutorial numbers.
One of the reasons why La Trobe Bendigo have flagged that they have to sack 350 people and need to move down a path of getting future-ready is that they are unsure about their future budget from this place—this House and this government. They do not know what their future budget will be. They do not know if they are going to get the same level of financial support from the government. They have raised concerns with me about some of the language they are hearing in the media that universities need to be self-sustaining, that universities need to stand on their own two feet and that the money going towards universities is unsustainable. 'Unsustainable' is the magic word which nobody can really define except as, 'We think we're putting too much money into this area and we want to spend it in other places.'
It is so important that, if we are serious about quality and the higher education industry continuing to be an industry that we can export, we continue in the basics of investing by making sure that our universities do have the resources that they need and are able to meet the international standard and reputation that all of us are talking about today.
As I have mentioned in my speech today, it is important for quality that we have a robust and strong regulator that is able to be independent and impartial and able to pull up those who are doing the wrong thing and hurting our reputation and, more importantly, delivering an inferior education experience for Australian students or international students. That is the first step, and that is the purpose of this bill. But the second step is for all of us to remember that we need to continue to invest in and not cut higher education because, if we see the cuts that are being foreshadowed come through in the budget, I fear it is not just going to be 350 jobs lost at La Trobe; it could be much more. La Trobe has started; where next?
The last thing we want to see happen in our higher education university sector are the redundancies we have seen happen in the Victorian TAFE sector week after week and month after month. There have been so many jobs lost in the Victorian TAFE sector that is hard to know today if vocational education is being delivered in Victoria. This is what happens when coalition governments get elected. They seek easy funding cuts, and higher education tends to be the first on the chopping block. But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you want to have a robust and high-quality international export market for international students and education and at the same time cut the resources that help deliver that education. I commend the bill.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (12:33): I rise to contribute to this debate on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014. I see the member for Bendigo leaving the chamber. She must remember that in the last parliament the now opposition ripped $1.5 billion out of the higher education system. So that is just a small reminder to her about her last comments on the coalition. The purpose of the bill is to give effect to the government's decision to implement recommendations arising from the August 2013 independent review of higher education regulation undertaken by Professors Kwong Lee Dow and Valerie Braithwaite. The bill is focused on TEQSA in particular. After the previous six years, it is refreshing to see a government that is prepared to act swiftly on the recommendations of a review.
I can remember Kevin Rudd's fondness for reviews. After being elected in 2007, Mr Rudd commissioned dozens of reviews and studies but very rarely followed through. The Henry tax review was a case in point. The Rudd government commissioned a huge review into the nation's taxation system by their favoured economist, then Treasury secretary Ken Henry, and then decided to ignore the majority of the 138 recommendations and concentrate on just one. That one was the mining super profits tax. Even this was never properly implemented. By the time Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan had finished with the proposal, all that was left was a tax that did not raise any money. In fact, it the cost the taxpayer money in administrative costs, something only the Australian Labor Party could manage to pull off. Ken Henry must have thought, 'What a waste of time and effort,' and so must have the authors of so many other shelved reviews.
In this context, the enthusiasm with which Universities Australia has greeted this swift decision of the newly elected Minister for Education to accept fully the recommendations of the Lee Dow-Braithwaite review is perhaps not surprising. In a press release on 22 October 2013 entitled 'Government walks the talk on cutting red tape' Universities Australia states:
Today's announcement by the Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, of a number of measures to reduce the regulatory and reporting burden on universities represents practical and early action by the Minister on a key government election commitment.
Chief executive Belinda Robinson goes on to say:
These commitments can take time to work through after an election but we are very pleased by the prompt attention the Minister is giving to this very important matter in accepting all eleven recommendations of the recent Review of Higher Education Regulation.
Today, a few short months after accepting the recommendations, this new government brings legislation before the House. Can you imagine how long it would have taken the Gillard-Rudd government to take action? They were too busy fighting each other and worrying about who would be the next leader. When the then minister, Kim Carr, tabled the Lee Dow-Braithwaite review on 4 August 2013, the government was in an absolute shambles. I will quote the previous minister, the Hon. Kim Carr, on his comments in regards to this review. He stated in his media release:
Over the weekend the government received the final report of a review of red tape in higher education. It makes for sobering but encouraging reading. I have decided to release it immediately, to give the sector plenty of time to consider it before a government response is formulated. This must be a partnership between us if it is to achieve its purpose.
The review was conducted by professor Kwong Lee Dow, a former vice-chancellor of the University of Melbourne, and professor Valerie Braithwaite, an expert on regulatory regimes from the Australian National University.
I believe they have delivered a fair, judicious and balanced appraisal of the challenges confronting higher education providers in Australia.
To be frank, they are formidable. The report speaks about the complexity of regulatory arrangements in multiple levels of government, and with multiple agencies within governments. It highlights the failure of many agencies to interact as parts of a regulatory ecosystem, choosing instead to impose requirements as though they were operating in isolation.
Importantly, professors Lee Dow and Braithwaite emphasise the pivotal role of autonomy and responsibility to the operation of our universities. These institutions are among the most trusted in our society, and yet at times the various regulatory players have been treating them as though they need to prove themselves worthy time and again.
I believe we ought to take this trust seriously, and promote the ability of universities to run their own show, in response to the needs of their own communities, industries and regions.
Far from compromising on quality, I take the view that freedom within reasonable bounds actually favours innovation, creativity and excellence.
He also went on to say that he welcomes this report on red tape, and said:
It is an informative, evidence-based response and it seeks to promote the sector's aspirations and interests, within the bounds of the public's expectations.
So, even former minister Kim Carr supports the changes that we see coming forward in this bill today.
This is a new government with a new approach. We said before the election we would cut red tape and that is what we are doing. It is as simple as that. Things have changed; we are carrying out our election commitments and getting things done. It is worth commenting on the key themes of the Lee Dow-Braithwaite Review of higher education regulation report. As stated in the review, the design of Australia's regulatory architecture in higher education ensures that only quality providers are able to enter and remain in the system and that having a qualifications framework, higher education standards and a national regulator encompasses best practice principles of regulation.
But while the review found support for a regulator, it found issues with organisational structure and duplication and the red tape/regulatory reporting requirements of the current regulator, TEQSA. Both of these issues are broader priorities for the coalition, and part of the mandate the coalition achieved at the last election. The previous government introduced many regulations. In fact, statistics I have from May 2012 put that figure at over 18,000 regulations introduced by the Rudd-Gillard governments since 2007. At that point only 86 were being repealed. This, of course, was despite the promise by Labor that they would have a one-in, one-out approach to regulation, meaning that new regulations would be matched by repealing others.
This was another broken promise but one with serious consequences for the economy. The coalition is committed to reducing red tape and has an economy-wide deregulatory agenda, because we know that red tape distracts businesses, government agencies and task forces from their functions. In the covering letter to their report the professors say:
Like those who spoke to us during the review, we have a vision for a high quality sector which strives for excellence and is competitive nationally and internationally. We believe such a system is best managed within a framework where providers themselves are predominantly responsible for maintaining and enhancing quality and supported in doing so. This will allow providers to spend more time focussing on their core business - providing quality higher education that will benefit our nation for generations to come.
This is clearly the case across the economy. As I have said before, the coalition has a commitment on deregulation. Of course regulations are required, no-one would argue against that. But there is the straw that breaks the camel's back, and 18,000 new regulations to 2012 by the Labor government is a burden being carried by the economy. The coalition government will be holding a 'repeal day' to tackle this issue and this bill also certainly makes a contribution to that goal.
In terms of the issues of organisational structure, duplication and waste, the coalition made clear its approach before the election; its commitment was to improve efficiencies, rein in organisations, improve and streamline the functioning of organisations or, and in general, improve the results for the taxpayer. The government has already been active in this regard, and in my speech on Monday I spoke in detail about the foreign minister's decision to bring AusAID into the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the benefits this would pass on to the taxpayer and the region. Again, this bill continues this new approach from the government and I will go on to explain this further in more detail.
This bill is perhaps best seen through the framework of regulatory changes and functional changes. This is indeed reflected in the provision to separate the role of CEO and chief commissioner so that the CEO focuses on management and administration and the chief commissioner will focus on the regulatory decisions. As noted in the review, when TEQSA was established it was done so in an already crowded regulatory environment, and that this broader regulatory system is multilayered and diffused. As a result, the review recommends a re-focusing of TEQSA's effort towards the delivery of its most important tasks of provider registration and, of course, accreditation, with a reduction in its functions in other areas.
The focus of TEQSA has come under scrutiny, not just by the review but by many in the wider community. TEQSA has become known for excessive and heavy-handed regulation without appropriate consultation with the higher education sector. I would now like to give an example from a school in my area that I recently wrote to the minister about. The letter read:
Dear Minister,
RE: Canning College
I am writing to you to with regard to a ruling by TEQSA that has affected an income stream to the Canning College in my electorate of Swan and resulted in the virtual closure of a higher education program that was running in full cooperation with UWA and Curtin University.
Canning College is an important source of top quality international students to UWA and Curtin University. The college ran a first year Diploma of Commerce course from which graduating students were accepted into the second year by the both the higher education universities previously mentioned.
The program ran from 1999 to 2011 and provided approximately 100 international students per annum to UWA and Curtin making it a very successful higher education program.
When TEQSA was established non-university institutions that required accreditation of their courses had to be a "trading corporation" but under the WA State Education Act Canning College is not a trading corporation and cannot be one. Canning College may have been the only institution offering higher education courses to be affected by the establishment of TEQSA in this manner.
When a variation application was made to TEQSA this was disallowed.
The only solution was to operate the program as a VET program through a local TAFE college but this affected the reputation of the course to overseas students and the sustainability of the program due to differing fee structures under the auspices of TAFE.
The reduction in enrolments and mid-year enrolments has meant the diploma course is no longer viable.
The college is seeking ways to be reaccredited as a provider of higher education. I am asking if you can offer advice as to a solution to this issue that will enable the college to once again enrol international and local students in this program which contributed to Australia's international education reputation.
I look forward to your response …
And I said that I was available to meet with the minister to discuss this issue as well.
It is the desire of the minister and of the higher education community in general that, by altering TEQSA's functions, higher education institutions be able to focus more on their core work of delivering high quality teaching and research, and less on unnecessary compliance activities and regulations. This will benefit the community and the economy. That Canning College example is perfect. As the Minister for Education outlined in the first reading, the bill will remove TEQSA's quality assessment function which previously enabled TEQSA to conduct sector-wide thematic reviews of institutions or courses of study. This will support TEQSA's focus on its core functions or core business.
This is a core recommendation of the Lee Dow Braithwaite review and it is felt that other processes that were initially envisaged for TEQSA can be used for thematic reviews. For example, where TEQSA was previously asked to review teacher education, this is now being done through the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group. Other means of thematic quality assessment include parliamentary and departmental committees or professional bodies.
Secondly, functional changes to enhance TEQSA's delegation powers enable the institution to implement more efficient decision-making processes and deliver more timely decisions on applications. This should improve the appeals processes as well, as those seeking to appeal against TEQSA's decisions currently have to go through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Thirdly, TEQSA will be able to extend the period of registration and accreditation on its own initiative to improve its ability to manage this process. In line with TEQSA's refined functions and increased efficiency, the bill also provides the minister with the flexibility to appoint fewer commissioners and removes the rigid requirements to appoint full-time and part-time commissioners. Improving the organisational structure and removing some functions from TEQSA will not only benefit TEQSA itself in delivering its core functions to the higher education sector but also assist the university sector itself in its reporting requirements. Universities Australia said that a typical university must report over 50 different datasets to the Department of Education, comprising 200 reporting instances per year, as well as over 50 datasets to other departments, and that this time and effort could be better spent on the key functions of the universities: teaching, scholarship and research. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (12:47): I acknowledge the contributions of those people I have heard in this debate thus far. Three of them are from Western Australia. Those are the member for Swan, the member for Perth and the member for Tangney. And then there was also my friend the member for Bendigo. I will make some observations about their contributions a little later on.
I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate. As has been expressed by others, we all know that the purpose of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014 is to amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, the TEQSA Act, to give effect to the government's decision to implement recommendations arising from the independent review of higher education regulation. This was commissioned by the Labor government and conducted by professors Kwong Lee Dow and Valerie Braithwaite. The bill is broadly consistent with the review. The review was established by the former Labor government. The key recommendation of the Bradley review said, of the way forward:
We must increase the proportion of the population which has attained a higher education qualification. To do this we need to reach agreement on where we need to be; provide sufficient funds to support the numbers we agree should be participating; ensure that the benefits of higher education are genuinely available to all; establish arrangements which will assure us that the education provided is of high quality; and be confident that the national governance structures we have in place will assist us to meet these goals.
The Bradley review recommended the establishment of a national regulator to reduce complexity in accreditation processes and quality assurance in Australia's higher education system. The report stated:
There is a strong case for a comprehensive and independent national regulatory body to carry out accreditation and quality audit functions in the higher education sector.
Amongst the 46 recommendations made by the Bradley review was that, after consultation with the states and territories, the Australian government establish a national regulatory body by 2010. This was to be done after consultation with the states and territories. I make the observation that, in the lead-up to the introduction of this bill, there has been very little consultation with the states and territories or, indeed, anyone else.
The need for a national body was driven by a number of existing factors and future developments. The increasing complexity and diversity of the higher education system has resulted in the need to improve consumer protection and risk management and to maintain standards in order to protect Australia's reputation for quality provision. This bill addresses the 11 recommendations that the review made to reduce red tape. In October 2013, this current government committed to implementing the 11 recommendations commencing with the ministerial directions given to the chief executive officer of TEQSA and so on.
The bill seeks to change the way TEQSA operates by: spilling the positions of all five commissioners; changing the minimum number of commissioners to two, including the chief commissioner; allowing any commissioner to be part-time; separating the role of CEO and chief commissioner; removing TEQSA's quality assessment function so it can focus on its core duties; allowing TEQSA to extend registration periods of higher education providers and accreditation periods for courses; changing the nature of directions that the minister can give to TEQSA, removing the requirement that they be 'necessary to protect the integrity of the higher education sector'; and extending the range of activities which TEQSA may delegate within and outside its organisation. This is an important piece of legislation that goes to addressing what is a very important question for all Australians: what should our higher education system look like? As the Bradley review said in its overview statement, The way forward:
We must increase the proportion of the population which has attained a higher education qualification.
In doing so, we must make sure that we maintain and, indeed, improve the standards that are applied across the higher education sector so that within the university system we can guarantee that every student who goes through the doors of the university will come out with a qualification which has got national and international recognition and we will know that each student who goes through the doors of a higher education institution will come out with the best possible education available to them.
That is important. It is important for a whole range of reasons. We know the difficulties that many Australians are confronting in finding work. This is particularly true for young Australians. Having a degree is no guarantee of a job so we should not confuse the objective here. We do need to make sure that we increase the number of Australians getting a higher education outcome but we need also to appreciate that there is a lot more to do to make sure that every Australian who achieves a higher education actually gets a job. Obviously, whilst there are shortages in particular areas like maths and engineering—and I do not know why but we seem to find it very difficult in this country to get young Australians to study the physical sciences—and I think that it is important we try to increase that number, we do need to get those people into the research areas referred to by the member for Tangney in his contribution. It is extremely important. If we want to get the doctors, lawyers, engineers, town planners, optometrists, ophthalmologists—and there is one here, sitting in the chamber, Dr Laming, and I am pleased to see him arrive and I am sure he will make a great contribution—it is just as important to make sure that we have got good teachers, good social workers, good youth workers, good people involved in mental health, the sorts of things that make our community go around. But getting a qualification, as I said, is not a guarantee of a job and we need to do a great deal more work in that space to make sure that young graduates understand the nature of the job market whilst they are at university and have them provided with some extra advice on career paths and opportunities that may exist. I know from firsthand experience from my own family the difficulties that young Australians are confronting once they finish university. There is a limited number of jobs and it seems to me that the job market is shrinking for them.
I do want to make an observation about the contributions made by the member for Tangney and the member for Perth particularly in relation to the importance of university research and research funding. I noted the observations made by the member for Tangney around the Australian Research Council and the need for it to look at the way in which it allocates the resources and make sure that we get some more high-risk investments. In that regard I do agree with him—and I do not think that I agree with the member for Tangney on much. I think that there is an important role for the Australian Research Council to be more adventurous in the way in which it allocates research funding. I also think that we need to be looking at what our national priorities are and tying those priorities to the ARC's research funding allocations. We need to make sure that government has a role in talking to the research sector about its priorities.
I had the great privilege in the previous government of being the minister responsible for DSTO, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. It is second only to the CSIRO in terms of government-funded research in this country. It is a very, very important organisation. Indeed, the member for Tangney was a former employee of the DSTO. It is a very important organisation which provides cutting-edge research and it interfaces not only with foreign governments and the university sectors here and overseas but also with industry. If you look at the way in which DSTO and the CSIRO work, the interface with universities and industry is extremely important in making sure we maximise the outcome for all Australians. So I say to the member for Tangney: I am in broad agreement with some of what you said, but I do not agree with other aspects of what you said.
The member for Perth made the very good observation about the need for us to extend and to try to get more resources into research. It is very important that we do that. It does not matter whether it is the ANU or the University of Western Australia or Charles Darwin University in the Northern Territory, we should have the objective of trying to put more resources into research in this country. There needs to be greater thought given to how we set those research priorities.
I want to make some observations now about the importance of universities in regional Australia. Whilst this bill is what it is, we need to comprehend the importance of making sure that we get a greater proportion of people into universities, as the Bradley review said. But most important, in my view, is to give greater opportunity to people who live in regional Australia to get access to universities.
In my own case, I live in the town of Alice Springs, a very small town in the national scheme of things with around 28,000 or 29,000 people. It has a campus of Charles Darwin University, and Charles Darwin University of itself, based in the Northern Territory out of Darwin, is not a big university. It only has around 7,000 or so students and around the equivalent of 15½ thousand students altogether, including VET students, as I understand it. That is not a large number but it is crucial that we maintain the integrity of that university and make sure that it has the standards that attract students from the Northern Territory, and indeed elsewhere, into its courses. It works closely with the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education which is a very important organisation of itself. It is an Aboriginal-run organisation providing courses in and around, about and for Aboriginal people primarily, in the past, around health and education.
We know the government's mantra about the importance of education and it is one which we all accept. But if we want to get good educational outcomes for our students, we have to make sure we get good educational outcomes for the teachers. Good educational outcomes for the teachers require additional resources. In the case of Batchelor, it has a remit of providing courses for Aboriginal students to become teachers. I want to make sure it understands that that remit requires it to produce students of the highest possible calibre, because only then will we continue to make sure we get the best possible outcomes for the students they are going to teach. That applies across the spectrum.
Having experience of a number of university campuses, we are privileged in this country with what we have got and we should acknowledge what we have got. We have to do all we possibly can to reinforce the strength of the university system and make sure that we maintain the integrity of the standards which we are so proud of in the university system. We also have to make sure that universities are accountable for what they produce. That is why I think this piece of legislation is quite important. We do know that they are big organisations; in most cases, they are big businesses. Smaller regional universities require a lot more care.
Whatever the government might be planning in the context of funding, I ask them to ensure that they provide the resources required to make sure universities like Charles Darwin University are able to function and provide the broadest range of courses for their students. If they do not then what will happen is what has happened with students in Alice Springs—they have to leave the town. When students leave the town, they will go to Melbourne, Sydney or Adelaide, or they may go to Darwin, but you can bet your bottom dollar most of them will not return to Alice Springs. In that situation, you are pulling the intellectual resources out of that community that we need for the future of that community. It is very important that we provide opportunities for people in regional Australia.
Finally, I ask the government to commit itself to funding Flinders University to provide medical students with the opportunity to do their full medical degree out of Alice Springs. It is a proposal that has been on the books for some time, something which we were looking at in government, something which I was unsuccessful in achieving in the last budget but something I was looking forward to achieving in the next budget. Unfortunately, I am no longer in government so I cannot make that happen. I am sure that Dr Laming will put the case that medical students should have the opportunity to do their full degree out of Alice Springs through Flinders University. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:02): I rise to proudly support the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014 and the important restructuring of TEQSA. I also commend the coalition on its fine record in tertiary education which stands in stark contrast to the last six years of Labor, where they began to find cuts to higher education to make up for significant budget deficits. We saw an end to the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme. We saw Future Fellowships disappearing. In a whole range of areas, we saw nips and tucks to tertiary education that certainly did not increase efficiency but did save a few dollars for a disastrous and deteriorating budget bottom line.
Today, we meet to discuss the role of TEQSA, to support the move by the Minister for Education to strongly take up the recommendations of Professor Lee Dow from the University of Melbourne and Professor Valerie Braithwaite from the ANU who looked to focus the role of TEQSA on accreditation and building Australia's international reputation, which clearly lies at the heart of attracting international scholars to study in Australia. There is strong support from the coalition but there is also strong support right across the university sector for our reforms. For that, I thank our great universities around the country and our ministry for bringing this legislation forward so promptly.
TEQSA was a creation of the former government and understanding its role was a particular challenge for me when I had some experience with the University of Queensland's handling of medical student admissions back in 2010. At the time, we understood that TEQSA was not set up to be purely an ombudsman to receive complaints. Despite extensive communication with TEQSA, my personal experience was that I had to go to other authorities in order to fully elucidate what was happening at the University of Queensland. That information is now public but not terribly well publicly known and my objective today in sticking very close to the heart of this legislation about the restructuring of TEQSA is to throw a little light on my experiences working with them in an attempt to better understand the actions of the University of Queensland between 2010 and 2012. I want to start, and finish really, on a personal note.
Thousands of Australian families like millions of aspirational families around the world dream of getting their kids into university. For many of us in this chamber, it just happens naturally. It starts by going to a great school, by applying to a public university and by getting a great tertiary education. But in fact for many of us here, it is a massive struggle. It was a struggle for my mum and dad. I do know that politicians tend to clutch at stories to emphasise just how tough their upbringing was. My dad moved to Papua New Guinea to take up better paying work than working as a wool classer and, as a result, my mum had to give up her job as a stenographer in the Supreme Court, in the hope of raising enough money to buy a home outside of Tasmania and send me to a 'good school', as it was referred to in those days. In the end, we did not have the money. I got a small scholarship. It was not enough and we had to, effectively, haggle with the headmaster of what is now the Anglican Church Grammar School to get a full scholarship so I could attend. For five years of my life, I felt that I owed everything to the school that paid for me to go through. The only objective going through a school like that was to get a start and to get into university.
So I do feel that I know firsthand just how important the role of an organisation like TEQSA is and just how important it is for many aspiring parents to know that hard work, diligence and rewarding merit are so important. Few things are more important to us than that gateway, so the next generation can hopefully live a little more comfortably than the current working generation. We expect very much from our universities and in particular my home University of Queensland, which receives around $1 billion of public funds every year.
There are a couple of ways of getting into the Degree of Medicine in Queensland. One is a school leaving two-year accelerated program which guarantees you entry if you are a high-flyer. There is a second route where you have to have an exceptionally high GPA from a previous course and then sit the much-feared GAMSAT test. Obviously, the former path for many is preferred. It is a two-year accelerated program with guaranteed entry. Competition for that is fierce and the structure of enrolment and entry is relatively unique to the University of Queensland.
Missing out should not be the end of the world. We have great universities all around this country. If you cannot get into one university, you should be able to have a crack at another. You should be able to consider another course. You should be able to defer for a year, build up your entry scores, perform in other courses and transfer across. Missing out on entry to medicine should not be the end of the world. But for someone, missing out did matter and this became the focus of a significant investigation, run predominantly by the Courier Mail, our local newspaper. Only after repeated requests by a number of people did the CMC pick up this cause and decide to appoint a six-person panel to investigate the events at the University of Queensland a year after the fact—and justice delayed, really, in my belief, was a case of justice denied. Missing out should not be something for which you can turn to first-degree relatives to fix, but as the official suspected misconduct report conducted by the CMC points out, that is precisely what happened.
I rise today because we went directly to TEQSA in the hope that they could help with elucidating these events and that did not occur. I appreciate that it was very difficult for TEQSA. Today I will table the correspondence that I wrote to TEQSA in an effort to get to the bottom of the events. I take this opportunity to very briefly seek your indulgence, Deputy Speaker, to quickly have recorded in Hansard the particular events in late 2010, on Christmas Eve, when they began to precipitate. At the time, it was clear that the vice-chancellor's daughter had not received the required score. This set off a series and sequence of events, pulling otherwise innocent people into something that was quite obviously wrong. This was of great concern to me. It was something I had raised with TEQSA. I also attempted to raise it with the university. My correspondence was not responded to by the Dean of Medicine. The correspondence was sent to an operations manager and I received a very summary response, which was, effectively, a refusal to engage in any form of clarification or correspondence about the matter. Let us make sure today that the truth is never lost and that, if we do set up to reform TEQSA, we make sure these kinds of arrangements are covered by both this and future reforms to the bill.
It is important that today, when we talk about reforming TEQSA and changing its structure, focusing it more on the areas that really matter, we also learn from past events. Back in 2010 of course, TEQSA was a relatively new entity. It did have a much broader remit and you can understand why people like me, or others in the general public, would go to TEQSA to seek assistance, and we know that they did their very best to do that. The reforms that we make today with this bill are important because it further focuses on TEQSA, not on some of the broader roles with which it was initially commissioned. They have removed some of the elements of quality assessment and we are allowing the agency now to no longer be focused on sector-wide and thematic reviews. That is part of this legislation today, which I commend. Instead, it will be able to focus more on the registering of providers and the accrediting of courses.
Back in 2010, that was not the case. We now have details on record of phone conversations between senior officials of the University of Queensland, discussing the particular academic scores of one individual who was a first-degree relative. This then led to a second series of communications between not just the vice-chancellors but also the dean of medicine, the acting vice-chancellor, none of whom I name today. What concerns me was then how this forced admission occurred. At these sorts of levels, we want to make sure that risk management is a key role of TEQSA. That is part of their job. The risk to Australia's reputation is significant if instances like these do occur. What we do know is that there were SMSs sent between these individuals which were not raised in the initial investigation performed by Carmody, and the report was both privileged and not released. At this point, we were at least 12 months down the track and it was virtually impossible to achieve a just outcome. We know that there were conversations within the family about whether the individual concerned should remain at university and in the course, but they elected to stay in the course.
My other concern, and this will also be of interest if we are looking at risk management and the role of TEQSA, is that then subsequently innocent people were pulled into this process—again, I do not name them but they include the OPSSSE director and other individuals—who, as they say, were aware of the forced offer to the V-C's daughter, knew that it sounded dodgy, and that it had come from much higher up and that they did not have any alternative other than to concede and to proceed as they were directed. There was evidence of emails between these officers and vice-chancellors, including an email which said, 'There has been no discussion by me with the vice-chancellor and my decision with respect to all of these cases has been taken in my role as an acting vice-chancellor.' Again, that is a blatant mistruth compared to what had happened on previous days. We know there were subsequent conversations between the acting registrar and the OPSSSE director, where the latter was urged not to do anything about it because it would force him into a position where he may have to acknowledge that the action he had authorised was wrong and inferred it would be a career-limiting move. She urged me to proceed with the arrangement of the forced offer.
This is obviously a compelling reading that I do not have time to place into Hansard, but there must be lessons from it. The lessons have to be more than simply saying, 'We are putting in risk management procedures for the future.' There has to be more accountability from the senate of these universities and the members of the senate. This needs to be a concern for TEQSA whenever we are reviewing its functionalities.
In the end, this admission could not be defended by academic merit. To me that is a great tragedy. I know that there are at least 334 people more worthy of studying this great course than the forced admission. To everyone of those families we owe an apology, not a delay, and certainly not the burying of these reports which have been, from my assessment, what the university has done up until now.
I rise obviously because I love my university. I rise because I love the Department of Medicine, where I studied for six years of my life. I rise because it was impossible to use the very important federal functionalities to get to the bottom of this event. I rise because the people of Queensland expect far better of their public institutions.
I do know, although I cannot fully substantiate it, that a sixth-year Queensland university medical student doing a Northern Territory medical term suffered considerable emotional trauma because she attempted to uncover what happened at this university. I heard from that supervisor interstate that he received a phone call from the university attempting to cancel her placement and write an unfavourable review of her performance while in the Northern Territory. If this treatment of a medical student was simply because she wanted to expose the truth, then to both her and her family—if this is substantiated—I also want to apologise.
Lastly, a number of people have paid incredible prices within the University of Queensland, which will never be made public and I will not be making it public today. There were people who worked in the audit department absolutely clear that this kind of thing, were it to become known to bodies like TEQSA or to the general public, would be of enormous concern. I understand there has been a restructure of that unit within the University of Queensland and that the prime whistleblower—if I can use that term—lost his job in that process and became unemployed. I think it is utterly repugnant that a person who attempts to uncover what is a basic truth should be handled in such a way. While I cannot confirm it, that is my understanding of what occurred.
This issue was very difficult to raise with other individuals or with TEQSA directly. So I will table the letter that I wrote to TEQSA. The content of it is almost identical to what was raised directly with the University of Queensland. At the time, retirements of those responsible were announced and that was a completely unsatisfactory response. The dates were of their own choosing and they took all of their entitlements with them. Their salaries were between half a million and a million dollars a year. That was patently inadequate. Only when forced by the CMC were those dates changed. The good staff at the University of Queensland never knew what had occurred. When these retirements were announced, there was no reason given other than people were 'turning 65'.
We can do so much better than this by making sure it can never happen again, not for the reasons mentioned around just how important getting fair entry into a university is, but for the particular and sometimes irrational attachment that many families place on getting into medicine, which made this one an extremely sensitive matter. I cannot overstate just what this has done to the reputation of my university. We rely upon TEQSA to maximise our international reputation. If that is undermined in our own city then that is a great tragedy. It became almost impossible for the people in the know to say or do anything. I am convinced that there were unconscionable delays in this process and that the thorough internal report that was commissioned by the Senate was never released on the most spurious of grounds—that people who contributed to the report were told that it would not be made public. There were many opportunities to make the findings of that report public without releasing any of their contributions. Let us hope it never happens again. We have the assurance that it will not. I wish the University of Queensland the best. I thank Des Houghton from TheCourier Mail. I wish the new Vice Chancellor every success.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member seeking leave to have the document tabled?
Mr LAMING: Yes, I am.
Leave granted.
Mr LAMING: I thank the House.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) (13:18): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014, an important bill which will give effect to some clear policy priorities of the Abbott government including to reduce some unnecessary regulation in the higher education sector.
In the time available to me today I want to make three points: firstly, higher education, the tertiary education sector in particular, is critical to our national competitiveness especially in the areas of research, development and innovation; secondly, there was extensive criticism from within the university sector about the way in which TEQSA was formerly operating; thirdly, I want to highlight the fact that the legislation today will bring about a more efficient approach to the way the tax operates.
I turn to the first proposition, that higher education is critical to our national competitiveness. Several years ago Universities Australia made a submission to the Bradley inquiry and, while the numbers are now a little out of date, the broad dimensions remain valid and worth citing. At the time of that submission, Universities Australia pointed out that the sector was worth in excess of $15 billion. There were at that time around one million students and around 100,000 employees. The education sector was at that time and remains a very substantial generator of export earnings.
The sector is important not only in its own right but in the way it underpins research, development and innovation, which is vital across the entire economy. There are many Australian companies which have succeeded in developing markets based on innovation. One of the most impressive examples is Cochlear, which is a world leader in the hearing implant devices sector based on the commercialisation of technology developed in Australia. That company now has a revenue in the order of $800 million to $900 million a year and is privately funding R&D now in the order of $100 million a year.
In another sector, the communications sector, critical technology underpinning Wi-Fi, very widely used around the globe, was developed by CSIRO—part of the research sector if not necessarily the university sector. But the fundamental point remains that research activities carried out in Australian institutions are of enormous economic importance not just to the institutions in which they are carried out but more broadly across the economy. Indeed one can cite many critical industries in the Australian economy where scientific and technical research is of vital importance, be it agriculture, be it mining, be it manufacturing.
One of the key points here as to why higher education and the research universities are of such importance is the way that the economy is transforming, not just in Australia but globally. It is common, indeed it is trite, to speak of a knowledge economy. But I think the real point is that the entire economy is now a knowledge economy. It is therefore increasingly important that in Australia we are world competitive in the quality of our thinking, in the quality of our innovation and in the quality of our research.
Indeed, for a nation like Australia to remain successful, we need to be a knowledge economy if we are to survive and prosper. We cannot expect to compete on the basis of low-cost jobs and that would not be a prudent or viable strategy. We, therefore, need to survive and prosper in the world based upon our capacity for innovation and for clever thinking, and the university sector is critical and central to that.
If we want to be able to earn in the competitive world economy the high wages that Australians are used to, then we need to be able to justify that premium and we need to be able to compete in areas of relative strength, including areas such as research and higher education.
As to the scale of the economic importance of the tertiary education sector—and these numbers are slightly outdated but they remain absolutely valid in their broad direction—in 2010-11 coal and iron ore were the two largest generators of export revenue for Australia, as is well known; but the third-largest generator of export earnings in that year was education, earning almost $16 billion. So our major research universities are vital national assets, and it is critical that we encourage them to be active, innovative and internationally competitive.
It is also worth making the point that the university sector has a tremendous impact on the careers and the career stages of individuals who pass through the system, be that education at the bachelor degree level for those just starting out on their careers, research work carried out by postgraduate scholars, or research and teaching work done by full-time academics. Therefore, the role of the university sector is absolutely critical in building a highly skilled population and in underpinning an economy which prospers, based on innovation.
I think it is instructive to look at a nation that is admired around the world for the excellence and distinctiveness of its higher education system, and I refer of course to the United States, a country widely recognised as having the best research universities in the world. I want to quote from a very interesting book written by Jonathan Cole, the former Provost of Columbia University, The Great American University: Its Rise To Preeminence, Its Indispensable National Role, Why It Must Be Protected. I think there are some important points in this book which are relevant to higher education policy in Australia. In his book, Dr Cole notes that 40 of the 50 top universities in the world are in the United States, according to a research-based assessment from the Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Since the 1930s, roughly 60 per cent of all Nobel prizes have gone to Americans, and a very high proportion of leading new industries in the United States—perhaps as many as 80 per cent—are derived from discoveries at US universities. So Cole has this to say about the American university sector:
These universities have evolved into creative machines unlike any other that we have known in our history—cranking out information and discoveries in a society increasingly dependent on knowledge as the source for its growth.
I think there are some important lessons for the Australian education sector—and the higher education sector in particular—in the observations made in that book, in the importance of our higher education sector to our national competitiveness.
My views in this area have only been confirmed—or my convictions have only been increased—by the benefit of a recent visit to Silicon Valley, where, amongst other things, I had the opportunity to attend a presentation by Coursera—the well-known, although relatively new, company established by two Stanford computer science professors—which is now allowing millions of students to take courses online from well-known academics at Stanford and other prestigious universities around the world, including Melbourne University, University of New South Wales and University of Western Australia. These are exciting developments for these universities but they mean that every university, including those that may be less well-known internationally, needs to think very carefully about its competitiveness, its position in the market and how it sustains that position.
Against that backdrop, let me now turn to the question of the way that TEQSA was operating under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. It is no exaggeration to say that TEQSA created enormous frustration in the tertiary sector in the way it was operating, with an extraordinary degree of bureaucratic interventionism. I was alerted to this in a particular week in 2012 when I happened to meet on two separate occasions with vice chancellors of two universities, both of whom protested in extremely vociferous terms about the inefficiencies, the cost burdens and the compliance burdens that TEQSA was imposing on their institutions; and diverting resources away from the core missions of those universities.
Let me quote from something that was said on the record by the then Dean of UNSW Law, David Dixon, who was reported in The Australian in 2012, describing TEQSA as 'overreaching, excessive and ill-informed'. He went on to say that 'invaluable time and energy is being diverted into worthless compliance exercises'. So there was a clear degree of concern in the tertiary sector in Australia about the degree of close supervision which was being imposed on the sector by TEQSA, and of course enthusiastically following the political direction it was given by its political masters in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government—unqualified enthusiasts for regulatory overreach in every aspect of the operations of the economy.
One example that Professor Dixon quoted was that TEQSA was seeking to impose specific requirements on law schools; if they were to award an honours degree, they would need to require an extra year of study. Professor Dixon made the point that this imposed a burden on Australian universities seeking to compete in the international marketplace for postgraduate students, and the requirement to add an extra year made the Australian degree less attractive compared to the degrees offered by competitor institutions in other jurisdictions.
The evidence is very clear that the operation of TEQSA under the previous government imposed excessive regulatory burdens on universities—this absolutely critical sector of our economy—and in doing so diverted focus and resources from the priorities of those universities, which are of the highest national importance to our competitiveness.
The third point I want to come to is the solution, which, by means of the bill before the House this afternoon, the Abbott government and in particular the Minister for Education are putting in place to address these well-understood and well-complained-of problems in relation to the operation of TEQSA.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The debate is interrupted. In accordance with standing order 43. The deabte may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Brisbane Electorate: Literary Awards
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (13:30): Each year I conduct a literary competition for students in my electorate, and each year that I have held this competition I have been consistently impressed by the quality and the originality shown by our youth. The 2013 entrants continued that legacy, writing to the theme 'Why Australia is a great country'.
There were two standout entries. Congratulations to Ashleigh Whatson, a year 6 student at Brisbane's All Hallows' School. Ashleigh took out first place with a moving essay that truly showed a maturity and a depth of understanding beyond her years. The judges were very impressed with Ashleigh's winning entry and with her ability to articulate her views in such a compassionate and insightful way.
Second prize went to former Hamilton State School student Jack Buckingham, who is now in year 5 at Windsor State School. His passionate tribute to Australia's culture, landscape and lifestyle struck a definitive chord with the judges. I commend both winners on their achievements.
I was overwhelmed by the quality of the entries from across the Brisbane electorate and I commend each and every student who contributed. My thanks must go to former news presenter Marie-Louise Theile; Tony Koch, a Walkley Award winning journalist and former deputy editor of TheAustralian; Shannon Sagaidak, senior reporter for Quest Newspapers; and Jane O'Hara, former Brisbane Writers Festival CEO and now a producer at the Brisbane Powerhouse. Their involvement and support, along with the encouragement of the parents, teachers and schools across the Brisbane electorate are to be commended.
San Donato Festival
Mr GILES (Scullin) (13:31): Next Sunday, 15 March, the San Donato dinner will be held. This event will be seeking to raise funds for the San Donato festival held later in the year. The event is organised by Scullin constituents Donato Polvere, Mauro Giusti, Fulvio Di Marco and others in the San Donato Committee.
The committee members are parishioners of the St Luke's Catholic Church in David Street in Lalor and they have been organising the annual San Donato festival for more than 30 years. This year the committee will be busy organising the 38th anniversary celebration for the feast of San Donato. The San Donato festival, which is held annually in August, is an important cultural and religious tradition for the local Italian community and is an event which they generously share with the broader community.
My predecessor, Harry Jenkins, often attended these festivals and spoke in this place about its importance to the local Italian community, which is such an important part of my electorate. I reiterate those sentiments. These festivals have become a part of the cultural fabric of the city of Whittlesea and are regularly attended by more than 5,000 people from the municipality and the broader Melbourne community.
I, too, have attended the festival and felt the pride of community members and such great warmth. The opera is particularly good too. I say to Donato, Mauro, Fulvio and all the committee members: Grazie mille. Saro orgoglioso di vedervi alla Festa di San Donato in Agosto alla chiesa di San Luca.
Mining
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (13:33): Let me make it clear: I say no to 100 per cent FIFO. I say no to 100 per cent fly-in fly-out mining workers in my electorate of Capricornia. I want jobs for Central Queenslanders who actually live in and support our local towns.
Under 100 per cent FIFO, workers are jetted in from Cairns or the Gold Coast. One hundred per cent FIFO is hurting the survival of my local towns like Dysart and Moranbah. It is hurting small business, local schools and mums and dads who are happy to live there and support community life.
In Queensland, the Labor state member for Mackay, Tim Mulherin, must accept that his own party first initiated 100 per cent FIFO. Advice presented to me suggests that BMA was granted permission, during the previous Anna Bligh Labor state government, to initially engage a 100 per cent FIFO workforce. If that is correct, then Labor started the ball rolling. Labor opened the floodgates allowing the 100 per cent FIFO jobs to go to Cairns and the Gold Coast.
I have not been idle on this. My locals must have a chance to apply for jobs in their own backyards. I have spoken to federal colleagues, state ministers and company executives. On 17 March, I will continue to take up this issue with BMA's asset president and head of external affairs.
Health Funding
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (13:34): I rise today to draw the attention of the House to the deep concern being felt in Charlton about the prospect of the government's $6 GP tax. Currently almost 80 per cent of visits to doctors in my area are bulk-billed. If the GP tax is introduced, the people of Charlton alone would be forced to pay more than $4.3 million in extra doctor's fees each year. Recent analysis has shown that the impact on the Hunter will be an extra $21 million per year.
The people who will be hardest hit by this will be families, low-income earners and pensioners—people whose health is already vulnerable. The impact of this will be that people will not go to doctors, they will have less preventative health, people's health will suffer and we will be catching problems a lot later than we should be.
We will see more pressure on our local hospital system. As the husband of a nurse, I know how much public hospitals are under pressure and how every little bit more of work coming from GPs adds to their burden. This GP tax will hurt low-income earners, families and pensioners and it will place more burdens on our overstretched hospital system, adding further to our health budget issues. More importantly, it is something that the government promised they would not introduce. Before the election, Prime Minister Abbott made a series of promises which he is clearly looking at breaking now.
We in the Labor Party are proud that we invented Medicare and we will keep fighting for Medicare, because it is what people need.
Brisbane to Gladstone Yacht Race
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (13:36): The 2014 Brisbane to Gladstone Yacht Race will mark the 66th time the race has been held. The Brisbane to Gladstone Yacht Race is considered by the yachting fraternity and the general public to be one of Australia's flagship races, second only to the Sydney to Hobart. The race is an icon of Queensland and the highest profile Easter weekend sporting event.
The yachts will set sail from Moreton Bay on Good-Friday. The race will start at 1100 hours on 18 April. From the start, yachts proceed via a buoy off Redcliffe Point to the North West Channel up to Caloundra and through to Gladstone, a distance of approximately 308 nautical miles.
Depending on weather, the first yachts should be entering Gladstone Harbour around 7.30 on Saturday morning with the bulk of the fleet finishing late Saturday and into the early hours of Sunday morning.
Entrants in the race are vying for the Courier-Mail Cup, one of the oldest perpetual trophies in Australia that has been competed for on a continual basis. The current record for the fastest time to complete the course is held by Skandia in a time of 20 hours, 24 minutes and five seconds, set in 2004. I would like to wish all the competing yachts in this year's race good weather, good luck and God speed.
Perth Electorate: Education Funding
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (13:37): The Abbott government's betrayal on the promise to match Labor and to deliver the Gonski reform program is having a profound impact across my electorate. A core principle of Gonski prevented states from ripping their money out of schools. Mr Abbott has allowed Premier Barnett to rip $103 million from the education budget in 2013-14. Every government school in Western Australia is now worse off. Lockridge Senior High School is a low-SEI school trying to address entrenched literacy and numeracy problems with specialist literacy and numeracy support programs. They had to cut these programs from three days to two days and finally scrap them altogether. These programs had been delivering and had seen them lift their NAPLAN results. All this has now gone. Additional time with a psychologist, which was available for low-SEI schools, has been scrapped. In an area with a significant Indigenous population, funding for Indigenous programs and support staff is also gone. So much for closing the gap! Premier Barnett cut $168,000 to Lockridge Senior High School in 2014 and there is more to come next year—and, in this, Mr Abbott is his accomplice. (Time expired)
Tasmanian Election
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (13:39): On Saturday, 15 March, Tasmanians have a clear choice to make about their future. They can choose to support a tired, 16-year-old government that has neglected the economy, neglected education and neglected health and has no plan whatsoever for the future; or Tasmanians can choose to vote for Will Hodgman and the Liberal Party, who do have a long-term plan for the future of our great state.
After 16 years of neglect the job will be difficult—just as it is at a federal level. A Liberal state government will need to stop the loss of jobs, rebuild the economy, restore teacher levels, restore police numbers and give small and medium businesses the support they so desperately need to succeed. There is no silver bullet, but the Liberal's strong plan for Tasmania can turn this state around. Key to delivering this, the Liberal's strong plan for the future includes cutting red and green tape for business, cutting waste in the public service, restoring front-line services in education and policing, and re-opening the international shipping service, which only a majority government can do.
My message to the voters of Braddon is this: If you think the Greens-Labor experiment was a success and you are happy with more of the same, vote Labor, vote Green, vote Palmer or vote Independent. But, if you want a strong majority government without interference from the job-hating Greens, you should vote Liberal on Saturday, 15 March.
Atypical Haemolytic Uraemic Syndrome
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (13:40): Seventy Australians suffer from the rare and life-threatening disease, atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome. A submission has been made to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee by the aHUS Support Group with help from the patients' treating physicians. Most patients suffer from end-stage renal disease and other organs become affected. Supportive treatments, including dialysis, plasma exchange and organ transplants, are not effective in the longer term. Most patients are refused transplants because aHUS destroys 50 to 80 per cent of new organs within two years.
On the other hand, the drug Soliris has been shown to be an effective treatment. Ten aHUS patients being treated with Soliris, supplied compassionately by the manufacturer, have significantly improved renal function and overall health. One patient, 19-year-old university student Isabelle Ruiz, benefitted from one month of Soliris courtesy of her treating physicians at Royal Melbourne Hospital. In her words:
Soliris is the only treatment for aHUS and if people need it they should be able to get access to it. It is quite an amazing treatment. It definitely saved my life.
The submission requests the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommend that Soliris be funded immediately through the Life Saving Drugs Program. The committee is due to decide by 24 April. I strongly urge the committee to find in favour of the submission and to do so with utmost expedition, making Soliris available to those patients who so seriously need it. (Time expired)
Sydes, Mr Bob
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (13:42): I rise to acknowledge a man of great character who lost his battle with cancer last week. Bob Sydes was born in Launceston in 1950 and attended St Patricks College before joining the PMG. He was called up for national service in 1970 and commissioned as a second lieutenant. He spent more than three decades helping the unemployed as the northern Tasmanian manager of the CES and with Employment National and Mission Employment.
It was through Rotary, however, that Bob left his greatest legacy. He joined Rotary in 1978 and was President of the Rotary Club of Central Launceston and Rotary District Governor for Tasmania. Bob loved the international aspect of Rotary. He hosted incoming youth exchanges. He led Rotary study groups to the United States and Canada. He built houses in Western Fiji and a mosquito net storage facility in the Solomon Islands.
Bob served his local community in many ways, including the establishment of 'Sail-ability' to allow handicapped people to experience the thrill of sailing. He also established the Tasmanian Air Rescue Trust, which operates the Westpac Rescue Helicopter in Tasmania.
Bob married Jan Brown in 1972 and they had four children—Chris, Drew, Karen and Tracy—and they had seven grandchildren. He loved sailing, fishing and caravanning, where he perfected the art of 'free camping'. For the past two years, Bob fought his final battle with pancreatic cancer but was still determined to live his life to the full, which he did. Farewell Bob Sydes, an ornament to our community and a life well lived.
Health Funding
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (13:43): The coalition's plan to introduce a GP tax will hit families in the Hunter and on the Central Coast very hard. In my electorate of Shortland, based on the current bulk-billing figures, the GP tax could cost families $4.4 million a year or more. In the Hunter it is similar. You can read today's, Newcastle Herald front page to learn more about it. The Herald highlights that the GP tax could cost Hunter families about $21 million a year, hitting those who can least afford it hardest. This is a huge amount for local families to be asked to pay.
The government is proposing that people pay a $6 fee every time they visit the doctor. This is not about wealthy people paying more for GP visits; this is about sick people paying more for GP visits—which is totally absurd.
Government members interjecting—
I hear members on the other side of the House supporting the GP tax. I can tell them that the Consumers Health Forum of Australia has warned that the proposed tax will reduce access to health care and see people delay their doctor visits. Under the Howard government, the bulk-billing rate in Shortland was less than 60 per cent. Now it is almost 80 per cent. If this proposed GP tax goes ahead, however, it will erode the benefits of bulk billing. It will also mean that more people will visit their local hospital emergency unit—in order to avoid paying the GP tax. The tax will not help our public health system. It will simply put more pressure on our already stretched health services.
Royal New South Wales Lancers Band: 1st/15th Regiment
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (13:45): I rise to mark a black day in the history of the 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers—the passing, after 117 years of service, of the regimental band. The commanding officer announced on Saturday that this would be the last year the regimental band would be in service. This can be traced to the drop in defence expenditure we saw under the last government. Defence expenditure is currently at 1.59 per cent of GDP, the lowest level since 1938. We are seeing the effects of this on things like regimental bands.
The 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers has 21 battle honours, the most battle honours of any regiment in the Commonwealth. Its band is a vehicle for people not just to play their musical instruments but to serve their nation as soldiers. All of that history and heritage will now be lost.
The coalition has a different plan in relation to defence. We have a plan to restore expenditure to two per cent of GDP within a decade—to undo the damage done by the previous government and to ensure that vital parts of our military history are retained. We have a plan to ensure that our Defence Force is treated with absolute respect, that they are not insulted and that they do not have their budget cut by a government—like the last one—which has no understanding of defence. It is a black day for the regiment, it is a black day for Parramatta and it is a black day for all those young men and women who play in the band—and it is something the coalition will fix.
Moreton Electorate: Clean Up Australia Day
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:47): I rise to recognise the many community groups that participated in Clean Up Australia Day in Moreton on the weekend. Hundreds of local groups and individuals took part. I will name a few—the Robertson scout group, the Runcorn State School, the Stable Swamp Creek group, the Tzu Chi Academy, Wellers Hills State School, Junction Park State School, St Aidan's Creek Watch in Rocklea, the Indonesian Muslim Centre, McDonalds at Rocklea and Eight Mile Plains, and even the Annerley branch of the ALP.
I actually dragged along my eight-year-old son Stanley, who had not wanted to come. We went out with the Macgregor Lions, my Lions Club branch. We were off in the bushes and he was whingeing—until we started wandering through finding the rubbish with John Spriggs, the president. We found a bag of sharps, of medical rubbish, which was quite exciting—my son got to see drugs! Then we found a bag of contraband that had been buried under a tree. It was wrapped up in plastic. I thought there was going to be a severed head in it, but there wasn't. Instead, there were two laptops and a lot of jewellery. So my son now wants to go cleaning up Australia every weekend. He saw it as a wonderful event. I thank the Lions Club of Macgregor for organising that and for the great work they did in cleaning up at the park.
Australian Eurasian Association of Western Australia
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (13:48): The Australian Eurasian Association of Western Australia celebrated its 25th anniversary with a silver jubilee ball on Saturday, 1 March, attended by 230 guests. Formed in 1989, the Eurasian Association is an ethnic group of mixed European and Asian heritage. Eurasians are the descendants of British, Portuguese, Spanish and Dutch colonial settlers who migrated to Australia in the 18th and 19th centuries. Over the years, they intermarried with the local Chinese, Malay and Indian populations and formed a unique cultural identity. In particular, the Eurasian Association of Western Australia is made up of migrants from Singapore and Malaysia who migrated to Perth in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and beyond.
I acknowledge the management committee, which is made up of the president, Chad Beins; the vice-president, Kevin DeSouza; Brian Leicester; Carol Richards; Kay Klass; Derrick Holmes; Gary Aviet; Valerie Conier; Joan Reincastle; and Charles Reincastle. I am proud, with my British, Portuguese and Chinese heritage, to be a member of this community. On behalf of the parliament, I wish to place on record congratulations to the Australian Eurasian Association of Western Australia on its 25th anniversary.
Tolmie Sports Day
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (13:48): On Saturday, 8 February, I had the pleasure of attending the 128th annual Tolmie Sports Day. This day is an institution in Indi and people travel from all over the electorate, from interstate and even from Melbourne to attend. Tolmie is a small rural community perched on the well-named Tolmie Plateau—north of Mansfield and east of Benalla—with sweeping views across to Mount Buller and the Great Australian Alps.
As you would imagine, sporting activities on a day such as this are many and varied. They include the very popular woodchopping, where world champions battle it out; the awarding of the Junior Miss Tolmie and Miss Tiny Tot titles; the ball-in-the-barrel competition; egg tossing; dog jumping; amateur crosscut saw; the Old Buffer's Race; and gumboot tossing, which is a tradition that sees kids, ladies, men and tiny tots battling it out for recognition. One of the highlights of this year's sports day was the awarding of life membership to the retiring state member for Benalla, Bill Sykes. Well done, Bill.
Indi is renowned for the strength of its communities and the Tolmie Sports Day shows community at its best. Thanks to the over 150 volunteers, including the St John Ambulance, the CFA and the Masons, and to the wonderful committee: Rolf Attley, president; Sue McBride, secretary; and Linda Terry, treasurer. Well done, Tolmie and thank you for the invitation to participate.
Small Business
Dr HENDY (Eden-Monaro) (13:51): I rise to speak about my visit last Friday to Batemans Bay, which is in my electorate of Eden-Monaro. I had great pleasure in undertaking a walk through the main shopping centre, popping in to talk to the small businesses operating there. I have a message for the Leader of the Opposition: not one business owner asked me to fight to retain the carbon tax. Quite the opposite—they want costs on businesses to be eased and they recognise the flow-through impact of the removal of the tax. They see that it would boost family disposable income by reducing electricity prices.
While at the shopping centre, I took the opportunity to mention our upcoming small business forum with the Minister for Small Business, the member for Dunkley. That will be held in Batemans Bay on Monday, 28 April at 5:30 pm. It is important that our local businesses have direct access to the small business minister and it is a great opportunity to let the cabinet minister know about local issues and concerns. We will be advertising that forum soon.
Shortly after this walk-through I took part in an outside broadcast with Radio 2EC at Bridge Plaza for DonateLife. I recognise the tremendous efforts by Brad and Lorae Rossiter and the success of their endeavours in the region. DonateLife raises awareness in the community of the importance of organ donation. Volunteers and community workers like the Rossiters are the lifeblood of rural and regional towns and I thank them for their service to the community.
Parramatta Electorate: Women Leading Change Network
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:52): On Saturday it was my absolute pleasure to attend the launch of the Women Leading Change network in Parramatta. It was part of the celebrations for International Women's Day. As I understand it, there is already such a network in Melbourne and both are initiatives of the Humanitarian Crisis Hub, which works with people from countries affected by war and supports diaspora community initiatives here in Australia. The Women Leading Change network is about bringing together some of the most extraordinary women you are likely to meet, women who are well known and incredibly effective in their own subcommunities, to share resources, support each other and, hopefully, through their work increase the strength of their voices in the broader community.
I want to acknowledge the women who were on the panels that day because they are some extraordinary women: Nava Malula, from the Swahili speaking women; Saada Abdikarim, from the Somali community; Shalailah Medhora, from SBS World News; Pamela Hartgerink, from STARTTS; Dr Mehreen Faruqi, who is a Greens member of the legislative council; Ming Yu, from Amnesty international; Dr Sam Pari, national spokesperson for the Australian Tamil Congress; Seng Maw Lahpai, from the Kachin ethnic community; Najeeba Wazefadost, from Hazara Women of Australia; Anjani Regmi, from the Nepalese community; Tennah Kpaka, from the Sierra Leone community; and Rayila Maimaiti, from the Uygur community.
Barker Electorate: Angaston Show
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:54): I rise to congratulate Mr Mark Grossman, the president of the Angaston AH&F Society, and his hardworking committee on the delivery of another successful Angaston show. As an active member of my family's farming enterprise, I know the importance of regional shows to the rural sector and regional communities in particular. The recent Angaston show was a credit to those volunteers who gave their time selflessly to ensure that the community of Angaston showcased its productive potential. I enjoyed meeting with residents at the Angaston show and discussing the many issues impacting on residents of the Barossa Valley in a relaxed atmosphere. It is an exercise I will repeat this weekend at the Tanunda show. Many of those concerns mirror those I am hearing across the electorate, whether it be lower than reasonable commodity prices, unnecessary red and green tape, the hurtful carbon tax or the ever increasing costs of living or doing business. I left the Angaston show with an overwhelming sense that, despite these challenges, the people of the Barossa Valley are intent on maintaining the iconic Barossa Valley as a region of national significance. Long may that continue.
Bendigo Electorate: Zonta Club
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:55): This Tuesday in my electorate of Bendigo the Zonta Club of Bendigo held their annual International Women's Day dinner. This year it was attended by over 250 people. Guest speaker Doreen Akkerman AM was inducted into the Victorian Women's Roll of Honour in 2010. In her speech she traced the stages of a woman's life in a humorous presentation called 'We've come a long way, baby'. From all accounts, the inspiring night was full of laughs and good fun, but there was also a serious and important message behind the fun. Ms Akkerman said that it was an important to celebrate the achievements of women but at the same time get the message right to our young girls. She said that we need to teach our young girls that if the prince on a white horse does not come along, you need to be self-sustaining and believe in yourself.
In my electorate of Bendigo the work on this issue is being done. It is one of the reasons why I am proud to be a member of the Zonta Club of Bendigo. The club's members work tirelessly all year round to advance the status of women, both locally and globally. The money raised from this particular event will go towards the Zonta scholarships program in the region. The yearly scholarships offer financial support for young women in business, public affairs, nursing and years 11 and 12. This group should be commended for the hard work they do all year round, and this International Women's Day I wish to recognise their work in our community.
Hume Electorate: Agriculture Task Force
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (13:57): I am delighted that the federal agriculture taskforce is visiting Goulburn in my electorate next week. We have had some good rain across Hume in recent weeks and I have been out to a number of the local shows recently. I know there is a lot of passion and excitement about the future of agriculture. At Koorawatha, Boorowa, Crookwell and Gunning shows a bit of rain always helps the mood. I hope that a number of businesses and farmers take the opportunity to have a break from work and come along to Goulburn next Thursday, because we need their input.
The task force is on a national tour listening to farmers and stakeholders on the future competitiveness of agriculture in Australia. I am delighted that Hume is on the list. It is vital that we continue to develop policies that help farmers to help themselves. Most farmers do not want a handout, they just want to be successful at what they do. The competitiveness of the sector depends on opening up new markets, getting into those fast-growing Asian markets for meat, cherries, grain and dairy. It means taking away unnecessary red and green tape. It means putting more money into research and development. We have got to capitalise on these opportunities to help agriculture thrive and realise the benefits in farm gate prices and profitability. I look forward to hearing some great ideas from locals on how to boost the sector's prosperity and productivity.
Better Start for Children with Disability Program
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (13:58): I received an email from Katie Robb from Bracken Ridge in Queensland yesterday. She wanted to share the remarkable story of her son William, who has Angelman syndrome and severe epilepsy. Katie writes:
Since William gained access to the Better Start for Children with Disability program 12 months ago, William has begun rolling, crawling, and actively investigating the environment around him.
Prior to Better Start, William was only able to access physiotherapy once every six weeks. Now with Better Start, William can go to speech pathology, physiotherapy on a fortnightly basis as well as hydrotherapy. Access to these services has enabled William to develop new skills and a level of independence and confidence previously considered unattainable. He has improved his comprehension, developed pre-walking skills and for the first-time can stand independently for short periods of time. Katie finishes by saying:
I can't wait to see what new and exciting skills William will acquire this year.
Since Labor introduced Better Start, more than 26,000 children with disability have benefited from improved access to services. Better Start is making a real and lasting impact to the lives of children with disability, children like William.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Qantas
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to reports today that cabinet rejected a debt guarantee for Qantas after the Treasurer read out Qantas's statement on the carbon price in cabinet. Prime Minister, has the government punished Qantas employees because of Qantas's statement on carbon pricing on Monday?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:00): Absolutely not. This is just a nasty smear from the Leader of the Opposition. I am aware that Qantas today put out a statement—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Could we have some silence on my left. You have asked the question.
Mr ABBOTT: Just so that members of this House should know what the situation is, Qantas has today put out a statement to say:
We have said that the price on carbon is a cost to our business that we have not been able to recover through fare increases …
So there we have it: the carbon tax is a drag on Qantas that it does not need. It is a $106 million hit on jobs at Qantas. We will get rid of the carbon tax, but the Leader of the Opposition wants to leave this $106 million a year hit on Qantas in place.
Mr Shorten: I seek leave to table the statement on Monday where Qantas said the major issues facing Qantas are not related to carbon pricing.
Leave not granted.
Economy
Dr HENDY (Eden-Monaro) (14:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the performance of the Australian economy and what policies can be put in place to strengthen the economy into the future?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:02): I thank the member for Eden-Monaro for his question and I acknowledge the work he has done over the years to strengthen our economy, including his work at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The national accounts figures have been released. I can report to the House that in the December quarter GDP grew a little above the expected rate, at 0.8 per cent. In this quarter, household consumption is also up by 0.8 per cent and export volumes are up by a strong 2.4 per cent. As the Treasurer said earlier today, there are positive signs emerging in the economy. As well as these encouraging national accounts, total private building approvals increased strongly in January by 6.6 per cent, taking approvals to the highest level since 2002. The ANZ job advertisement series rose sharply in February, by 5.1 per cent, and the National Australia Bank Monthly Business Survey also showed a rise in confidence. It is now above the long-run average.
There are lots of challenges, but this government has a plan that will make it easier for the people and the businesses of Australia to rise to them in the future. Our plan means getting taxes down, it means getting red and green tape down, it means getting productivity up and it means building the infrastructure that this country needs, because infrastructure, particularly roads, is the muscles and sinews of our economy. We will scrap the carbon tax, which this House should surely know by now is a $9 billion a year hit on jobs. We will scrap the mining tax, which is a brake on investment in this country. We will give businesses a $1 billion a year red and green tape cost reduction. I am so pleased to remind the House that, thanks to the good work of the Minister for the Environment, some $400 billion worth of new projects have been given environmental approval since last year's election.
So this is a country which is open for business. This is a country which is well and truly under new management, and that should give the people and the businesses of our country much more confidence in the weeks and months ahead.
Qantas
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. Since Monday night's cabinet meeting, what communication has the Prime Minister or his office had with Qantas to pressure them to modify the statement they made on Monday that the major issue facing Qantas is not related to carbon pricing?
The SPEAKER: The latter part of that question was more in the nature of a statement, but I will let the first part stand.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Could I have some silence on my left.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:05): Typically, it was more in the nature of a smear than a statement. But I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that there has been no contact whatsoever between me and my office and Qantas along the lines that the Leader of the Opposition suggests. Just for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, it is worth reminding him of what members opposite used to think when they were in government. We had a very interesting report in The Australian Financial Review by none other than Kevin Rudd's former chief of staff, who said:
The ALP should remember the … constraints the Act imposes on a company playing in an international services market.
Mr Dreyfus: What the Prime Minister is now reading from has nothing to do with the question, Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: What is the standing order?
Mr Dreyfus: direct relevance—and he should be returned to the question.
The SPEAKER: The member should remember that, if he is rising on a point of order, he needs to state that it is a point of order and what it is.
Mr ABBOTT: The former chief of staff to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd goes on in this morning's The AustralianFinancial Review:
Remember is the operative word. The ALP had amendments to deal with this ready to legislate in 2009.
So members opposite know that the Qantas Sale Act is a problem. They had amendments ready to go, and then they lost their nerve. But not only did the former chief of staff to the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, publish in TheAustralianFinancial Review this morning; he was also on Radio National this morning, and he said something very interesting: 'We had the then minister, Anthony Albanese'—that is the member for Grayndler, I believe—'who prepared changes to the sale act.'
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: There we are: the gentleman interjecting. He himself prepared changes to the Qantas Sale Act, so he knows in his heart that Qantas needs to be freed from these shackles. And the former chief of staff to the then Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, went on to say, 'We had the total support of the opposition,' and that is exactly right—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that remark.
Mr ABBOTT: because we have always thought that Qantas needed its freedom to compete. I do not want to see Qantas getting any special advantages. I just do not want Virgin to have the special advantage which it currently does because it is not constrained in the way that Qantas is. So please, Madam Speaker, let us have no more weak hypocrisy from this incompetent opposition.
Economy
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (14:09): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline what the national accounts figures tell us about the state of the economy?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:09): I thank the member for Tangney for the question and recognise that the December quarter national accounts released by the ABS today, as the Prime Minister said a little bit earlier, were slightly better than what appears to be the consensus forecast, but still the Australian economy growing at 2.8 per cent for the year is less than trend, which is around three to 3¼ per cent. But, significantly, it is not enough to start to reduce the level of unemployment. So we have to grow the economy faster to improve the speed of economic growth to start to drive down the level of unemployment in the economy.
The best way to do that, the most immediate way to do that, is to remove the shackles on business. It is rare to happen, but a coordinated release by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia and the Minerals Council of Australia came out today and said the Senate should support carbon tax repeal. Business is saying: 'You should support the repeal of the carbon tax.' That is one way that you can immediately lift the speed of Australia's economic growth: repeal the carbon tax imposed by the Labor Party, because it affects every area of business.
Qantas have dominated discussions this week. Qantas have revealed that not only did the carbon tax hit them last year for $106 million that was unrecovered—that they could not claim back from passengers—but their bill is nearly $60 million just for the first six months of this year. In the case of Virgin Airlines, a smaller airline, the bill was nearly $50 million last year. And these are coming off the bottom line of a business that is losing money.
So the best thing we can do, the most constructive thing we can do for the economy right now, is to have the Labor Party in the Senate change its mind and repeal the carbon tax. The same goes for the mining tax, and the same goes for the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Why would you want to stop putting in place an entity that is going to improve productivity on construction sites? Why would you want to do it? I will tell you why: because you owe more to the union leaders than you do to the workers. That is the only reason that I can see in relation to the Leader of the Opposition. So I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if he cares about the workers, if he does want to have more jobs, if he wants to lower the level of unemployment: get behind the productivity agenda and the legislative agenda of the coalition now.
Foreign Investment
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:12): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the government now abolishing all foreign ownership restrictions, when the coalition was opposed to the abolition of the 25 per cent and the 35 per cent foreign equity restrictions in 2009? Isn't this just another example of the government playing politics rather than fighting for Australian jobs?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:13): I know that members opposite are now embarrassed because they have had this revelation from deep within the heart of the Rudd government that the Rudd government, the former government, wanted to lift the restrictions on Qantas. Let me repeat for the benefit of members opposite. This is the former chief of staff to the former Prime Minister: 'We had the then minister'—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, there is a very direct question here about the 25 and 35 per cent restrictions and the reaction of those opposite at the time. It has nothing to do with what the Prime Minister is now referring to, and I ask for a ruling on direct relevance.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr ABBOTT: If members opposite are now trying to say that they are prepared to get rid of the 25 per cent and 35 per cent restrictions, come on, come on across! Come on across. If you are prepared to get rid of—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will withdraw that remark.
Mr ABBOTT: the 25 per cent and 35 per cent restrictions, please vote with us, because that is what the sale act does.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member is withdrawing his remark. Just simply withdraw.
Mr Albanese: I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr ABBOTT: We want to do what Labor planned to do. We want to do what Labor planned to do and we have it on the authority—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs and the member for McMahon will desist.
Mr ABBOTT: of Kevin Rudd's former chief of staff that that is what Labor wanted to do. They were gutless then, and now that a government has been good enough to put it on the table they should support it.
Taxation
Mr PALMER (Fairfax) (14:15): I have a question for the Prime Minister. The carbon tax and the mining tax removal are key to the resurgence of the Australian economy. Why has the government not removed or proposed their removal from the day they were elected? Is it not true that only Palmer United can remove these taxes and break the gridlock in the Senate? Why would Western Australian voters vote for the Liberal Party when they cannot deliver on their promises? Western Australians must vote for Palmer United in the Senate, as only Palmer United can remove the carbon and mining taxes. Do you agree, Prime Minister?
The SPEAKER: I do not think I need either of the two at the dispatch box to say that only the very beginning of that question is in order. The rest will be totally ignored. The Prime Minister has the call. Does the member for Hunter have a point of order?
Mr Fitzgibbon: I was seeking leave to move an extension of time for the member for Fairfax!
The SPEAKER: I call the honourable the Prime Minister.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:16): I do welcome that question from the member for Fairfax. I am absolutely delighted to hear that the member for Fairfax and his eponymous party propose to vote on 1 July in the Senate to abolish the carbon tax and the mining tax. That is very good news for Australia.
Qantas
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (14:17): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on why the removal of part 3 of the Qantas Sale Act and the scrapping of the carbon tax are the best options to provide the level playing field Qantas requested?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:17): I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question. There has certainly been a lot of talk over recent days about options for Qantas. But only the government's proposal to repeal part 3 of the Qantas Sale Act will give Qantas and the aviation industry the level playing field that it has asked for and is essential for its future prosperity. What we have heard from opposition repeatedly is talk about how any kind of increased level of foreign ownership will lead to lost Australian jobs. The honourable member for Hinkler's electorate is one of those that is benefiting now from the competition of having Virgin and Qantas flights servicing places like Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. The Virgin domestic arm is majority foreign-owned, and yet I have noticed that Bundaberg and Hervey Bay—
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingsford Smith should remember I will have a plan B for him in a moment.
Mr TRUSS: I have not noticed any pilots or crew coming in from Abu Dhabi or Singapore or even Auckland. These are the jobs that have been created because Virgin flights are coming to Bundaberg and Hervey Bay; they are Australian jobs. When Qantas is able to have a degree of foreign ownership in its domestic arm, those jobs in Australia will still be Australian jobs. This is because it is not practical to run a domestic airline with staff who are flown in from other parts of the world. It would be against our laws. Of course, you could not be efficient and competitive unless you were actually employing Australian people.
The reality is that these airlines that have had some foreign ownership have made an enormous contribution to Australian aviation. Remember what happened at the time of the Ansett collapse and Hazelton and Kendell were essentially grounded. Well it was a foreign investor, Lim Kim Hai, who came in from Singapore, created Rex and resurrected services to so many regional communities. It was a 100 per cent foreign owned airline. Now Rex employs 1,000 Australians, many in regional communities. Their flight crews, their pilots are all Australian. They are training pilots in Australia in their own academy. The reality is that some of these airlines with foreign shareholdings have an enormous commitment to Australia. They have been prepared to back this country. The Rex partners lost a lot of money getting their airline up and running. It has been to the benefit of this country. The reality is that we can invest. We can have a prosperous aviation industry in Australia. We just need to give it the liberty to be able to achieve the very best possible destiny for itself and for the Australian staff it employs.
Aviation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (14:20): My question is also to the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the minister confirm that, when Labor proposed, in the 2009 aviation white paper, that majority Australian ownership be maintained but the 35 and 25 per cent foreign equity restrictions be lifted, he opposed this change because, and I quote: 'Loss of effective Australian control could leave Australia without an airline primarily committed to our interests.' Given the minister's inconsistency, was he just playing politics then or is he playing politics now?
The SPEAKER: The question will stand with the exception of the last part of the question which is against the standing orders. I call the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:21): The proposal that the Australian government is putting before the parliament at the present time is a comprehensive response to level the playing field to enable airlines to compete fairly and squarely in this country. What the opposition was proposing at the time was part way towards that direction.
I am interested now that the opposition is suggesting that they might still be prepared to go part-way to the proposal, part-way to achieving the best possible outcome. So my suggestion and advice to the opposition is that they come the whole way, that they agree to the repeal of part 3, as we are proposing, to give the airlines the opportunity to operate on a fair and even playing field. On top of that, I suggest that they vote with the government to get rid of the carbon tax so that Australian airlines are better able to compete, that their costs are lower and therefore they can provide more opportunities for Australian workers and more services to Australian commuters.
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table a document. There are any number of documents but the interview perhaps is one of the best from the Deputy Prime Minister, on 16 December proposing the changes.
Leave not granted.
Carbon Pricing
Mr PASIN (Barker) (14:23): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to figures from the Clean Energy Regulator showing that the carbon tax has hit South Australia with at least $91 million in higher costs in 2012-13. What is the impact of the carbon tax on South Australia? Why must it be repealed immediately?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:23): I do thank the member for Barker for his question and I appreciate his concern to ensure that businesses in South Australia are given a fair go. The truth is, the carbon tax is an anti South Australian tax. It is an anti Australian tax, but it is certainly an anti South Australian tax because the list of South Australian businesses that are going to be damaged, and are being damaged, by the carbon tax is a rollcall of South Australian blue chips. There is the Nyrsta smelter at Port Pirie which is being hit $7.4 million a year by the carbon tax. There is the Pelican Point Power Station, with a $28 million a year hit from the carbon tax. But it just gets worse. Adelaide Brighton Cement has a $62 million a year hit from the carbon tax. And there is Santos, perhaps South Australia's best-known company, a very important part of our economy, with a $76 million hit because of the carbon tax.
The only people who want the carbon tax to stay are the Greens, and it is high time for the Labor Party to side with the people and not with the Greens and repeal this carbon tax. We have heard from the Treasurer already today the statement by Australia's four big business groups, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council, the Minerals Council and the Australian Industry Group, who say:
Australia's carbon tax is one of the highest in the world and is making our key industries less competitive every day it stays in place.
For small business especially, this has been a major burden that has reduced profitability, suppressed employment and added to already difficult conditions.
The government knows this. Business knows this. The people know this. The Leader of the Opposition and the Greens seem to have wax in their ears on this, but I regret to say, Madam Speaker, the carbon tax has a friend in South Australia and that is Premier Weatherill. He seems to be happy to have the people of South Australia continue to pay $550 a household more than they should. In fact Premier Weatherill said last year that the carbon tax is a 'fact of life' that he was actually looking forward to. He said, 'I am looking forward to a carbon constrained future.'
Well, I want South Australia to be unconstrained. I do not believe in unnecessary constraints on the South Australian economy. Let us have a low-taxing government here in Canberra and let us have a low-taxing government in Adelaide too.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:26): I would like to advise that we have a former member for Brisbane with us, the honourable Arch Bevis. We make him very welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Qantas
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:26): My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the first of 5,000 Qantas workers will be told about the jobs that they have lost. Prime Minister, what is the government's plan for these employees, or is the only plan that the government has got to export Australian jobs overseas?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:27): The best thing that we can do for Qantas, the best thing that we can do for workers all around Australia, is to get the fundamentals of our economy right—to get taxes down, to get regulation down, to get productivity up and to get the infrastructure that our country needs built as quickly as possible. That is what this government is seeking to do and we are being opposed at every point by members opposite.
The Leader of the Opposition can stand up and complain but he cannot lead. He can stand up and criticise but we know that he could not govern. When there was a proposal—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I am not sure what is left—
The SPEAKER: On a point of order?
Mr Burke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: Which is?
Mr Burke: If I am allowed to speak, you will hear it, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Well, you had better get on with it.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I am not sure what is left of the direct relevance standing order at this stage of question time but, if there is anything left of it, the Prime Minister is completely out of order.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, are there—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business has a second point of order?
Mr Burke: Are there any circumstances where direct relevance will be enforced?
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr ABBOTT: What the government is proposing is for the same set of rules and regulations to govern Qantas as govern Virgin. Virgin has gone from zero to almost 10,000 Australian employees. Virgin is carrying millions of Australians a week. That is what it is doing. Virgin is servicing planes in Australia. It is creating jobs in Australia. Virgin is growing and Qantas is shrinking and that is why we want Qantas to be under the same rules that Virgin is under. That is what we want. Isn't that the best thing we can do for Qantas?
What the Leader of the Opposition wants us to do, effectively, is to bail out a private company. That is what he wants. He wants us to get out the chequebook and write a cheque, just as members opposite have done so often. Let me remind the Leader of the Opposition what the former chief of staff to the former Prime Minister said:
It’s puzzling when a party claiming to be progressive wants to compound out-dated interventionism with a market distorting loan guarantee specific to Qantas. This is a step down the Argentine road.
That is what the Leader of the Opposition wants us to do.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I have two points of order. Firstly, under standing order 86: yet again, the Prime Minister's microphone is allowed to go until he has completed the grab. If it were any of us, it would be cut off immediately. Secondly, on direct relevance. This question time has gone to new bounds. It is absolutely extraordinary. Anything he says, you allow.
The SPEAKER: This is a speech not a point of order. The member will resume his seat. Firstly, on the question of microphones: the microphones are not controlled from this desk. They are controlled by the engineers in the box at the rear of the chamber. You should know perfectly well that they are unbiased and do their job properly. Secondly, the member has asked the question: what is the government's plan for these jobs? The Prime Minister is addressing the question. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr Shorten: My question was: what are you going to do for the 5,000 workers at Qantas?
The SPEAKER: We have already had a point on relevance. You only have one.
Mr Shorten: There was no answer.
The SPEAKER: The member is abusing the standing orders and will not do so again. The Prime Minister has the call and we will have silence on my left.
Mr ABBOTT: I am not giving the Leader of the Opposition the answer that he wants, because decent Labor people know that the Leader of the Opposition is dead wrong. Let me continue with what the former chief of staff to the former Labor Prime Minister said:
… the Qantas Sale Act should go … and the ALP should not stand in the way.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! There will be silence on my left or somebody will be leaving in order to lessen the noise.
South Australia: Education
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the government doing to improve the outcomes for school students and what has been the response from the South Australian government to these initiatives? How do poor results at school affect the job prospects of South Australians?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:32): I thank the member for Hindmarsh for this question. I know that he is very concerned about student outcomes and our student-first policy. I do regret to inform the House that South Australia has recorded the worst results in school outcomes of any mainland state or territory. In fact, the Programme for International Student Assessment analysis that was released yesterday shows that, in the time that the South Australian Labor government has been in power since 2002, South Australia's results have declined considerably. In maths, South Australia's raw score for maths dropped 46 points, more than double the national average decline of 20 points. In reading, the state's reading score declined 37 points, again more than double the national average drop of 16 points. In science, South Australia's raw score dropped 19 points, 280 per cent greater than the average decline in performance across Australia.
Unfortunately, the South Australian results have declined dramatically in the period that Jay Weatherill has been education minister and then Premier of South Australia. Labor's response is: 'There's nothing to see here. Everyone move on. Nothing needs to change. Everything's fine.' We have tried to put in place policies about independent public schooling, the national curriculum review, orthodox teaching methods like phonics and teacher training. The Labor state government in South Australia have opposed all of those policies. They are absolutely content to let South Australian students slip under the ooze of mediocrity.
I am also asked about jobs. The problem in South Australia is that Premier Weatherill is tied very closely to the teachers union in that state and he will not act on the student results to put students first. But he also made the extraordinary statement last week that the Australian Bureau of Statistics data showing 45 per cent youth unemployment in northern Adelaide were nonsense statistics and that in fact youth unemployment was tiny in northern Adelaide. He is not just out of his depth; he is five miles from the shore as the Premier of our state.
The truth is: if you have bad results at school, you will not have good job prospects. South Australia deserves better. South Australia deserves a government on North Terrace that puts students first, not unions first. While Jay Weatherill remains in power in South Australia, the job prospects of young Australians will be under the burden of very bad outcomes, presided over by a dysfunctional department of education in my state.
Qantas
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:35): My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that, when Labor proposed in the 2009 aviation white paper that the 35 per cent and 25 per cent foreign equity restrictions be lifted, he opposed this moderate move because:
Qantas undertakes significant tasks in the national interest and … when they have majority foreign control, then it actually has an impact on the social responsibilities of those companies here in Australia.
Given the Treasurer's inconsistency, does he just view the future of Qantas as a political game?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:36): No, it is not a political game; it is a very serious issue.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: I will tell you—hello, you are still here. Seriously, please. In 1992, when Qantas was privatised after a merger with TAA, it was a very different airline to what it is today. In 2000, around that period, Qantas also wanted to have changes made to the Qantas Sale Act. At that time, Ansett was a full-service airline in competition with Qantas. In 2002, when the Labor Party first raised the issue of changing ownership, as a result of lobbying by Qantas—of course Ansett was not around— Qantas had a massive market share in Australia.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: Listen, you might learn something. Listen!
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Bowen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was not about 1992. As uncomfortable as it is for the Treasurer, it was about 2009 when he was shadow Treasurer and the position he took then. He is not being relevant to the question.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. It was a very wide-ranging question.
Mr HOCKEY: In 2007, there was an $11 billion bid for Qantas—an $11 billion assumed market cap of Qantas. In 2009, when I made those comments, the market cap of Qantas was $4.5 billion. Today it is $2.5 billion. In 2009, when I made those comments, Ansett had gone, Virgin was not a full-service airline and Qantas had a much bigger proportion of traffic into and out off Australia than it does today. Qantas today, compared to Qantas in 2009, is a very different airline, in a very different aviation industry. Labor does not get it. The only difference is, Labor is going back to 1992—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler.
Mr HOCKEY: We are moving with the times and recognising today that Qantas is facing immediate challenges from a full-service operator in the domestic market.
The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta
Mr HOCKEY: It is also facing an enormous amount of competition from offshore which has helped Qantas to lose a massive amount of their global market share. The fundamental point is: what about the future? And the future is about getting rid of the Qantas Sale Act 2002, getting rid of the carbon tax and letting Qantas compete on a level playing field with every other airline that is now taking market share from Qantas.
The SPEAKER: Before I could give the call to the member for McMahon, who I understand has something he wishes to table, the wall of noise coming from my left will not be tolerated. Should it persist, there will be many who will leave the chamber. Member for McMahon, do you wish to table the document?
Mr BOWEN: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the transcript of a doorstop interview with the now Treasurer, the then shadow Treasurer, from 1 pm, Tuesday, 16 December 2009.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted? Leave is not granted.
Infrastructure
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (14:40): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. I refer the assistant minister to his statement on 13 December 2013 that the government will provide funding to the South Australian state government to complete the business case for the Darlington interchange. Will the assistant minister update the House on the status of this report and is he aware of any cost variations to building this vital infrastructure project?
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:40): I thank the member for Boothby for that question—a long-time supporter of the Darlington interchange project. He took it to the 2007 election as a commitment and then to the 2013 election and fought for it. He convinced the infrastructure Prime Minister that it is a priority and he had a substantial swing to him. I congratulate him on that.
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide is warned!
Mr BRIGGS: It is an important piece of infrastructure, so important that in November 2008 the then member for infrastructure, the member for Grayndler, announced that he thought we should go ahead with it.
The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide will excuse herself from the House under 94(a).
The member for Adelaide then left the chamber.
Mr BRIGGS: In fact, in 2009, the member for Grayndler, the then minister for infrastructure, said that he would award a $6 million contract for a planning study for it and he did. He said:
At the completion of this study, we will know exactly what is possible and what the preferred scheme is. The project will be then ready to go to tender.
It never went to tender.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will desist.
Mr BRIGGS: In fact, it still does not have a plan. In 2013, when we came to government, the infrastructure Prime Minister said, 'We want to get on with South Road and build a north-south corridor.'
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston will desist or leave the chamber.
Mr BRIGGS: The infrastructure Prime Minister was convinced by Steven Marshall, the leader of the Liberal Party in South Australia, that we should do the whole corridor in a decade. We looked in the cupboard, we looked for the study the former minister had paid for and it was not there. There was no plan. So we funded a plan and we asked for it to be done by the end of February. In the meantime, there have been several cost estimates. Today, we still do not know what the cost estimate is for this project. In 2008, when the then minister announced it, it was $750 million. Then in August 2013, the minister in the South Australian government, Minister Koutsantonis, the next leader of the Labor Party, said the project would be a billion dollars. In fact, standing next to the member for Grayndler in the election campaign, Minister Koutsantonis said it was $1.8 billion.
On 21 January, in Labor's jobs plan, the Premier of South Australia said it was $600 million. Then in February this year Premier Jay Weatherill said it was $830 million. Then last week, Tom Koutsantonis said it was $600 million. So they do not know and this is the problem. Last night, Jay Weatherill, adopting the Mark Latham tactics to debates, attacked again the infrastructure Prime Minister, rather than talking to the infrastructure Prime Minister as Steven Marshall is doing.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will desist.
Mr BRIGGS: If South Australians elect Steven Marshall next weekend, they will get a north-south corridor in a decade in conjunction with the infrastructure Prime Minister.
Qantas
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:43): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Deputy Prime Minister's promise this morning about Qantas where he said:
No one is going to reduce its Australianism and the number of employees that it has in this country …
On the other hand, given the government's proposed changes that will move Australian maintenance engineering and cabin crew jobs overseas, will the Prime Minister give the same promise to Qantas employees as did the Deputy Prime Minister this morning?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:44): We want Qantas to operate under the same rules that Virgin does. Virgin employs almost 10,000 people here in Australia. Virgin is flying millions of Australians around Australia every week. Virgin is servicing planes in Australia. If you want to operate an airline in Australia, you have got to have staff in Australia. If you want to operate an airline in Australia, you have got to have planes serviced in Australia.
Mr Shorten: Madam Speaker, on a point of order of direct relevance: is the Prime Minister going to give the same promise that the Deputy Prime Minister gave—that they will guarantee no reduction in jobs?
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. A question was asked about employment. The Prime Minister is answering.
Mr ABBOTT: The problem with this Leader of the Opposition is that not only is he verballing the Deputy Prime Minister, not only is he defaming Qantas, not only is he running down Virgin—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will desist.
Mr ABBOTT: I said this is a man who is running down Virgin and he is. He is running down Virgin, talking down Qantas and, frankly, it is conduct unbecoming of an alternative—
Mr Burke: Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 86 for points of order, are there any points of order or standing orders that are relevant when the Prime Minister is on his feet?
The SPEAKER: That is an abuse of the standing orders and the member will resume his seat or remove himself, one or the other.
Mr ABBOTT: I am doing my best to understand the position of members opposite. What members opposite seem to be saying is that—
Mr Perrett: It is very ordinary. Delusions of adequacy, that is what you have got.
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton is warned.
Mr ABBOTT: we, the then opposition, the coalition, should have supported a proposal to remove the 25 per cent and 35 per cent restrictions in 2009. That I think is the position of the Labor Party that we should have supported in 2009. Well, let me put this to members opposite: if we were wrong then, they are wrong now. That is the absolute logic of their position. If members opposite believe that the 25 per cent and 35 per cent rules should go, well, support the government. Let us get rid of the Qantas Sale Act because the 25 per cent and 35 per cent rules are the very heart of the Qantas Sale Act that we want to repeal.
I am all in favour of Qantas surviving and flourishing. I just want it to operate under the same rules that Virgin does. I beg of members opposite, who I think are genuinely concerned for jobs: do not discriminate against Qantas by continuing to subject Qantas to the rules that Virgin does not have to run under. If it is right for Virgin, it is right for Qantas. That is what this government wants the parliament to support.
Asylum Seekers
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (14:48): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister inform the House of any current calls to reopen immigration detention centres in Australia? What is the government's response to such a request?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:48): I thank the member for Braddon for his question. I am sure the federal member for Braddon would agree, as would the Prime Minister, that, if there is a Liberal candidate for the state seat of Braddon in the upcoming Tasmanian elections, the former Senator Guy Barnett would make an excellent member for Braddon in the Tasmanian parliament.
The member for Braddon will know that the government's strong border protection policies are designed to do three things in particular: firstly, to stop the deaths that were occurring at sea; secondly, to restore access to the offshore refugee program that was being denied by the previous government's failures—where more than 15,000 people missed out on permanent protection visas while waiting offshore because those visas went to people who came on a boat; and thirdly, to stop the cost.
More than $11 billion in budget blowouts occurred under the previous government's failures. One of the most significant of those was the massive expansion in the onshore detention network which occurred as a result of their border failures. You could say that it was a 'building the detention centre revolution' that the previous government was running. They turned it into their own economic stimulus program all around the country which even extended to Tasmania.
In relation to these issues we are having success. I can inform the House today that it is 76 days since there has been a successful people smuggling venture to Australia. I can inform the House that there are an additional 4,000, at minimum, extra places in the special humanitarian program, which was ground down under the previous government because they gave those visas to people who came on boats.
I can inform the House, as I announced earlier this year, that this government has already closed four immigration detention centres at Pontville, at Port Augusta, at Scherger and at Leonora, which represents savings of $88 million every single year. And there will be more closures of these centres because that is the dividend of stronger border protection policies. But I am disappointed to say that there are some parties in this country, particularly in the Tasmanian state election, that want to reopen detention centres. In particular the Greens in Tasmania are saying—after going against detention centres for all their political lives—that they want to reopen the Pontville detention centre.
In addition to that, the Labor candidate for Denison is also saying that she wants the Pontville detention centre to reopen and wants to send women and children there. It was the policy of the former immigration minister, now the Manager of Opposition Business, to get women and children out of that centre. So I am unclear about what the policy of the Labor Party is. What I do know is that when I say 'offshore processing' I do not mean Tasmania, and we will not be reopening the centre in Pontville.
Qantas
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (14:51): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to his comment this morning relating to Qantas:
No one is going to reduce its Australianism and the number of employees that it has in this country …
Given the Prime Minister's refusal to endorse your position, and the fact that the government's proposed changes to the Qantas Sale Act will allow Qantas to move maintenance workers, cabin crew and engineers offshore, does he stand by his comments—that no Australian jobs will be lost—of just hours ago?
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I put it to you that a question cannot simply be a false assertion followed by political rhetoric. His statement about the Prime Minister's answer to the earlier question is simply false. The opposition needs to sharpen up their act when it comes to questions but this question certainly cannot stand.
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler on the point of order?
Mr Albanese: It was very clear; it is in the transcript from the Deputy Prime Minister on the doors this morning.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr Albanese: I am happy to table it, so he can remember what he said.
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.
Mr Albanese: I was trying to help.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, I do not require the help of the member for Grayndler. On the point of order raised by the Leader of the House: there is plenty of precedent for statements being made which are refuted in answers, and I am sure ministers are very capable of making their case. I call the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:53): Maybe the opposition has not quite figured it out, but Qantas is still 60 per cent Australian owned and, yet, unfortunately, it has had to announce that 5,000 people will no longer be required to operate its services within Australia. So here it is, a majority Australian owned airline announcing 5,000 redundancies. The reality is, whether an airline is foreign owned or Australian owned, it is going to require a large number of employees to operate its services and provide its facilities in this country. It is not practical to fly those people in and out every day so that they can run a service from Melbourne to Adelaide. Whether the airline is 100 per cent owned by Australians or 100 per cent owned by people from other parts of the world, they are still going to need Australian jobs to provide these kinds of services. Frankly, my assessment would be that a foreign owned airline would require the same number of people to run a service in Australia as an Australia owned airline would.
I hope that in the future Qantas will continue to grow and expand and provide more services across this nation. If it does, then it is going to employ more Australians. If we pass the legislation that is currently before the parliament, that will give Qantas the best possible opportunity to grow and expand its services and to provide more Australian jobs, more opportunities for young Australians to work in the industry and more opportunities for Australia to enjoy the quality services that Qantas provides at the present time.
Virgin provides jobs, even though Virgin is part foreign owned. Qantas provides jobs. It has some level of foreign ownership. Rex provides jobs in this country, even though it has a high level of foreign ownership. The ownership of the company does not in any way change the absolutely fundamental fact that to run air services in Australia you need to employ Australians—and many thousands of them.
Ukraine
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (14:55): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the recent developments and the situation in Ukraine?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:56): I thank the member for Mitchell for his question. I note his longstanding interest in foreign affairs and the concerns of Ukrainians in his electorate of Mitchell. I can inform the House that the situation in Ukraine remains highly charged and volatile. Overnight, the travel advisory of the Australian government was updated to urge Australians who are considering travel to Ukraine or who are currently there to reconsider their need to travel or their need to remain in Ukraine, and in any event to register on the government's website Smartraveller.
Given the volatile situation in Ukraine, my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and I announced today visa provisions to allow Ukrainian nationals in Australia temporary refuge from returning home while their nation is under threat. Ukrainian nationals who are currently in Australia on a visa due to expire and who may be affected by the unrest in the Ukraine will be able to approach the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and make an application to receive an extension of their visa for a temporary period. I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her support for that change.
We are concerned by reports that Russia has increased its military presence in Crimea. We reiterate our view that Russia's aggressive acts against Ukraine, an independent sovereign nation, are totally unacceptable. Australia joins with other nations across the globe in demanding that Russia take the lead in de-escalating the tensions, that it pull its troops back to base, and that it demonstrate its respect for Ukraine's sovereignty. In that regard, we welcome the visit to Ukraine by US Secretary of State, John Kerry, demonstrating solidarity for Ukraine and its people and their sovereignty.
We are stressing the importance of dialogue and diplomacy. Australia has made its position clear in the now three debates that have been undertaken in the United Nations Security Council over recent days. In the meantime, I am in contact with the Australian ambassador in Moscow and with our head of mission in Warsaw, and we are working with heads of mission in the region generally, to register our concerns officially with the host governments and to ensure that we are providing consular support to any Australians who may be affected by this crisis.
I note that Ukraine's charge d'affaires, who appeared before the joint standing committee today, acknowledged the strong stand that has been taken by our Prime Minister and by the government. We reaffirm our support for Ukraine and its people.
Ukraine
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:59): Madam Speaker, on indulgence—I seek leave to associate the opposition with the minister's remarks.
The SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
Ms PLIBERSEK: The opposition remains deeply concerned by the situation in Ukraine. We urge restraint and dialogue. We call on Russia to abide by the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances for Ukraine. We support the United Nations Secretary-General's call for preservation of Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty. The United Nations Security Council has also met to discuss the unfolding situation, and Australia should use our membership of the Security Council to continue to make our position very clear. We support the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary's call for Ukraine not to rise to provocation, and we support the strong statements that we have heard from the United States, from NATO countries and others, including offers of economic support for Ukraine. The opposition stand ready to support all of the Australian government's efforts to de-escalate tensions in Ukraine.
Indonesia
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, tomorrow it will be 100 days since it was announced that the government would sign a code of ethics agreement with Indonesia. Prime Minister, when will the code be signed?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:00): As I think members all around this chamber would know, there has been a period of some difficulty in our relationship with Indonesia. I deeply regret that. I want to ensure members on both sides of this chamber that, as far as this government is concerned, we want the strongest possible relationship with Indonesia. We want the trusted partnership to be resumed at the earliest possible moment. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is in the closest possible contact with officials in Jakarta, and I am confident that the memorandum of understanding that the shadow member refers to will be signed as quickly as possible. Certainly there will not be delays on the part of this government.
Broadband
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (15:02): My question is to the Minister for Communications. What is the government doing to ensure Australians have access to fast broadband? What is the government doing to ensure Australians have access to broadband-enabled telehealth services?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (15:02): I thank the honourable member for her question and for her continuing interest and support for the government's policy on ensuring that all Australians have access to very fast broadband sooner, cheaper and more affordably.
The previous government committed more than $20 million to a telehealth trial, but there was a catch. The only people eligible for the trial were those who had access to the NBN's fibre network—in other words, hardly anyone at all. No-one, in fact, in the honourable member's seat of McPherson was eligible—not one. There was no access at all to telehealth under Labor in the seat of McPherson. The Minister for Health and I recognised that this was an obvious shortcoming, and so the Department of Health has announced that telehealth services under the trial can be delivered by a range of broadband access services. It is technology agnostic. So, whether it is fibre or cable or copper or wireless, the important thing is to ensure that people get the service.
There are some limitations to telehealth services. There are some conditions that are arguably incurable and inaccessible. Take Conrovianism. Conrovianism is a very pernicious problem. It has devastating symptoms.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston!
Mr Dreyfus: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order: relevance.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I call the Minister for Communications.
Mr TURNBULL: One of the symptoms of Conrovianism is a denial of reality and delusions of grandeur, and imagining oneself to be a movie character. The member for Isaacs, for example, does not know—
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Wentworth talking about delusions of grandeur is out of order because it is against the standing order on irony.
The SPEAKER: If the member for Grayndler tries that again, he will be out immediately.
Mr TURNBULL: The symptoms of this condition include loss of hearing, denial of reality, shouting abuse at unpredictable moments and lack of empathy for people on lower incomes—hence, those afflicted by Conrovianism don't care that they were going to put the cost of broadband up by 80 per cent, $43 a month.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston will excuse herself from the House under 94(a).
The member for Kingston then left the chamber.
Mr TURNBULL: Madam Speaker, could I have the clock back a bit? We lost a bit of time then.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: Madam Speaker, it is very hard to be heard. Seriously, this syndrome is—
The SPEAKER: If we have another outbreak like that, there will be several who will be removed immediately.
Mr TURNBULL: There may be no cure for Conrovianism for those who suffer from it—as we have seen today—but one of the virtues of the coalition's broadband policy is that it will at least stop the spread of Conrovianism. We commit to stopping its spread and to ensuring that in the future broadband policy is governed competently and prudently.
Ministerial Staff: Code of Conduct
Ms KING (Ballarat) (15:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that a censure motion is being debated in the Senate against the Assistant Minister for Health for breaching the ministerial standards, for failing to produce documents and for misleading the parliament? When will the Prime Minister act and sack this minister?
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Prime Minister, I would say to the member for Ballarat that this House is not responsible for the business in another place. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:07): I can inform the shadow minister opposite that ministers who behave inappropriately will be punished. But no-one has done anything wrong in the case that this shadow minister is so preoccupied with. Not a single person has done anything wrong in this case—no-one; nothing. No-one has done anything wrong. Nothing wrong has been done.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will remove himself under 94(a).
The member for Isaacs then left the chamber—
Mr ABBOTT: Not only is there no fire; there is not even any smoke. Frankly, Labor should find a different tree to bark up.
Health
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (15:08): My question is to the Minister for Health. How is the government working to improve health care in my electorate of Lyons and what have been the outcomes of the rollout of the GP superclinics program across Australia?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (15:08): I thank the member for Lyons for his question. He is a person who has a great interest in seeing health services in his electorate improved. There are a couple of ways of approaching health. The Liberal way is to make sure that we put more into frontline services. We want to make sure that we can stop Labor's waste and get more money back to doctors and nurses to deliver the very, very important services that we will need not only today but also over coming decades.
There is of course another way to approach the health portfolio, and that is the Labor way. The Labor way is to build great big new bureaucracies. When they were in government the former Minister for Health, Minister Plibersek, the member for Sydney, presided over the creation of 12 new bureaucracies which took money away from the people of Lyons and other electorates around the country. She took the health services away to pay for these new bureaucrats. It was a novel approach to health services, but it did not deliver better services. That is the problem. When you dig into the failed superclinics program, you see that Labor wasted hundreds of millions of dollars. They wasted a billion dollars in the failed e-health program. They put more money into bureaucracies and other areas that just did not afford services to frontline doctors and nurses who wanted to help patients.
Let us take a look at the Sorrell GP superclinic. I notice that former minister Plibersek is taking notes on this. I have her former press releases if she wants them. The Sorrell GP superclinic was promised in September 2007. Let us look at the scenario for the member for Lyons of the expectant mother who looked at this press release from the former minister and said, 'This is great; there is a superclinic going into the electorate of Lyons. I might go and see a doctor at this new superclinic.' Of course, the baby would now be 3½ years old, but the Sorrell superclinic never opened. They have never seen a patient.
There was $2½ million promised for the Sorrell superclinic. The federal government at the time, the Labor Party, screwed up this contract and they wasted $500,000 of taxpayers' money. It has never been built. It has never seen a patient, not in 2007 when it was promised; not in 2008; not in 2009; not even in 2010, when they promised this clinic again—twice over! It was good value for the Labor Party—$2½ million and you get two election promises out of it—but it was a bad deal for patients. It was a bad deal for mums who want to take their sick kids to see a doctor—because it was never delivered.
Indeed, over half of the clinics promised under the failed superclinic model were never delivered. This was a shocking minister, not a super minister. The former minister failed the Australian people and she is failing the Australian people again in this portfolio.
Mr Abbott: Madam Speaker, after 21 well-answered questions, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Qantas
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (15:12): Madam Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.
The SPEAKER: The minister may proceed.
Mr HOCKEY: For the benefit of the House I advise that in 2003 Qantas's domestic market share was 74 per cent, in 2008 it was 51 per cent and today it is 44 per cent. At an international level, in 2003 its market share was 33 per cent, in 2008 it was 26 per cent and today it is 17 per cent. Jetstar in 2008 had 16 per cent and now it has 21 per cent and Jetstar international had 5.7 per cent and it is 8.1 per cent today—clearly indicating that the traditional Qantas brand has massively lost market share, together with the market cap of the Qantas group.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:12): Madam Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr SHORTEN: I certainly have, by the Prime Minister in question time. He alleged that I was talking down our airlines. Qantas and its staff do a great job. Virgin and its staff do a great job. I have been through it and I have seen the costs.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr SHORTEN: I am just appalled at this government sending our jobs overseas.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He knows perfectly well that, when you are dealing with an area where you claim to have been misrepresented, it is not a debate; it is simply a statement of where it occurred and what the correction is.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:13): Madam Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ALBANESE: I do, Madam Speaker. Today in question time the Prime Minister stated that I had supported the removal of the foreign ownership restrictions that require Qantas to be majority Australian owned. That is not true. The aviation white paper was put out publicly in December 2009 and it is available for all to see.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:14): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (15:14): I present report No. 5 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday, 17 March 2014. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today 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, 4 March 2014.
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, 17 March 2014, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs:
Statement to the House on the Committee ' s roundtable on drones and privacy.
The Committee determined that statements may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.15 am.
Speech time limits—
Mr Christensen — 5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR PALMER to present a Bill for an Act to provide for a Parliamentary Joint Committee to investigate establishing an Australia Fund, and for related purposes. (Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australia Fund Bill 2014) (Notice given 13February 2014.)
Time allotted—10 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Mr Palmer — 10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.
2 MR CONROY to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the proud naval shipbuilding history of Australia;
(2) notes that:
(a) the ability to build and maintain naval ships is essential to our national defence capability;
(b) over 4,000 skilled workers are currently employed in the Naval Shipbuilding Industry throughout Australia, most notably in Port Adelaide, Williamstown, Sydney, the Hunter and Henderson;
(c) as current contracted work reaches the end of the production phase, these jobs and shipyards will begin to come under threat; and
(d) once these jobs and skills are lost, it will be very difficult for the industry to be re-established; and
(3) calls on the Government to continue the work begun by the last Government and to provide additional Commonwealth contracts to ensure that these jobs and valuable skills are not lost. (Notice 13February 2014.)
Time allotted—30 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Mr Conroy — 5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MS GAMBARO to move:
That this House:
(1) expresses grave concern regarding the escalation of tensions in Ukraine, in particular, the decision of the Russian Parliament to authorise the use of force within Ukraine;
(2) calls on the:
(a) Russian Government to respect Ukraine's sovereignty, withdraw its troops and open channels for dialogue with Ukraine; and
(b) Ukraine Government to continue to exercise restraint in the face of provocation; and
(3) acknowledges the steps taken by the Australian Government in support of a peaceful resolution to the dispute.
Time allotted—35 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Ms Gambaro — 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 + 3 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MR THISTLETHWAITE to move:
That this House:
(1) notes the:
(a) importance of the Australian aid program to sustainable economic and social development and poverty alleviation for Pacific nations;
(b) contribution of the Australian aid program to Australia's national interests through support for regional stability, security and prosperity;
(c) Foreign Minister's verbal commitment to not cut Australian development assistance to Pacific nations; and
(d) announcement by the Foreign Minister on 18 January 2014 that $650 million will be cut from Australia's development assistance in 2013-14, including $61.4 million cuts to the following Pacific country and regional programs:
Program |
Cuts |
Papua New Guinea |
$5.3 million |
Solomon Islands |
$14.2 million |
Vanuatu |
$6.2 million |
Samoa |
$3.6 million |
Fiji |
$2.8 million |
Tonga |
$2.7 million |
Kiribati |
$3 million |
Other Small Pacific Islands |
$3.6 million |
Pacific Regional |
$20 million |
(2) calls on the:
(a) Foreign Minister to meet her commitment to not cut Australian development assistance to Pacific nations; and
(b) Government to reverse its $4.5 billion in cuts to Australia's aid program and reinstate funding to levels published in the 2013-14 budget.
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.
Speech time limits—
Mr Thistlethwaite—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR E. T. JONES to move:
That this House notes:
(1) the importance of investing in infrastructure to improve Australia's competitiveness;
(2) the Bruce Highway covers approximately 1,700 kilometres and is the major arterial connecting Queensland seaboard communities and economic centres;
(3) Queensland and our nation cannot achieve our full economic potential without a safe, reliable and efficient Bruce Highway; and
(4) the Government is already delivering on its commitment to upgrade important sections of the Bruce Highway. (Notice given 24February 2014; amended 28February 2014.)
Time allotted—60 minutes .
Mr E. T. Jones — 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MS RISHWORTH to move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the importance of a well-resourced dental system in improving the oral health of our most vulnerable citizens; and
(b) that well trained and well supported dental graduates are critical to improving the oral health of our nation;
(2) shows extreme concern at the Government's announcement to cut $40 million from the Voluntary Dental Graduate Program (VDGP); and
(3) calls on the Government to reverse this decision and ensure that the 36 public dental services that were set to host the VDGP in 2014 are able to do so. (Notice given 11February 2014.)
Time allotted—30 minutes .
Ms Rishworth — 5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 Mrs K. L. Andrews to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) there are three significant netball events approaching over the next four years, the:
(i) Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014;
(ii) Netball World Cup in Sydney in August 2015; and
(iii) Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast in 2018; and
(b) netball:
(i) continues to be one of the most popular sports in Australia with the highest participation rate of any team sport amongst girls; and
(ii) has been identified as not only having notable fitness benefits but also significantly decreasing the likelihood of depression; and
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) Australia's elite netball players have opportunities to interact with parliamentarians as they prepare for the upcoming Commonwealth Games and the Netball World Cup;
(b) the Australian media plays an important role in highlighting the role that netball has in our cultural identity, which in turn promotes the sport and increases participation rates; and
(c) Netball Australia should be congratulated for its impact in boosting the profile of women in sport, providing its members with valuable leadership skills and supporting world-class athletes. (Notice given 24February 2014.)
Time allotted—30 minutes .
Mrs K. L. Andrews — 5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 Ms Ryan to move:
That this House:
(1) notes the importance of investing in local communities to assist them in meeting future challenges and seizing future opportunities;
(2) acknowledges that the Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF) Round 5 and 5b commitments, which were announced and budgeted for by the former Government, were an opportunity for regional communities to address their challenges of growth whilst also providing economic activity and job creation;
(3) recognises that the withdrawal of these funding commitments will adversely affect every local council across Australia that was relying on the RDAF Round 5 and 5b funding; and
(4) calls on the Government to immediately reinstate the funding as previously promised and budgeted for, thereby enabling communities to continue with certainty the projects they so desperately need. (Notice given 11December 2013.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.
Ms Ryan—5 minutes .
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this s hould continue on a future day.
BILLS
National Health Amendment (Simplified Price Disclosure) Bill 2013
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Economy
The SPEAKER (15:15): I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to have a plan for the Australian economy and Australian jobs
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:15): When it comes to economic management, it is very clear that the Liberal Party had a plan to win the last election but did not have a plan for government. They know how to fight for votes; they do not know how to fight for jobs. I have to confess—and some of my colleagues might be disappointed in this—that I have some sympathy for the Liberal Party in this regard, because it has all proven to be a lot harder than they thought it would.
They thought their election would magically improve the economy. They thought that, by their very genius, by their very being, the economy would improve the day after the election—that they would not have to do anything about it. The now Treasurer, when he was shadow Treasurer, said:
I think companies will unleash their balance sheets, and I think consumers will as well if there is a change of government.
The now Prime Minister—and this is even better—said:
I am confident that should there be a change of government later in the year there will be an instantaneous adrenaline charge in our economy.
This was going to happen just by the very election of a Liberal government!
It is time to check in and see how that instantaneous adrenaline charge is coming along. When I pointed out to the Treasurer, when he was shadow Treasurer, that putting a levy on big business and getting rid of franking credits would impact on the retirement incomes of millions of Australians, he said: 'No, you do not understand—the economy is going to be so much better under us. Profits are going to be higher and everything will be all right. Don't worry about the fact that we are increasing taxes. Just don't worry about that.' Just by their very election they were going to make things better.
But have things got better with the election of the Abbott government? Let us check in and have a look. We have seen 63,000 full-time jobs lost since the election of the Abbott government. As the member for Kingsford Smith reminds us, they promised to create a million over five years, yet we have seen 63,000 go. These job losses are not the job losses that have recently been announced—not the job losses announced at Holden or Qantas, where people are waiting to know their fate—these are jobs that are already gone. They have already disappeared from the Australian economy. The recent announcements of job losses are over and above that. These figures see 2013 as the worst calendar year for job losses since 1992—and almost all of those job losses occurred under the watch of the Liberal government. There were 14,000 job losses in all the months up until September and well over 50,000 in the months between September and Christmas.
Last week some figures came out on capital expenditure. Capital expenditure is a very important indicator of the health of the economy. The figures tell us whether businesses are investing, whether businesses are growing. The figures showed a decline in capital investment of 5.2 per cent. Some adrenaline! Some turbocharge to the economy resulting from the election of the Abbott government! The reported fall in capital expenditure is the worst outcome since the global financial crisis. I asked the Prime Minister about this in the House last week and he gave—and I say this objectively—one of the most bizarre answers ever to be given at that dispatch box. The Prime Minister told us:
We are marching to the rescue of this nation from the wreckage that we inherited from members opposite.
They must sing 'Onward Liberal Soldiers' at the beginning of every party meeting as they march to the rescue of the nation—to save us from the wreckage they say the previous government left them.
Let us have a look at the state of the economy they inherited. The International Monetary Fund said in a report that Australia's economy was growing and that it had low public debt, low unemployment compared to comparable countries and inflation well under control. This was at the end of Labor's period in office. But that is not good enough for this government and this Treasurer. No, they had to bring out a midyear economic forecast to match their rhetoric about the state of the economy they had inherited. We saw very interesting evidence before the Senate estimates committee last week. We saw Dr Tune provide evidence to the Senate that the forecasts and the assumptions in the midyear economic forecast were put in at the discretion of the government—not the Department of Finance, not the Treasury, but at the discretion of the government.
Madam Speaker, I am going to seek your guidance because I am going to quote from an article by Michael Pascoe which was published yesterday. It says:
No matter how much he scowls, the evidence keeps mounting that his MYEFO (mid-year economic and fiscal outlook) forecasts were a crock.
I presume that is parliamentary, Madam Speaker. I am quoting from an article. But I will take your guidance if you choose to give it.
The SPEAKER: I will give you some guidance. The bottom line is that you cannot use unparliamentary language, but in the circumstances there is nothing wrong with the quote.
Mr BOWEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am glad you endorse the quote.
The SPEAKER: Order! That is just too smug by half. The member for McMahon will withdraw.
Mr BOWEN: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. Mr Pascoe went on to say:
So where's the ''budget crisis'' Hockey was spouting last May or the more general ''budget emergency'' that has become a government catch cry? It doesn't exist as advertised.
We saw the executive director of Fiscal Group of the Treasury, Mr Ray, again provide evidence to the Senate estimates committee that the budget position was sound.
We need to see from this government a plan in order to ensure that they continue to grow the economy and that jobs are created. I am going to say that I agree with the Treasurer. He says that today's national accounts figures need to be improved on. They do. He says that they do not provide enough economic growth to create enough jobs for unemployment to go down. He is right; I agree—and we need to see a plan to fix it. One plan would be good. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister like to have parallel plans when it comes to big issues facing the nation and they leak against each other and they background and they speculate about what the plans are going to be.
But how about a plan which did not see business tax increased by putting a levy on Australia's businesses? How about a plan which does not see an increase in small business tax by reversing Labor's pro-small business reforms? How about a plan which does not see businesses pay more tax because loss carry-back is abolished under this government? We need to see an adrenaline charge to investment. We need to see the reduction in mining investment being made up for in other sectors of the economy. Do you do that by increasing taxes, by putting a tax on business to pay for the $5 billion a year Paid Parental Leave scheme? Is that how you get an adrenaline charge in the economy? Do you do that by saying to Australia's self-funded retirees and superannuants, 'We are going to tax you more so that we can give $75,000 cheque to millionaires?' Is that how you turbocharge the economy? Is that how you get more investment from the non-mining sector? No, it is not. We need to see a plan that sees the rest of the economy making up for the decline in investment from the mining sector.
But what do we get from this government? All we get is blame. It is somebody else's fault. It is Labor's fault. It is Gough Whitlam's fault. It is Ben Chifley's fault. It is somebody else's fault. Or it is the workers' fault: the workers are paid too much on $50,000 a year. Or there is a wages explosion happening, the Minister for Workplace Relations tells us, a wages explosion which just happens to see the lowest wages growth since records began, which sees wages growing at 2.6 per cent per annum. Some explosion in wages! All we see is blame and excuses. From a government which told us there would be no surprises and no excuses, we see exactly the opposite. As the parliamentary secretary to the shadow Treasurer says, the Prime Minister has got a sign on his desk: the buck stops somewhere else. The buck stops somewhere else when it comes to this Prime Minister. He has to explain to the Australian people what his plan for their future is. Is it to put a levy on business? Yes, it is. How does that create jobs? He is yet to tell us. He has not faced the workers who have lost their jobs. He has not been to Geelong, as the Leader of the Opposition and I, Senator Carr and the member for Corio have and spoken to those workers—
Ms Henderson: He lives there.
Mr BOWEN: The Prime Minister lives in Geelong, apparently, the member for Corangamite tells us. That is quite a revelation—great news, or maybe not for the people of Geelong, but never mind. More importantly, he needs to provide a plan for the future. He needs to provide a plan for Australian jobs, because all he has provided so far is excuses, and pathetic ones at that.
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (15:26): What a disappointing effort that was. It just shows you that Labor has learnt nothing. In fact, what we just heard from the shadow Treasurer is testimony to Labor's contribution in this parliament: stuck in the past, trying to defend its poor and punishing legacy and performing as if parliamentary life is a picket line. We did not hear one constructive idea whatsoever from Labor, and that does reflect where they are at, still licking their wounds after the electorate of Australia said, 'Enough is enough of this poor government that is driving our economy and our opportunities into a hole.' That is what they said about Labor and that is why the election was a resounding message that change was required.
What we have just heard from the shadow Treasurer is that apparently everything was just peachy, everything was just spectacular, everything was just where it wanted to be in the sweet numbers coming out of Labor. Why on earth would the electorate have wanted to change such a great bequest of genius and governance? Why? Because that was not the case at all. What we saw from Labor was 200,000 more unemployed people than was the case when they were elected, gross debt projected to rise on Labor's policy settings to $667 billion. Let us make it easy for those opposite, let us round it up to $700 billion to give you an idea. That number does not sound too big, does it, but it is actually seven with 11 zeros after it. It is an enormous number, and that is the bequest that Labor left. We saw cumulative deficits adding challenges and financial cost and burden not only to future generations but undermining our choices about what to do with the resources that are available to the government. The 50,000 illegal arrivals, the biggest carbon tax you have ever seen, 412,000 jobs lost in small business. I have made the point in this place that a small business job is a local job, a small business job is an Australian job. Do you know why Labor does not care about them? Because they are probably not a union job. The only time you hear Labor talk about a job is when they have been wound up by their union overlords to make a big deal and come back into this place as if this is an extension of the picket line. Well, life is not like that, Labor.
Let me share with you a simple observation that the Australian electorate sought to share with your previous government at the election: things were not going great, things were not peachy. Many of those economic trajectories that we went to the election to change, to seek a mandate to go about things differently to build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure nation where opportunity is within reach, where we could be our very best. That is what they voted for. They voted for something that Labor did not have, and that is a plan. We had a plan. We have a plan. This continues to be our guiding plan.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr BILLSON: Those opposite might heckle. They have got nothing to wave around except an appalling legacy and this commentary and this obfuscation as we as a nation know and this government knows that things need to be changed. We cannot stay on the trajectory that Labor had this nation on. We have outlined to you the financial problems you were creating and the embedded obstacles and costs that are costing jobs long after you went. The world does not change immediately, and you seem to think you should be proud of yourselves, because you are standing in the road of the very changes that are needed to build opportunity, create jobs growth in this economy and put our nation back on track. That is Labor's entire raison d'etre these days: be stuck in the past, try to account for their woeful legacy, perform as if life is a picket line and obstruct the very plan that needs to be implemented.
What is that plan about? The plan that the Abbott government is working very hard every day to implement is about seeing to it that workers and job seekers in Australia have more opportunities to build that stronger, more prosperous economy. That is why we want to scrap the carbon tax. What is it about Labor and this friendless tax that works as a reverse tariff and is increasing our challenge to be competitive and secure opportunities for ourselves? Why do Labor want to keep saddling up our economy with a tax that is not even effective in doing much about climate change but is particularly punishing and hostile to jobs, to opportunities and to small business? What do Labor want to do? They come in here wanting to talk about jobs and people's livelihoods and then do all they can to gum up policy measures that are designed to improve job prospects for our country, enhance people's livelihoods and build our economy. We can deliver opportunities through growth, by giving the economy the support it needs so people will invest and by having an adult government that does not make things up on the run but does its predictable work and consults with those that are interested and have expertise rather than coming in with a thought bubble masquerading as a policy idea—doing the hard work of policy, not the lazy Labor approach of chasing headlines as some kind of substitute for sound government. That is why we want to get rid of the carbon tax.
It is as if you do not believe the electorate but live in some la-la land where the carbon tax is actually helpful to people making a decision to invest or employ and is helpful to the viability of businesses that are an essential precondition to someone having a job. The show needs to be profitable, you guys. You might not know a private sector business unless you are out on the picket line in front of one, but there need to be viable businesses, and then opportunities are available, jobs can be provided and incomes can be paid. That is how it works. It is not that complicated. All the carbon tax does is to make that process more difficult and put us at a disadvantage, particularly in manufacturing. The Labor Party wring their hands, but manufacturers need to be world class every day; otherwise we do not secure the opportunities that are within our reach, because we disadvantage ourselves in that contest for work and the opportunity that is there. We want to make it our own, but you want to make it harder. You want to keep the carbon tax.
Today you have heard this chorus from the leading business groups, the representatives of those that create the private sector opportunities, saying: 'Labor, please back the carbon tax repeal in the Senate. Please do something constructive and helpful for jobs in the economy. Please do something to address the already difficult conditions that were created by Labor mismanagement and poor governance over the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government.' That is what they are saying, and they are also saying, 'Let the government get on with implementing its plan.' Is the only solution that Labor has to stand in the road of a plan that is designed to fix the damage that you have inflicted on this economy? Is that your strategy? Is your basic politicking over there on the Labor side to play spoiler for all of the action that you know is needed and that the electorate voted for when they said, 'Please, no more of the same; you've got us on a trajectory under Labor of loss of jobs, increasing numbers of unemployed and people uncertain about their economic futures'? Where is the merit in that argument of simply obstructing the work that needs to be done by a government that went to the electorate with a plan?
You have no plan. Let us get on with scrapping the carbon and mining taxes, slashing red tape, lowering taxes, reimposing the rule of law on construction sites, and creating a fair and competitive economy where big and small businesses that are efficient have the opportunity to compete. Let us get on with recognising that small business is the engine room of the economy and that growth in employment is so crucial. Why are you standing in the road of measures that are designed to support, and when implemented will support, small business in that crucial role of carrying the economy and delivering livelihoods and opportunities to our community? That is our plan. Labor has no plan. It has an excuse for its time in government. It has a blind spot about the consequences of its failed policy. It has nothing to offer in terms of a better policy prescription than our plan. All it wants to do is get in the road of the very plan that offers the best hope, reward and opportunity pathway for our country.
Labor have come in here with a motion in which they suggest they want to have a conversation about a plan for our economy and jobs, and the shadow Treasurer has not managed to make a single constructive contribution about the very motion he brings in here. Instead he has offered a commentary, cherry-picking a little bit of a remark here or something there that might be part of the doom and gloom agenda that Labor are trying to perpetrate across this economy when we have important work to do. We want to make changes. That is what the plan is about. We want to improve the settings for jobs and opportunity. That is what drives us. We want to secure jobs—better paying jobs—into the future, because we can compete, win work and profit from our enterprise. And what do Labor want to do? Just stand in the road of all of that effort.
So I have a bit of a tip here: why doesn't Labor recognise that the Abbott government is the government that we promised to be, that our plan is the plan that we articulated in great detail and that we are implementing the agenda that the Australian public voted for? Why don't you do that, Labor Party—or are you instead going to go around, find any opportunity for misery, disadvantage or lost opportunity, ignore the fact that those things are on the back of Labor's policy settings, and then stand in the road of the very tonic and strategy for the future that will bring about the stronger economy and jobs that this side of the parliament actually wants? (Time expired)
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (15:36): This is a Liberal government that today should be in absolute shock and shame. In fact, it should be coming in here and saying sorry to the Australian people for misleading them on jobs and to the economy for wrecking it. In a short period of six months, it has done more damage to this economy than could ever have been contemplated in the past. It is a government that, if it were not so arrogant, would be completely delusional. It is delusional about its own ability, about the economy, about jobs and particularly about the national interest. As we heard from the shadow Treasurer, the government just thought that, by having a plan to get to government, all the work was done. All it needed to do was get elected and the rest would just do itself.
You can see it every day in here with the pomp, the arrogance, the way that the ministers carry themselves and particularly the Prime Minister. He does not have anything to do. He has nothing to answer for, nothing to question, nothing to act on. 'Liberate everyone,' he says. 'Let's just liberate the economy and it'll fix itself. Let's liberate the workers from a job and they'll be better off because there must be a better job. Let's just liberate the economy. Let's just liberate everything.' Every answer to every problem that this government has to face has a simple solution. We just heard it from the Minister for Small Business. It is very simple: it will just fix itself. Let us just liberate the economy and it will fix itself.
I say that the Liberals should be in shock. They should actually be apologising. Somehow they think that from here, from this chamber, they are going to make the world a better place. The whole world would be a better place if only we could liberate Qantas from the future—liberate Qantas workers from their jobs! Well, we are starting to see the evidence of that now.
They came in on a promise to deliver one million jobs. They somehow would magically create a million jobs, even though for six years in opposition they always said that governments do not create jobs—except that now, coming into government, they say they create jobs. But we have seen the exact opposite. Their version of creating jobs is to liberate people from them. It just brings to my mind the image of William Wallace in Braveheart being liberated. When he was being liberated and being garrotted, he screamed, 'Freedom!' They must have this image over there that 5,000 Qantas workers, when they are being garrotted and Qantas is being garrotted, are somehow going to scream out: 'Freedom! We've been liberated from our jobs! How lucky are we!' Well, I think they might have something different in mind. There is no liberation for Qantas. There is no liberation for the economy. People are not being liberated from their jobs to find a better job. People will actually struggle and will suffer.
They think the answer to manufacturing, to innovation and to competition is just to give up. They do not actually have a plan: 'Let's just liberate manufacturing from itself, and it'll fix itself.' They talk about having a plan, but it is the Jaymie Diaz plan, a glossy brochure filled with emptiness. There is just nothing in it. How many pages? It was so blank that even Jaymie Diaz couldn't remember what was in it—of course, because it was blank. Saying you have a plan does not of itself mean you do. They come in here and keep saying, 'We have a plan.' I am yet to hear what it is, and I think the Qantas workers of this country want to know what it is. I think manufacturing in this country want to know what that plan is.
But, if the plan is simply to just give up, if the plan simply is to go out to the marketplace and mislead the market—lead them down the path where they believed something would happen, in the case of Qantas, only to find that was not the case, to find in fact that something very different would happen—I think that is a real problem. If the government were to apply the same corporate governance rules as it wants on super funds, unions, workers and everybody else—if they applied those same rules to themselves in terms of Qantas—you would find the regulator slapping them with a breach of corporate governance, with an enforceable undertaking, and saying, 'You've misled the market,' because that is exactly what the Liberal government have done.
So it is not good news. While they kept trashing the economy every single day for six years—the chief job of the then opposition leader was to come into this place and trash the economy, trash the national interest, trash jobs and trash everything he could—despite all of that and despite a global financial crisis, the worst in 75 years, Labor maintained uninterrupted economic growth for 22 continuous years. Despite all the efforts of this mob—and it is true; it is just a fact—22 uninterrupted years of economic growth continued under Labor for the six years we were in government. And, despite the fact that they have been elected for six months, it continues.
They are trying hard. They are trying to be the first government in 22 years to break that uninterrupted growth and smash it, smash manufacturing and smash Qantas. The national interest does not matter anymore. And, when it comes to small business, the hide of them to come in here and say they are their best friend, because they are taking away everything we did for direct assistance to small business! Shame on you, Liberals!
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (15:41): It is extraordinary to see this matter of public interest that has been put before the House. The Labor Party, I think, suffer from a little bit of what those in psychological circles call projection. The reality is that the Australian Labor Party for six years said that they had a plan for Australia. Those on this side of the House would recall that Labor's plan for Australia was to make sure that we were environmental contributors to the world's biggest carbon tax. Labor's plan for Australia was to introduce a superprofits tax. Originally it was going to be on banks, and then it was going to be on mining companies. That in some way was going to ensure the future guaranteed prosperity of our nation. Labor's plan for Australia was to borrow money at a record pace for our nation, indebting future generations of Australians for decades as part of their quest to keep the largesse going. Labor's plan was for the glorious social project to redistribute wealth across the top echelon and down to the workers. Those are all the kinds of rhetorical statements that we used to hear from Labor and the rationale that they put behind the various new taxes that Labor introduced.
In some respects, Labor were successful—in some respects. They succeeded in borrowing record amounts of money from abroad to redistribute that money. In other respects, they did introduce the world's biggest carbon tax, which in their first term, of course, they had ruled out and said they would not introduce. Labor did all of these things on the base of saying that it was good for Australians. But the fundamental problem is this: the Australian people that the Labor Party said they were helping, whom we have heard the member for Oxley just talk about and the shadow Treasurer also make comment on, have been left so much worse off as a consequence of Labor's time in government.
Labor can crow about the fact that we saw job losses in industries like, for example, the car-manufacturing industry within three or four months of the coalition coming to government, and Labor can pretend that that was a consequence of coalition policy, but the Australian people see straight through it. They know that those were not decisions that were taken in three months; they were decisions that were a consequence of years in the making. Those were decisions that were a consequence of the policy environment, created by the Australian Labor Party, which saw us lose our competitiveness. It is Labor's policies—like the mining tax and like the carbon tax—which have caused the closure of Ford and caused the closure of Holden and have seen the consequences now on Qantas airlines as they fight the headwinds to try to remain a competitive force despite the fact that they have some of the highest overheads in the developed world. Those are consequences of Labor's policies.
The last thing that we need on this side of the House is to be lectured by the Australian Labor Party about not having a plan. We have a plan. Let me provide that insight to the Labor Party. Our plan in the first half is to start undoing the damage of the Australian Labor Party. Our plan in the first half is to make sure that we abolish the world's biggest carbon tax, which jeopardises jobs, makes our manufacturers less competitive and pushes jobs overseas, as companies move, for example, smelting works and other operations abroad. That is what we are going to do.
The other plan that we have got is to abolish the mining tax, a tax introduced by Labor with some $16 billion worth of expenditure tied to it but which only generates some $400 million worth of revenue. We are going to get rid of it because it makes Australia less competitive. In addition to that, it was a fundamental point that saw this nation go into so much debt.
That is the other core component of our plan: to stop Labor's reckless spending. We saw the madness of Labor when it came to spending money, throwing $900 in cash out to dead people, to people living abroad. We still had cheques going out to people a couple of months ago, four or five years after the GFC. So the coalition's policy is: to repay that debt; to stop the reckless spending; to axe the carbon tax, a pernicious tax which makes us less competitive; and to make sure that we abolish the mining tax, which has been exporting jobs abroad. Each of these measures will make sure that, as a nation, we stand stronger and in a more competitive position going forward.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (15:46): Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance. I think we are being tough on the coalition, because I remember those days in the lead-up to the election when the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, would be everywhere, holding up this plan. His knuckles would be going white. He would be showing it. I was waiting for him to photo-bomb people while he was holding the plan. There he was, telling everyone, 'We have a plan.' This is the plan that said:
We will generate one million new jobs over the next five years …
'We will generate one million jobs'! 'We will'! Then we started looking at it and people started checking it out. Actually how will they generate those one million jobs? Here is a story. I just happened to come across this one back on 2 January this year, written by David Wroe under the headline 'Broken vows pile up as coalition's pledge of one million new jobs refuted'. It says:
The Abbott government faces further pressure over broken promises with a new analysis showing it will fall well short of its pledge to create 1 million jobs over five years.
This is only in a space of less than six months and they are already falling short. The article continues:
By combining employment data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics with Treasury's jobs growth forecast in last month's mini-budget, the library—
the Parliamentary Library—
calculated the Australian economy would add about 620,000 jobs over the next four years. Even allowing for a fifth year, the figures show the government will fall well short of 1 million new jobs.
Then I noticed another article by David Wroe. He was on a roll in early January. See what holidays do for you? They give you time to think. He says:
The Abbott government came up with its pledge to create 1 million jobs—
Wait for it. This is how they came up with their pledge 'We will create one million jobs'—
Ms Ryan: Solemn, hand on heart.
Mr HUSIC: Hand on heart indeed, Member for Lalor. It says here:
The Abbott government came up with its pledge to create 1 million jobs in five years solely on the employment growth rate achieved under the former Howard government, a Coalition insider says.
So there was no map; there was no economics; it was just: 'We'll just pull out the history books and see what they did and we'll apply it here.' That was the great level of analysis that went into this.
I admit I have got here the Diaz version of the master plan. It has got bigger text and a lot more pictures. It has the member for Wentworth here. He needs no airbrushing, the jaw of Bondi! Look at that square jaw right there! There he is. It is a good front cover. We went through it. We had the Minister for Small Business talking to us about how well they were going to help small business. I checked it out in here as well. This is well thumbed—you would think I would get straight to this. They talk about lowering taxes and reducing business costs for small business. What is the first thing they do when they get in? The asset tax write-off, gone; loss carry-back, gone. How does that help small business?
All these things have happened and now we are getting this move back, this move that says: 'It's not us that creates the jobs,' like there was an asterisk at the end of that pledge 'We will create one million jobs.' There is none of that. Now it is: 'It's business. We are going to help business create those jobs. That's what we meant.' I actually remember the Prime Minister coming in here and saying, 'It's not us; it's you. You don't understand English as we say it.' They now say it is others that have to create the jobs: 'It's business. We'll make the environment right.' I actually reckon, now that I have got the Diaz plan, I am just going to make a quick amendment and put here 'Real excuses for all Australians'.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The member for Chifley knows that props are disorderly.
Mr HUSIC: This is the plan. It is always someone else's fault, Deputy Speaker. It is always someone else's fault that we are not going to be doing handouts, or it is: 'We're standing in the way of Qantas. We want to provide more foreign investment.' But, when you look at GrainCorp, what happened there? What happened on GrainCorp? There they were wanting to get more investment to help their operations, and what happened there? The government denied it. Why? Not because it was not in the national interest; because it was not in the Nationals' interest. That is why they blocked it.
The problem with the other side is there is no consistency in the way that they are making their decisions. They are happy to turn their backs in terms of providing the type of help needed and working with business to make sure jobs stay here, to make sure that employment is not undermined, to not see a slowdown in economic activity and to ensure that people will be able to take a pay cheque home.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (15:51): When I read the topic of this matter of public importance, I realised, as my colleagues do, why the members opposite continue to ignore the fact that there is actually a reason that in this parliament the coalition sits on this side of the House. It is that in September, in the election, the people of Australia were faced with a stark choice. It was a really simple choice: the coalition plan for the future that was about stability and certainty versus the Labor plan for endless debt and deficit. What a choice—stability and certainty versus endless debt and deficit! Well, the Australian people made a choice.
The then Leader of the Opposition and our team, including the member for Wentworth, who is at the table, outlined a very clear plan for the future of this great nation—something many people lost sight of during the Labor years. It is a plan that is centred on economic restraint—a brand-new concept for those opposite—and taking responsibility for government expenditure. We had to start by fixing Labor's mess—and it was and is a mess thanks to Labor. We committed to ending Labor's continual and unremitting budget deficits and spiralling national debt.
Has anybody forgotten the constant internal chaos? Members opposite have selective memories. We saw the continuous leadership debacle—something members opposite forget—that actually made Australia, a great nation, an international political joke and that further eroded the confidence of individual Australians. Labor conveniently tries to whitewash this as though there was not a continuous change of leadership and uncertainty. What is going to happen next? Remember the buzz around this place, 'Who is going to be there tomorrow morning?' What confidence did that give to our businesses and our communities. That is what we heard all the time when we were out and about, 'Who's going to be the Prime Minister tomorrow?' That is what happened under Labor.
We also know that the Rudd-Gillard, Gillard-Rudd—or whatever—Labor government never achieved, and never would, a budget surplus. They never actually had a plan to achieve one in the foreseeable future. It was the never-never plan—one day maybe. The Australian people saw through that. We know Labor was on track. Every time they came into this place I saw in their faces that they thought it was someone else's money they were spending. There are very few in small business or who run a business on that side who know what debt is and how to pay it off. What we saw was Labor continuing to add to Australia's greatest ever national debt, to levels that will take decades to repay.
What an amazing legacy! How proud they are of this legacy. They left their burden of incompetence for future generations—that is what it is—for perhaps two generations of Australian taxpayers. We do not underestimate the depth of the task, but Labor think this is some sort of a joke and that is how they treated spending taxpayers' money. I used to see it on their faces when they came in here. They took no responsibility. I say to members opposite: we take the spending of Australian taxpayers' money far more seriously than even if it were our own. That is the rigor that we bring to this place and that is what is needed. That was completely missing every time I saw Labor come into this place.
We did take a great plan to the campaign and to what we are doing here as a government. We heard today that there is slowly increasing confidence in this nation, as there should be, because the nation is a great nation but it was taken down the path by Labor of endless debt and deficit. We did see a loss of confidence. We will restore that confidence. That is what I hear when I walk around in my community and talk to businesses and individuals. Those businesses actually provide the jobs. They know what it takes. Members opposite never did. All they knew was how to waste billions of taxpayers' money in this great country.
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (15:56): I want to refer to the speech by the member for Forrest, the previous speaker. I am proud of Labor's legacy. I am proud of the fact that we created nearly one million jobs. I am proud of the fact that we saved 200,000 jobs during the global financial crisis, while those on the other side were asleep during the votes. I am proud of the fact that for the first time in our history we had a AAA credit rating from all three credit agencies. I am proud of the fact that we had contained inflation. I am proud of the fact that we had growing labour productivity. I am proud of the fact that, unlike countries that followed austerity measures, which those over there talk about all of the time, we had a growing economy with a strong chance under Labor at the time to keep on growing.
I tend to agree with the member for Chifley. I differ slightly with the member for McMahon, and I know it is a risky strategy. But the government do have a plan. It is called 'Hockeynomics'. Under their esteemed Treasurer they have a four-point plan for the economy: (1) kill manufacturing; (2) string Qantas along; (3) return infrastructure planning to the minister for pork-barrelling, who is otherwise known as the Deputy Prime Minister; and, (4) when in doubt blame it on everyone else. That is their four-point plan.
There is no clearer indication that they do not understand economics than manufacturing. They are led by a man who Peter Costello said you cannot trust on economics, a man who assured industries, including the auto industry, that they would be safe under him—'Don't worry about what we say before the election, you will be safe under an Abbott government.' What did the car industry say before the election? 'If you cut assistance by $500 million, like you are planning to do, we will leave.' But the government said: 'No, trust us. "Hockeynomics" will get you through it.'
What happened after the election? They confirmed their $500 million cut to auto industry assistance and Holden said it was leaving. Without Holden supporting the supply chain, Toyota has no choice but to leave this country as well. What is the result of this? Some 50,000 direct jobs will be gone and another 200,000 jobs are on the chopping block. The industry is devastated and north Adelaide and the western suburbs of Melbourne are under threat. This is all because 'Hockeynomics' said: 'We don't take what companies say seriously. We're just going to institute our flat earth theory of economics.'
Sadly, it is not limited to just Holden and Toyota. We have seen job losses at Forge and significant job losses at Caterpillar in Tasmania. These are all foreshadowed job losses, as the member for McMahon alluded to. We have already seen 60,000 full-time jobs leave the economy under their stewardship. That is part of their plan: kill manufacturing. We have seen the other part of their plan: string Qantas along. For three months the Treasurer was laying the groundwork for intervention. He said that there are four grounds on which Qantas is a special case, and they were four very important points. Qantas went along with that, and what did we see? We saw the Treasurer rolled by the Prime Minister and running down the rabbit hole of foreign ownership instead of doing what is really needed and looking at a debt guarantee.
This keeps going on. We have seen the gutting of Infrastructure Australia, a great body that would increase productivity and get infrastructure investment going in this country. We are now seeing worrying figures on capital investment. A very worrying statistic came out last week that non-mining capital expenditure has fallen by just under five per cent in the last quarter. We need this investment, because the mining boom is coming off as investment is completed and they shift to the production phase. We need the non-mining sector to pick up, but we are seeing a five per cent fall in non-mining capital investment under this government. I do not know where their plan is going to lead us next—it is very worrying.
We are trying to be positive. We have offered solutions. The best solution is for those opposite to continue Labor's $1 billion Australian jobs plan. That plan was centred around innovation precincts. It would bring the best and brightest from the innovation community, from academia, together with business. That was one part of the plan. Another part was to inject much-needed venture capital into our small businesses. A third part was the Australian Jobs Act, which for the first time gave Australian businesses a chance of winning work on large projects that are going on. That was all rejected because those opposite have their plan—Hockeynomics: kill manufacturing, string Qantas along, return infrastructure planning to the minister for pork-barrelling and blame everyone else. When in doubt, blame everyone else. That is a sad shame. It is the country that will suffer from the return of Hockeynomics.
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (16:01): I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this matter of public importance discussion about jobs and the economy. After all, it is having a job that provides the opportunity for us to contribute fully to our community and to this great nation; it is what allows us to look forward with hope and to plan for our future and that of our children; and, vitally, it underpins the overarching sense of wellbeing and confidence, confidence that was shattered under the previous government, with 200,000 jobs being lost during the six years that Labor was in power. But Australians understand that there is at last some hope. We are getting back on track after years of Labor's waste and mismanagement.
We have had in Australia a crisis in confidence. It is a crisis that we inherited in September last year and is one that will take time to correct—but correct it we will, because we have a plan. I notice that the Minister for Small Business referred to the nationwide plan. I refer to the Tasmanian economic growth plan, which was an important part of the message that we sold to Tasmanians during the course of the election. They understood that we have a plan.
Sadly, I know all about economic crises, because after 16 years of Labor government in Tasmania, the last four in coalition with the Greens, Tasmania is smack bang in the midst of an economic crisis. I know all about it because I am living it. The Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force figures for Tasmania for January 2014 reveal that Tasmania's unemployment rate trend figure for December and January was 7.6 per cent, compared to the national average of 5.8 per cent. Tragically, the story for young Tasmanians looking for work is disastrous. According to the Brotherhood of St Laurence only two weeks ago, the youth unemployment rate in some parts of my state is as high as 20 per cent—that is, one young person in five in my state actively looking for work is unable to find it. Since 2010, the number of unemployed Tasmanians has risen by nearly 25 per cent, and the state's participation in work rate is at its lowest level since 2005. There are nearly 10,000 fewer Tasmanians in full-time employment, and Tasmania has the highest unemployment rate in the nation.
Since the Labor-Green government came into office in my home state, Tasmania has run up the biggest deficits in the state's history. The 2010-11 budget announced by Premier Lara Giddings said that in 2013-14 we would run a surplus—rightly so—of $57 million. What was delivered? One of the biggest deficits in the state's history, nearly $360 million. It is just tragic. And that is just my home state. Labor's legacy federally has left 200,000 more Australians unemployed, gross debt is projected to rise to $667 billion and there are $123 billion in cumulative deficits and the world's biggest, job-sapping, carbon tax if we do nothing. We are doing what we said we would do. We are building a stronger economy so that everyone can get ahead, abolishing the carbon tax, ending the waste, stopping the boats and building the roads of the 21st century.
The key to boosting annual growth to more than three per cent is what is needed to bring unemployment down. A simple part of that equation is to get rid of the carbon tax. By getting rid of the carbon tax we will get growth in the economy above three per cent. That will deliver the jobs growth that we need in this country. We will do this in a systematic, logical, way by directing our spending to the areas with the highest priority, particularly infrastructure to support the private sector and to support jobs.
The government went to the election with a plan and a commitment to introduce jobs programs. Now, as promised, these programs are being implemented across Australia. In Tasmania with the Economic Growth Plan for Tasmania we have a firm belief that only we can reset the economic course of the state to one of growth, jobs and rising living standards.
At last Australia is open for business. We are under new management. Make no mistake: Australians made a choice in September last year. We are removing restrictions on business and giving Australians a better chance to get a job. We are unshackling the business sector so that it can grow and create jobs. I urge all Tasmanians: on 15 March this year, give the Liberals a chance to deliver the same opportunities for my state. (Time expired)
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (16:06): I join my colleagues in asking this government to stop spending its time and energy talking down Australia's economy, stop sending mixed signals to the private sector about what its economic settings are going to be and get on with a plan to craft and protect Australian jobs.
I will start by expressing a little bit of solidarity with those across the chamber. This must be a really difficult debate for them to have, because the economic record of the first six months of this government is a shocker. You could not have made this stuff up. We have had 5,000 jobs go at Qantas. We have seen 2,900 jobs go at Holden and 2,500 jobs go at Toyota—the collapse of Australia's automotive industry—and we will ultimately see 200,000 jobs lost over the next few years. We have also lost 1,200 jobs at Gove, 500 jobs at Electrolux and 250 jobs at Simplot. On top of all of those losses, 60,000 jobs have already disappeared since these guys have been in government. They just cannot take a trick. This is before the razor gang completes their report, which we expect will probably lead to more Public Service job cuts.
Any reasonable government, in the face of this record, would get the cabinet together and say 'Let's knuckle down guys; we have real problem here and we are going to have to create a plan for jobs and growth.' Instead, this government comes in here and says, for the first time after the election, that the government does not create jobs. I want to spend a bit of time talking about this point because I think it is a very important one. First, if that was the belief of this government I would have liked them to have let the electorate know about it before the election. Instead, what we have seen in this document we have been spending some time on today is that a million jobs will be created by this government. What we have here is a group of people who want to take credit for jobs that emerge when they are in government but every job that is lost is someone else's fault, so it is a little bit inconsistent. It is part of broader a inconsistency across this government's economic policy settings, which I will return to. Second, the statement that government does not create jobs is nonsense. Government is integral to job creation. Australians know that. It does not mean putting everyone on the government payroll but, through smart management of the budget and through the right investment in education, skills and infrastructure, government can create an environment that builds jobs. That is why the government needs a plan. You would not think that this needed to be explained to anyone.
On this side of the House we can provide a couple of pointers on what a plan might look like. You might think that now would be a great time to think about a tax break to help small businesses invest to create more jobs. Instead, we have those on the other side getting rid of the instant write-off facility. You might think that this would be a great time to start co-investing in businesses we know are going to go on and create jobs, like SPC Ardmona, but this view is not shared by the government. You might think that this is a great time to start investing in skills, especially the skills of young people. I would remind those on the other side of the House that under Labor every Australian high school student was going to have access to a trade training facility to build their skills and to address our national skills shortages, but they have decided to scrap that too. You might think that now is not the time to make a massive expansion in our welfare state, but those on the other side of the chamber are putting in place a $5.5 billion a year scheme that will see some of the wealthiest women in Australia supported through their maternity leave. These are very puzzling settings.
I return to the question of why there is no plan in place. I certainly do not regard this document as a plan—some of the anodyne and bizarre comments are quite humorous. On the side of one page, the Prime Minister is quoted as saying:
… the sum of human happiness is most likely to be maximised when government knows its limits.
I do not know where these guys come up with this stuff. We know the reason there is no plan cannot be that the government does not think government creates jobs, otherwise they would not have promised that they would create a million of them. It could be, as I would put forward, that they cannot agree on what the plan should look like. We have a lot of fundamental inconsistencies on the other side of the House about how we should be managing the Australian economy. For example, round one, we had GrainCorp where a significant foreign investment in Australian agriculture was denied on the basis that being Australian-owned really mattered—Barnaby one, Joe zero. Then, round two, with Holden, Ian Macfarlane loses support for the car industry and we will see that industry disappear with thousands of jobs lost—Joe one, Ian zero. And then, round three—Qantas. This is the one that really bites because in this instance the Treasurer came in and articulated a four-point plan. You have to feel sorry for the guy as he went out and articulated the plan, and although Qantas clearly met all of the points he still lost. I feel sorry for the people working in the Treasurer's office who thought that this was going to be the great Hockey doctrine, where we would be rewriting economic policy in Australia. Instead it was an absolute failure. One thing I have learnt in my time in this House is that the people on the other side will not let the facts get in the way of a good story. If only they could agree what the story was. (Time expired)
Mr Fitzgibbon: Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw to your attention the fact that a number of members on the government side have been interjecting, and they are not in their seats.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): That is the case, and it has been the case on both sides during this discussion. The member for Hunter does remind me that interjecting while out of your place is grossly disorderly. I emphasise that right now to both sides of the chamber. I have been lenient.
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (16:12): I thank those opposite for putting up this intriguing MPI on the economy and jobs. With their record, I am scratching my head as to why they have even gone there. It is interesting how quickly they forget the carnage they left behind. I remind those opposite that it was under their government that we saw record waste. Let us not forget it was Labor that turned nearly $50 billion in the bank into a projected net debt of well over $200 billion. Let us not forget: it was under their watch that we saw the fastest deterioration in debt in dollar terms as a share of GDP in modern Australian history. It was under their plan that gross debt was projected to rise to $667 billion, with $123 billion of cumulative deficits. It is this Labor debt, this legacy of the Labor Party's amazing plan, that is now costing us around $10 billion a year in net interest payments. They are the ones who put the handbrake on the economy and they are the ones who promised there would be 'no carbon tax under a government I lead', yet they forged ahead and brought in the carbon tax and the mining tax. They talk about jobs at Qantas. What about the $106 million a year that the carbon tax is costing Qantas? It is this carbon tax that is hurting so many small businesses—412,000 jobs have been lost in small business over the past six years, according to what the Minister for Small Business said earlier.
As for the terrible twosome, my esteemed Western Sydney neighbours the honourable members for McMahon and Chifley, where were the jobs for Western Sydney? In my electorate of Lindsay two-thirds of my working population have to commute every single day for jobs—one-third to the city and one-third into greater Western Sydney. The people of Western Sydney time and time again have been forgotten by those opposite. For too long, successive Labor governments have shirked their responsibility to provide vital infrastructure to this key region.
Let us all remember that it was the former Labor Premier Bob Carr—who they then put in the Senate—who stated that Sydney was full. Such statements are most unhelpful to employment growth in my region. In fact, the last piece of major road infrastructure delivered to the people of Western Sydney was the M4, which was delivered under the Howard government, and I remind you all that it was delivered on time and under budget.
Maybe the member for McMahon missed this is well, but in December last year it was the O'Farrell coalition government that approved a major meatpacking factory processing unit in Erskine Park, which happens to be in his electorate. This facility within the Western Sydney Employment Area will process 2,000 tonnes of bulk-refrigerated red meat and poultry each week. Further, the meat will be graded, cut, repacked, labelled and distributed to the retail market by truck. Construction of the $134-million facility will employ 650 people while ongoing operation will create 400 jobs. Perhaps the shadow Treasurer should look to his own backyard.
Perhaps the shadow Treasurer also missed the announcement by the Treasurer today that the economy has grown by 0.8 per cent—more proof that the Abbott government is getting on with the job of building a stronger economy and more proof that the coalition has a plan to stimulate growth in this economy. The best thing the government can do to help the people of Western Sydney is abolish the carbon tax—a carbon tax the Labor Party just stand in the way of — (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The time allocated for this discussion has expired.
BILLS
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House notes that the:
(1) Government has failed to offer an adequate response to the Review of Higher Education Regulation;
(2) bill does not adequately demonstrate how the international reputation of the tertiary education sector will be protected; and
(3) Government has failed to provide appropriate time for consultation and consideration of the bill."
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (16:17): The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the honourable parliamentary secretary in continuation.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) (16:17): When I was addressing the House previously, I was making the third of the three points that I seek to make in my brief time today. The first point, which you would of course recollect, Mr Deputy Speaker, was that higher education is critical to our national competitiveness, especially in the areas of research, development and innovation. My second observation was that the operations of TEQSA, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, under the previous government generated much criticism from the administrators and leaders of universities around Australia. The third point that I was coming to was that the amendments in the bill before the House this afternoon will make a significant improvement by reducing the dead hand of regulatory weight on the higher education sector and targeting the activities of TEQSA in a much more effective way.
The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014 is in response to a report, Review of higher education regulation, prepared by Professor Kwong Lee Dow and Professor Valerie Braithwaite, which contains the following statements:
We believe that the aspects of quality assurance and best practice currently undertaken by TEQSA are better identified and delivered through other means already in place in the regulatory community.
It goes on to say:
Ultimately, our recommendations are to require wherever possible that consideration is actively given to aligning and streamlining regulatory activities and reporting.
As the report identifies, the sector has been constantly at the behest of disruptions that steer the flow of events, and there are more to come. So there was quite strong wording in this report calling for changes to the regulatory framework; and, if I can paraphrase, I think it is a fair summary that there is a call there for lightening the hand of regulation and better targeted and less intrusive and burdensome regulation be applied to the tertiary education sector.
The measures in the bill before the House this afternoon, I am pleased to say, do go in that direction. These measures will increase the efficiency of TEQSA, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. They will cause the agency to focus on its core functions of provider registration and course accreditation and will remove TEQSA's quality assessment function. The enthusiasm with which that function was pursued by the officials of that agency led to much of the frustration I referred to within the higher education sector in the earlier components of my remarks.
I want to congratulate the Minister for Education on bringing forward this extremely important set of reforms and draw attention to the fact that it is consistent with the agenda of the Abbott government to lighten the burden of regulation across so many sectors and to allow those with expertise in their own sector—that is to say, managers at universities—to get on with the job of ensuring this vital sector is contributing to Australia's innovation and international competitiveness.
Dr STONE (Murray) (16:20): Education is a very serious business for any nation, and we have been appalled to see the declining standards of Australia's primary and secondary education when it is compared internationally. A lot of that decline in standards has of course occurred on Labor's watch. I am particularly concerned about the decline in rural and regional educational access and standards. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014 focuses on tertiary education quality. It is all about making sure that the universities and tertiary institutions that offer courses in Australia can do so in a way where the standard of new course offerings can be quickly and efficiently assessed and compared with what currently exists.
This bill also aims to cut red tape for institutions and agencies. As you know, we have had an incredible burden of regulation upon our tertiary institutions for a very long time and, of course, in other sectors of the economy as well. We aim to make sure that we do not have institutions spending literally hundreds of hours filling in forms when they could be getting on with the job of developing good curriculum and then having it efficiently and effectively assessed.
The bill aims to make the Tertiary Education and Quality Standards Agency, commonly called TEQSA, more efficient so that it can provide a new tertiary course provider registration quickly and, as I said, with minimum red tape. The bill does not take away the agency's role in helping to ensure that there are quality tertiary course offerings in different places. Rather, the changes encompassed in this bill will mean that TEQSA will no longer conduct thematic, sector-wide reviews of issues that are to do with quality across a number of tertiary education providers or courses of study.
These might be interesting to undertake—those sorts of thematic, cross-sector reviews. But they are typically something of a distraction if you have a number of individual institutions with courses of great value to different parts of the country or sectors of the economy queued up in your agency; those courses cannot be offered because they are literally waiting for months to have their individual assessments take place or if the institution's suitability as a higher education provider is waiting for assessment.
The review of higher education regulation was undertaken by professors Kwong Lee Dow and Valerie Braithwaite. Both of them have a very long and proud history of work in the tertiary education sector. They recommended that the government should reduce the functions of TEQSA to focus on provider registration and course accreditation. That is exactly what this bill delivers.
We hope that in making sure the commissioners and secretariat are more efficient and effective, and in taking away this broad, thematic, sector-wide approach, that the international reputation of Australia's courses will be enhanced. Unfortunately—and largely I put this down to the fault of the states in their failing to properly regulate tertiary education sector quality—we did see for a time Australia's tertiary education offerings come under a cloud as international students failed to find even a stove or power points, for example, in institutions offering high-level courses in catering or cooking.
Of course, and as I said before, we have a significant disparity between the tertiary educational offerings in rural and regional areas compared to metropolitan Australia. You can understand why that might be the case when you look at the different densities of population and the much greater costs that are often involved in offering a range of tertiary education courses in a small community or even a small regional city. I want to draw to the attention of the House, though, the fact that those differences are not diminishing with time. The difference in access to tertiary education and the different quality of experience of rural and regional students are becoming poorer by the year when you compare their experiences with metropolitan students.
I often think of the statistics in my own part of the world. The electorate of Murray is only two, three or four hours from the capital city of Melbourne and yet comparing the life experience and educational access of my young people is like chalk and cheese. We sometimes feel like we are at the back of Uluru, rather than just two or three hours away from a capital city. A lot of that difference comes as a result of the very different socioeconomic status of the people who live in the Murray electorate, given that many of them depend on agribusiness for their living and that agribusiness in Australia is a very difficult occupation to sustain or to make money in. That has been the case for the last decade or two.
The financial pressures on families are the major factors that are cited by our year 12 school leavers when they talk about whether or not they will take up offers of a place in a tertiary institution. We have 35.5 per cent of people in the Goulburn-Murray area compared to 21 per cent in Victoria who defer when they have been offered a place. That is a substantially higher number of students deferring in rural areas compared to Victoria as a whole.
And why have they deferred, given that after deferral many of these students do not in fact return to their studies or return to any studies? The answer is that 88.8 per cent of them say that they have to earn their own money in order to qualify for government support in the form of a youth training allowance before they could go on and afford to study at a university. Typically, the university is located some distance away from their home, costing their family substantially—more than $20,000 or $30,000 a year—and their families simply did not have those sorts of funds.
Another reason, given by 24 per cent of students who deferred their courses, was that the course was not offered locally; and 48.6 per cent have said that they would not go on after year 12 because they needed instead to start a career. Twelve per cent cited public transport costs as unaffordable for them to get to a place of further study. That compares with just 9.6 per cent in the rest of Victoria.
People in this set of statistics also gave another reason for deferring entry to a university or TAFE. I think it is very sad when you hear that more than half the students said that financial pressure on the family meant that they could not start their tertiary courses immediately, given that we know the best way for an individual in Australia to be able to earn a higher income during their lifetime is to be able to gain a university education. But because their families could not afford to put them through that university or to pay for them to live away from home these students were having to defer their training and, in many cases, were not able to take up their offer at any time.
What do these students do when they defer their studies? The most common occupation amongst females and males who deferred study was sales assistant. This is not something that pays very well and not something that typically gives a great deal of insight into a career that they would expect to follow if they had their tertiary degree behind them. The second most common occupation amongst young men who deferred was store person, with 11 per cent of deferrers who were employed citing that. Amongst young women 'waitress was the second most common occupation amongst the just 14 per cent of those who deferred who were able to get any job at all.
This is a serious problem. Of course, it has been exacerbated by penalty rates that were required by the previous government to be paid in the areas of hospitality and catering. That often means that a young person looking for employment in their deferred year is too expensive for the restaurant, caterer or coffee shop because those mostly want to be open on weekends or public holidays.
The disadvantage of rural and regional students in Australia compared to metropolitan students is a serious problem when they compare what is available locally and where they will have to go if they wish to have a whole range of tertiary education course options. In the electorate of Murray, we only have one university with a campus literally on the ground, an actual campus. We have a number of virtual opportunities but La Trobe University is the only university with a multicourse campus. That is in Shepparton. It only offers business studies and some teaching and nursing studies. If you want to do engineering, architecture, law, science or agricultural science—no, you cannot study those. You cannot take a course in our local area. Yet of course, the employment prospects in our area are all to do with agricultural science, science itself, food technology and engineering. Those courses are not offered locally.
More and more of our students are finding that, when they do enrol in the first year of one of those courses locally, in the second and third years they are told, 'Well that course will now be transferred to a metropolitan campus. You will either have to go there to study or we will have it online for you.' Online education is always a second-best option, particularly for students who do not have English as their first language or who have perhaps entered their tertiary education as a mature age student. These students often need more support from lecturers or tutors who are in place and who they can talk to, not simply to be sat in front of a screen to interact via virtual communication. I have a real worry that, instead of educational opportunities coming together for metropolitan and regional students in Australia, the two sectors are pulling apart.
La Trobe University has just announced that they are withdrawing a very substantial number of jobs from their university campuses. We have been told that a number of those places are going to be removed from Bendigo. Already students from Shepparton are contacting me saying that they had deferred for a year. They planned to take up a course this year on the Bendigo La Trobe campus and have just been told those courses have been cancelled as staff have lost their positions. This is totally devastating for those students. They do not have the funds to shift to an even more expensive capital city campus. They do not have places offered to them in a capital city campus. They worked for a year to try to become eligible for the independent rate of youth allowance, but now their course has disappeared.
When you look at our results compared to those of some of our nearest neighbours, I say that these problems are all part of the dumbing down of Australian students. I am concerned that we have a very good system of evaluating course offerings in our TAFE sector, our regional training organisations and in our universities. We cannot imagine that university courses will always be of a standard that would make us all proud. Therefore, we do need very good agencies like TEQSA. We need an agency that is not hamstrung by having to undertake broad thematic approaches across the whole sector, which are pretty meaningless at the end of the day. We have to make sure that our university offerings are world's-best. We have to make sure that the universities in Australia who rank in the top universities of the world are not the vast minority. Rather, we have to make sure that we have more universities in Australia that step up and can be seen as elite, offering excellence in education across the board.
We have got to make sure that students from country areas like mine, particularly my Aboriginal students and my refugee students, do not continue to miss out in the ways that they do now. I certainly am most concerned when I look at the school retention and completion rates. For example, in my Shepparton area we have amongst the lowest of school retention and completion rates across all of Victoria. Our average school absence rates are higher in Shepparton than they are in Victoria, particularly in years 8 and 9. We have all these indicators of stress and underperformance in our educational system in my region.
In January 2010 we had teenage unemployment rates in Greater Shepparton five times higher than the working age population in Shepparton. This rate is much higher than in Victoria. In Greater Shepparton, 32.5 per cent of our teenagers are unemployed, whereas 30 per cent are unemployed across Victoria. Even that rate is still far too high. If we have 32.5 per cent unemployed in Greater Shepparton with no real access to excellence of education in the tertiary sector, including no access to a whole range of courses that they can afford to undertake, then that is a real problem for our country.
A lot of the families in Shepparton have cultural backgrounds that mean they do not wish to see their sons, and particularly their daughters, leave home until they are married. There is great concern that their families remain together until the sons and daughters are much older than 18 and 19. We really do need better local education access. We do not have that and it is not good enough. I hope that this bill is going to improve access to quality, efficient educational evaluation. That must be a very good thing and I strongly commend this bill.
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (16:35): I am pleased to rise in support of the amendments to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 moved by the Minister for Education in the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014. The amendment bill delivers on the Abbott government's election commitment to reduce red tape. Red tape is a handbrake on our economy and our national productivity. We in the coalition are getting on with the job of getting things done. The government is committed to enhancing the quality of tertiary education. The Minister for Education just last week recommitted himself to the sector saying:
It is my goal to do all I can to make a good university system even better, and indeed to promote the development in Australia of the best higher education system in the world …
This is a noble cause. He goes on to encourage the university sector to embrace with enthusiasm its new freedom and autonomy. This amendment not only focuses on freedom and autonomy but also works to reduce the regulatory burden imposed on our university sector.
This is not a new theme for the Liberal Party. Our party has a long history in driving higher education in Australia dating back to our party's founding father Sir Robert Menzies. When Menzies first became Prime Minister in 1939, there were six universities in Australia and only 14,236 higher education students in a population of seven million people. By the time he retired in 1966, there were 16 universities and 91,272 higher education students.
Today the coalition government stands to once again strengthen the university sector by encouraging competitiveness and autonomy and by delivering on our commitment to reduce red tape. The Abbott government's deregulatory agenda will ensure universities can devote more time and resources to do what they do best—that is, delivering the highest quality education through teaching, learning and research. This is yet another opportunity to highlight 26 March, a key date in the parliamentary calendar that the government has set aside specifically for deregulation. I hope the opposition can see the merit in removing red tape that strangles businesses, universities and families alike.
Essentially, these amendments strengthen the core focus of TEQSA, which is, firstly, course accreditation and, secondly, provider registration. Each of these functions plays an extremely supportive role of individual institutions and, I note, has been broadly welcomed by the sector. Further, the amendments seek to remove TEQSA's quality assessment function which, generally speaking, allowed the agency to conduct sector-wide thematic reviews of institutions or courses of studies. Such reviews are time and resource intensive for TEQSA itself, but also for the universities which are asked to provide input to the reviews. I also note this type of information is collated by a range of departments and businesses and is really just an additional layer of red tape; hence, Australian universities welcome the removal of this function.
The Minister for Education, upon introducing this legislation, made a comment that this function and broader issues around quality in higher education and risks to quality are better supported through the constructive engagement with initiatives and programs of the institutions themselves. As I am sure all members of the House agree, universities are a vital part of our social and economic fabric. They employ over 107,000 people and in excess of $20 billion in total revenue annually.
I would like to acknowledge the outstanding work and contribution of the University of Western Sydney whose chancellery is housed within my electorate of Lindsay. The University of Western Sydney is a self-accrediting institution with robust and longstanding internal quality assurance mechanisms. Sure, I might be biased—I am an alumnus, after all—but I believe it is a testament to this fine institution that I am standing here today. Further to this, UWS has rigorous procedures in place for monitoring and ensuring quality processes, systems and outcomes. Prior to speaking on this legislation today, I sought advice and feedback from our new vice-chancellor Professor Barney Glover—and I would like to read his letter, which says:
The University of Western Sydney … supports this first step by the Minister to implement the findings of the Review of Higher Education Regulation and reduce the regulatory burden on universities …
He goes on to say:
… TEQSA’s core function should be to provide registration and course accreditation—removing the remit for quality assessment.
The amendments … are mainly technical in nature, leaving the Act's core objectives intact. If managed with the appropriate level of caution and direction, the proposed changes to the Agency’s governance structure, including provisions for Ministerial oversight and authority delegation, should bring renewed focus and efficiencies to the work of this important regulatory body.
This realignment of TEQSA’s functions will see it fulfil a more enabling rather than an imposing role on the nation’s universities. These amendments will free universities up to focus their energies on delivering the highest quality teaching, learning and research needed to foster Australian economic development and international competitiveness; this has never been more important, considering the challenges facing our manufacturing industries.
The quality of our higher education institutions is pivotal if they are to fulfil their community remit as well as their core functions of teaching and research. This is particularly true for Greater Western Sydney, where the University of Western Sydney’s focus on quality has been a key feature of its growth into an institution making a major economic and employment contribution to the region.
If implemented with the genuine support of the sector, the TEQSA Act amendments will meet their aim of reducing the regulatory burden on universities. A view is emerging that the issue of ‘quality’ is less so something that can be regulated centrally, rather it must be the main focus of universities that wish to remain viable in an increasingly competitive international environment. This amendment will enable that to happen.
Thank you, Professor Glover.
Mr Pyne: He's a good man, Barney Glover!
Ms SCOTT: He is a very good man. In receiving this positive endorsement from the university, I too am pleased to rise and support these amendments. I note that the University of Western Sydney also made two submissions in 2013 to the review of higher education. As you can see from the letter from Professor Glover, UWS has a very strong view on these amendments. If these amendments are implemented with the genuine support of the sector, the influence and support of TEQSA will continue to grow for the betterment of the industry. I seek leave to table these three documents.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): Is leave granted?
Mr Fitzgibbon: Deputy Speaker, I am a great fan of the University of Western Sydney, a great fan of Professor Glover and a great fan of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research and Development, Professor Holmes. On that basis, I am more than happy to allow the tabling.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
Ms SCOTT: Thank you very much, member for Hunter. I am proud to be part of the government that is getting on with the job of reducing regulatory burden in our economy. I support this amendment that will assist universities across Australia, including the University of Western Sydney, and will help maximise their international competitiveness. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (16:45): I thank those members of the House who have spoken on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014—from my own side of the House, the members for Ryan, Bowman, Swan, Tangney, Bradfield, Murray and Lindsay; and from the opposition, the members for Cunningham, Perth, Melbourne, Parramatta, Bendigo and Lingiari. From what I can gather, the opposition are not opposing the bill and that is very much a step in the right direction. The bill gives effect to the government's decision to implement the recommendations of the August 2013 independent Review of higher education regulation. The amendments will help higher education institutions to focus their energies and resources on their core business of delivering the highest quality teaching, learning and research. The bill contains a number of measures intended to ensure that the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, is able to deliver its activities in a more streamlined and deregulatory fashion. The measures will enable TEQSA to focus on its core functions of provider registration and course accreditation, and develop more efficient processes around these functions.
To support TEQSA's focus on its core functions, the bill will remove TEQSA's quality assessment function, which enables the agency to conduct sector-wide thematic reviews of institutions or courses of study. The bill will enhance TEQSA's capacity to delegate its powers to appropriate TEQSA staff. This will support swifter decision making and faster turnaround of provider applications. This amendment will also ensure that applicants seeking to appeal a TEQSA decision can access TEQSA's internal review mechanisms rather than always having to seek review through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Furthermore, the bill will improve TEQSA's ability to manage the registration and accreditation processes more flexibly by enabling TEQSA to extend periods of registration and accreditation. As a result, where these have been out of sync previously, institutions will be able to make a concurrent application for both processes.
In line with TEQSA's refined functions and improved efficiency, the bill provides the minister the flexibility to better determine the number of commissioners required to support TEQSA's renewed focus on its core activities. Currently, the act contains a rigid requirement about the number of commissioners and the basis of their employment. In light of the review report, it is clear that this is not appropriate. As such the bill allows for the appointment of fewer commissioners, removes the requirement to appoint full and part-time commissioners and separates the role and responsibilities of the chief commissioner and the chief executive officer. This will give greater flexibility in determining the most efficient and effective structure for TEQSA, consistent with its strategic and operational requirements. To give effect to this, the bill provides for the current commissioner appointments to be curtailed to 21 days after royal assent for the position of chief commissioner and three months after royal assent for the positions of commissioner. This will allow for appointments to be made under the new arrangements. Incumbent commissioners are eligible to apply for appointment to the new positions.
The bill standardises the existing direction power to allow the minister to give a general direction in relation to the performance of TEQSA's functions in the exercise of its powers. The amendments also ensure that TEQSA seeks the minister's approval before making changes to the fees it charges higher education institutions. Finally, the bill provides for a number of technical amendments suggested by TEQSA. I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): The original question was that the bill be now read a second time to which the honourable member for Cunningham has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (16:49): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the Address be agreed to.
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (16:50): It is a great privilege to speak today to the address-in-reply on the occasion of the formation of the 44th Parliament. I want to begin by thanking the people of Calwell for their generous support and endorsement of my candidacy in the federal election of 2013. In returning to the 44th Parliament, I begin my fifth term as the member for Calwell. I have always aimed to be the best possible representative for my community. It is a role that carries responsibilities which I take very seriously and, as such, I will always endeavour to place the interests of my community at the front and centre of my work. My electorate is as diverse as it is interesting. I have spoken many times in this place about the diversity and complexity of the communities in Melbourne's north.
In this parliament, I have the privilege of welcoming to the federal seat of Calwell, following the last Victorian redistribution, a very large new community to the north-west of Melbourne. I am pleased to be representing the people of Keilor, Keilor Village, Keilor Lodge, Taylors Lakes, Sydenham and a small portion of the suburb of Hillside. These communities are not entirely new additions to the federal seat of Calwell. They were part of my constituency when I first became the member for Calwell in 2001, but were lost in the redistribution that followed in my first term. The most recent redistribution has brought them back into Calwell and I certainly look forward to our re-acquaintance. I also look forward to the opportunity to serve them.
I would like to say goodbye to the good people of Sunbury and Bulla and to those constituents north of Craigieburn Road. It was an honour to have represented them and I trust they will continue to be well represented by your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, member for McEwen. I look forward to working with you as my neighbour to the north, as we advance the interests of Melbourne's north-western constituencies.
During the first term of the Rudd Labor government, the fast-growing suburb of Craigieburn, of which you and I share almost half each, received $9½ million from the Commonwealth government under the infrastructure funding at the time to build a new global learning centre. This was a significant contribution from the Rudd Labor government to a community which desperately needed a new library. I had the great pleasure of opening the Hume Global Learning Centre at Craigieburn a couple of years ago at which you, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, were also present.
I can report to the House that the suburb of Craigieburn now has a magnificent state-of-the-art library, a library for the 21st century, which is open to all the community. It is innovative and high tech. Most recently, it has also become the centre for the newly established multiversity, which is a new way of accessing higher education courses online, providing flexibility for training and life-long learning. Such a multiversity will provide great choices to all our constituents regardless of their age. My community has been transformed as a result of this infrastructure. It would not have been possible without the Infrastructure Australia programs established by the previous Labor government.
Despite the significant changes to the new boundaries of the federal seat of Calwell, I am pleased to say that it remains pretty much a dynamic and democratically diverse electorate, one whose residents—virtually all of them—have the same migrant story as my own. The people are from all corners of the globe. They range from newly arrived migrants, predominantly refugees fleeing war and persecution. I acknowledge the new and emerging Iraqi community, which is predominantly Chaldean Christian and Assyrian Christian. I take this opportunity to congratulate them on the fact that they have taken up citizenship in massive numbers. Deputy Speaker Mitchell, you and I have been to many citizenship ceremonies where a large number of people taking Australian citizenship are newly arrived from Iraq.
There are also the second and third generation Australians of Italian and Greek background or from Croatia, Serbia and Poland. Also, there are a very large number of Australians of Turkish background. All this makes Calwell home to the largest Muslim constituency in Victoria and second in the country. We have a lot of newer communities from Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan and Africa, and smaller communities from Myanmar, Nepal, the South Pacific Islands and New Zealand. And we have a lot of Australians of Irish, Scottish and English backgrounds. They are all part of the very rich fabric of this very multicultural part of Melbourne's north.
In recent times we have seen a steady influx of those who are escaping the hardships unleashed by the global financial crisis. Dealing with these constituents reminds us all—certainly me—of the very substantial impact the global financial crisis has had, especially in Europe, where a large number of my constituents come from. They retain very close ties to family in their countries of origin and they, too, feel their families' stress in those countries.
Calwell is the land of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation. I pay my respects to their elders past and present and give thanks to this parliament for continuing the work of reconciliation with our first people, beginning with the apology to the stolen generation by the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. We are continuing in this parliament towards constitutional recognition of Indigenous people, for which I would like to congratulate Prime Minister Abbott, who has said that the government will, within 12 months, put forward for public consultation a draft constitutional amendment to recognise Indigenous people in the Constitution. I affirm to this House my support for such a process. In particular, I affirm the importance of bipartisanship in this very important process if we are to have a successful outcome.
As I stated, Calwell is demographically very diverse, reflecting the cultural and socioeconomic diversity of the broader Australian community. As different as we all may be in our community, either culturally, socially, linguistically or in our faith, we all share a common bond—that is, our contemporary Australian identity, an identity forged through our Australian citizenship and characterised by a dynamic multicultural inheritance. This uniquely Australian contemporary identity has been in the making since Federation. I would say it has been somewhat turbocharged by successive waves of migration since the great post Second World War immigration program of Arthur Calwell, working its way through to today's migrants, but almost always acknowledging that we have a contemporary multicultural identity with an ancient Indigenous inheritance. This is what being Australian is for my constituents and for me.
Bipartisanship on issues of the Australian identity is paramount to the cohesion and unity of the broader Australian community. I personally—and I know a lot of other colleagues also—do not wish to return to the days of previous parliaments where Australia's multiculturalism was used as a tool for political wedging by politicians who sought notoriety and fame on the back of what were essentially racist views. We did succeed in the 42nd and 43rd parliaments to bring about bipartisanship on multicultural Australia and it is absolutely imperative that we continue to uphold this as well as to work for bipartisanship on Indigenous Australia.
I want to note that in the media today there is a report that the anti-Islam Dutch member of parliament, Geert Wilders, who is the founder of the Freedom Party and whose presentation, incidentally, took place in my electorate in Melbourne, has announced his intention to return to Australia next year to help launch a new party defending Western values, which is to be known as the Australian Liberty Alliance. Geert Wilders is quoted in his YouTube address as saying:
Many of you are disappointed with current political parties and have had enough with politicians who sell out our Western civilisation.
I am a politician who was born in the country commonly referred to as the cradle of Western civilisation and I could not think of a more appalling affront to the values of our Western civilisation and democracy than the narrow extremist views of politicians such as Geert Wilders.
I watched in horror as the Golden Party—a political party that has become fairly notorious and which I believe has comparable values and espouses similar views to Geert Wilders's Freedom Party—in Greece push similar rhetoric. The result was devastating for Greek society. I do regret the support that Geert Wilders seems to have received from the Q Society, which is an Australian Islam-critical group as they are now being referred to. I would like to caution colleagues to be very careful about embracing such sentiment and rhetoric because it has ramifications. It certainly has ramifications with cohesion in the community.
I went into the election as a candidate for the Australian Labor Party. Our message to the electorate was one of delivering a fairer Australia where the hopes and aspirations of all of our citizens regardless of their creed, colour or station in life could be realised, an Australia which cared about the disadvantaged in our community, an Australia that supported its frail and elderly, and an Australia that provided an opportunity for employment to everybody: to men, to women and in particular to young people.
The Labor Party while in government translated these values and aspirations into a suite of reformist policies that we recommitted to during the election campaign of 2013. Of course we are absolutely focused on holding this government to account on the commitments it made during the federal election campaign to implement the social reform agenda of the former Labor government in relation to the disability support scheme and to the Gonski school reform package.
On 7 September last year my constituents voted amongst other things for these reforms. In fact, 64.5 per cent on a two party preferred basis voted for me as the Labor candidate. That for me was a resounding affirmation of the policies that I took forward on behalf of the Labor Party to the election. However, I wish to note that I intend to work for all of my constituents regardless of whether they voted for me or not and I intend to bring to the attention of this House their concerns and their aspirations. That is my prime responsibility as their member and I look forward to the opportunity and to the challenges.
My work in my electorate, as with all of us, brings us into regular contact with constituents and community groups. The hopes and aspirations that they have and that they convey to me are largely centred around their neighbourhoods, their families, the broader community and of course our country as a whole. My constituents are people who rely on governments to deliver good services and practical solutions for those things that matter most to them and to their families. In Calwell this involves lifting the burden of the cost of living, providing a decent education for their children and looking after their families and ageing parents. Importantly, more than anything, it involves the opportunity to have a job now and into the future. My electorate has been one that has been hit considerably by massive job losses, ranging from Ford and the car industry to now the announced Qantas job losses. The constituents in my electorate are particularly sensitive and vulnerable to and very concerned about job prospects and the availability of jobs for themselves and for their children.
My community is also a community that is involved in settling many new migrants, especially under the refugee humanitarian program. Although Australia has one of the best settlement service programs in the world—in fact, it is world's best practice—there is always scope for improvement. My very large and newly emerging Iraqi community is testament to the success of the settlement programs. But there is a continuing need for practical, well-funded services to address problem areas such as, in their case, difficulties with recognition of their degrees and qualifications and, indeed, no recognition of former work experience. For migrants, this stands as the single most common impediment to their prospects of participating in the job market, especially in areas that they have been trained for or educated in.
With a large number of first-generation migrants ageing in Calwell, government support and assistance for the care of the elderly, who have already contributed throughout their working lives to Australia's prosperity, is absolutely imperative. Older Australians deserve peace of mind, certainty and confidence. This is absolutely true and I am absolutely pleased to hear these words from the government. But they cannot be just words; they must be matched with practical, adequately-funded services. I am proud to say that the previous Labor government did have a comprehensive aged-care package. We implemented, amongst other things, the historic increase to the old age pension.
The current government needs to be fully aware that it cannot in all good conscience make cuts at the expense of older Australians. So, whatever it intends, in relation to the welfare review—and I acknowledge the Minister for Social Services in the chamber at the moment—I know it must be well intended. I hope that the government's response will reflect the difficulties and hardships of making ends meet for those people who are on welfare payments, because understanding and empathy with people's predicaments, coupled with a compassionate rather than a punitive response, is what my constituents value and expect from their government. I am sure the broader Australian community shares these sentiments.
This is why, I think, they voted for the Labor Party agenda on 7 September in the election. It is the reason that the talks of cutbacks, especially to vital services that build and assist community, as well as speculation around the budget audit process and its possible outcomes, has created a growing anxiety in my community. It should not come as a surprise to learn that people are anxious about austerity measures and about audits and cuts. And in particular I would like to note that there is a lot of angst around the proposed or mooted changes to the Medicare bulk-billing regime. Some 92 per cent of GP services in Calwell are bulk-billed, and the reason for that is that people are in a financial situation that effectively requires bulk-billing. So any changes there would be very difficult for people and families in my electorate.
So, whatever this new narrative espoused by the current government around 'the end of the age of entitlement' is, we have to be mindful that there will always be legitimate reasons that some people in our community will need assistance and support from government.
Unfortunately, I am running out of time, but in the time I have left I would like to make a point of noting in this House that the government's introduction of legislation to repeal the schoolkids bonus will be a significant blow to the thousands of low- and middle-income families in the federal seat of Calwell. In fact, in Calwell some 28,691 kids and their families received the schoolkids bonus. I can assure the House that the loss of this will hit those families in my electorate quite hard. I would really like the government to reconsider its position on that policy. With those final words, I would like to again thank the good people of Calwell for re-electing me. I look forward to working for them in the next term of this parliament.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (17:11): I too take a great deal of pride and pleasure in speaking today in response to the address by the Governor-General. I would like to commence by thanking the people of the Parkes electorate for returning me here for the third term, and by thanking the people who worked so hard—donated time and money—to help me be successful at the election.
I would like to start by thanking my campaign committee. I believe that I have the best campaign manager in Australia in Peter Bartley. He is methodical and he has attention to detail; the way he runs a campaign is something that is admired by many. No stone is left unturned. I believe the success of the campaign largely rests at Peter's feet. I also thank Warwick Knight, the Parkes electoral council chairman, Max Zell, Peter Tremble, Pauline and Trevor McAllister, Claudia Tremble, Sandy Walker and Doug McKay, who were the key people who worked on that campaign, plus the numerous other people who gave up many hours and days of time working in the campaign office. I also thank the campaign secretary, Brie Collie, who is very proficient in that job.
During the election there would have been, I suspect, somewhere around 1,000 people who helped to work towards getting the Nationals and me elected in the seat of Parkes. With 98 individual polling stations, that is no mean feat. I can proudly say that, of the 98 polling stations, I won 96. With the prepoll now running for two weeks, it is an enormous strain to resource those booths. I really would like the Electoral Commission to look at the reasoning behind running a prepoll for two weeks—why we need it. I think 30 per cent of the residents of Parkes are either prepolled or postal voted. So, not only was there no scrutiny, no reasons given; anyone who wants to walk in can prepoll. On election day there are 13 polling booths in Dubbo itself, and many of those had low numbers because people had been voting for the last couple of weeks. I really think a couple of things need to happen: either reduce the time for prepoll or look at some rationalisation of polling booths.
Thanks to the campaign that was run, I am very proud to say that more people voted for me in the Parkes electorate than for any other seat in Australia. I am here today with 72.3 per cent of the two-party vote, and it is something I am very proud of. Some of the journalists in the media up there seem to think that having a safe seat is somehow a bad thing, but that is not a decision made by me; that is a decision made by the people who live in the electorate, the people who voted for me, which was a clear majority. Anyone who says that having a safe seat is a bad thing is casting aspersions on the residents of the Parkes electorate.
Apart from having a good campaign team and volunteers, my re-election had a lot to do with the staff who work for me. They are very professional, caring and competent staff. They know that every issue that comes into my office is the single most important issue for the person who brought it in, and they treat each one with a prompt, professional and caring manner. As many of us in this place know, quite often we deal with issues that are of a very personal nature and sometimes a very emotional nature. The way that the constituents of Parkes are treated by the staff in the Dubbo and Moree office is very much appreciated by them and very much appreciated by me. I would like to mention my staff by name. Evelyn Barber is the office manager and she deals with migration and the like. I am the fourth federal member she has worked for. Brie Colley is my political adviser and my main confidante with matters that go on in this place. Cate Bailey is my diary manager, and she has a fan club all over the third of New South Wales that makes up the Parkes electorate through her dealings with them. Erica Tudor works in Dubbo and is very efficient around the office and she deals with issues regarding telecommunications, the NBN and the like. Julia Steele now works part-time, a couple of days a week, because she got married last year. For a young person she is incredibly perceptive and she is someone whose advice I take. Linda Woodbridge, whose past life as a Salvation Army officer adds another dimension to the services that we can deliver, is very much noticed by those who deal with my office, and her love and commitment to the Aboriginal community in the Parkes electorate is greatly appreciated. Finally, Cathy Heidrich is a newcomer to the team who is now working as a whip's clerk here in Canberra. The connection between my role here as a member of parliament and the electorate is very much appreciated.
There was a need for a change of government, and the people of Parkes were definitely telling me that. On election day they certainly went in to express their disappointment in the previous government. There is a lot of talk here about the rhetoric and three-word slogans and whatever, but these people witnessed the incompetence of the previous government with their own eyes. Many of them witnessed it with their own hip pockets, unfortunately. Through programs that may have had the best intentions but were absolutely hopeless in their implementation, many of my constituents were left with a bitter taste in their mouths and some of them have been left financially bereft. I have people in my electorate who, through the BER program, are still owed money because of the collapse of Reed Constructions and also the collapse of a subcontractor in the Dubbo area. I am talking about people like Chris Catterall, a builder at Moree, who is still owed $642,000 for the BER program and has no sign of getting that back.
No-one can argue about the need for public housing, but because the public housing project in Moree was a federal program and it did not have any scrutiny, the 60 units that were built are now being evacuated. They were exempt from council supervision and they were built on the blacksoil plains at Moree with insufficient foundations put in, so they are sinking into the black soil. The drainage is cracking. An Aboriginal lady has commented that she cannot sleep in her bedroom because it reeks of urine. Now there is the expense of housing those people for the months it is going to take to repair the damage, and indeed I understand the repair bill is going to exceed the original cost of construction. It is just incompetence in management.
With the pink batts program we had house insulation companies that got into severe financial problems because every shyster and snake oil salesman got themselves into the program. Not only did they rip off the mainly elderly people in my electorate by not installing the batts correctly but the legitimate contractors could not compete and got into trouble.
The carbon tax was a focus of the election but it was very real for the people in my electorate. I have heard members from the opposition proudly say that our emissions have dropped because of the carbon tax, but I can tell you why they have dropped. They have dropped because the pensioners in the western towns of New South Wales are not running their air conditioners in the summertime, despite the fact that it gets up to 50 degrees, because they cannot pay the bills. They have dropped because a cement plant at Kandos, that has been there for over 100 years—it was in the Parkes electorate and is now in the electorate of Hunter—closed down the very week that the carbon tax was announced. Now the cement for projects in the Parkes electorate—the wind farms and things like that that are going ahead—comes through Sydney Harbour from an overseas country and is trucked up over the mountains. The people of Parkes could see the lunacy of that, and they clearly had had enough of that form of mismanagement.
The previous government really did not stop to take into account the things that really mattered. For the whole six years, no federal money went into mobile phone coverage. I represent 257,000 square kilometres—over a third of New South Wales—and nearly half the land mass of my electorate has no coverage at all. It is not just the remote areas around Bourke and places like that; in villages like Goolma and areas a few kilometres out of Mudgee—which is a growing and bustling community—there is no phone coverage. When 53 homes were lost at Coonabarabran because of the fires, the alerts could not go out to the fire brigade because many of the people who were as close as five kilometres from Coonabarabran have no mobile phone coverage.
It is not as if there were not provision made. Over $2½ billion was set aside by the Howard government for rural telecommunications infrastructure. I can remember sitting in this place in 2008 while then Prime Minister Rudd removed that money for regional telecommunications under the pretext of the global financial crisis. That was money that was set aside to provide for the people of the bush but was rolled into things like the $900 cash handouts—the handouts that led to the Boggabilla Town and Country Club taking $50,000 out of their poker machines in a week. That money could have put up phone towers but it was squandered. The people of the Parkes electorate saw that.
The people of the Parkes electorate realise that there is a need for water reform. They have lived that water reform for years. But we had the craziness of the government going and purchasing Toorale Station, where the water comes from the Warrego River—an ephemeral stream which only runs when there is flooding in Queensland. When they purchased Toorale Station for, I think, $27 million, they took away 10 per cent of the income of the Bourke Shire. They just removed it for no environmental gain. The great irony of Toorale Station is that the only wetland that is now sustaining wildlife, birds and the like is the infrastructure from the old cotton farms at Toorale. I seriously think that our government needs to look at returning Toorale back into production. There has been no environmental gain from that and it has been devastating to the communities of Bourke. That is why the people of the Parkes electorate turned their back on the former government. It was not because of the campaign and it certainly was not because of the debate in this place. It was because they could see that the issues that affected them daily were attributed to the previous government.
There are great opportunities now with the change of government. People are not looking for a press conference every day. They are not looking for wars to be waged on the price of groceries through GroceryWatch. They are not looking for revolutions in education. They just want stable, sensible government. I have to say that in the last couple of weeks they saw what it means to have a sensible government in Canberra. I talk about the issue of drought and the fact that the Prime Minister came to western New South Wales, to my area, and he listened to the people of the Parkes electorate out at Bourke and the surrounding areas explain the situation to him—without grand speeches, without emotion and without playing policies—in plain language from the bush that he understood and we got a package that is sensible for the economic times that we are in. There were some complaints from the opposition agriculture spokesman that it was not timely. But we have seen what happens when programs have been rushed out in a hurried way, and we were better to be another week or two getting this program in place and having it done properly.
I look forward to implementing programs like the Green Army program. I have been working with Moree council already on a Green Army program in places like Toomelah, Boggabilla and Boobera Lagoon—the resting place of the Rainbow Serpent—where the Aboriginal young people will get their first taste of regular employment. While people may sneer at work for the dole, I can tell you that from my past experience as a local government mayor back in 2004 and 2005 when the previous work for the dole program was there, people appreciate having a reason to get out of bed in the morning. If the adults in the house are out doing meaningful work during the day, maybe they will be asleep at night and the children in that house will be able to get a good night's sleep so they can go to school during the day.
People might talk about the rights of people to be able to work, but I think that is a false statement. The rights that matter to me are the rights of those children. Those children, who are living in dysfunctional homes because there is no direction, there are no jobs in that home and there is alcohol and drug abuse, have a right over all else. The Green Army project, work for the dole and the fact that there is a mutual obligation in that, if you are able-bodied and you are of a working age, you are obliged to go and do something will make a difference. I am looking forward to helping my colleagues implement that.
We have already had the announcement from the Deputy Prime Minister about finishing the bypass at Moree—a missing link in the Newell Highway; the main link between Melbourne and Brisbane that has been languishing for some years. It was left half completed because of the inefficiency and ineptness of the former New South Wales Labor government and it will now be completed. Money has already been contributed to the inland rail—a steel Mississippi, linking Melbourne to Brisbane, right through western New South Wales, through Queensland and through the food bowl of Victoria. You will be able to put a container of grain from Moree on the train and have the choice to take it to any one of three or four ports, taking hundreds of semitrailers off the Newell Highway. The freight that goes from Melbourne to Brisbane will come on a train at high speed—saving energy and saving emissions. I believe that that steel Mississippi through western New South Wales will be the impetus for real growth and industry returning to inland New South Wales. I welcome the appointment of my predecessor, John Anderson, to that project's implementation committee, and I look forward to going to Moree with the Deputy Prime Minister on Friday to attend the forum on the inland rail.
I look forward to working with our colleagues to identify spots where we can roll out the Black Spot Program. I look forward to the implementation of a broadband network suitable to the people in the bush. The program now duplicates high-speed broadband in metropolitan areas, yet some people in the bush do not even have the basic service of a phone. Most of my constituents were never going to get fibre to the home because they do not live in a metropolitan area. We need to get a program suitable to the bush.
It is a great privilege to be the member for Parkes. It is an area that I love. My wife, Robyn, and I live every day for it. We travel in it continually. I never wake up without a great feeling of joy that I am going to work in this job, and it is a great privilege to be here on behalf of the people of Parkes. I thank the people of Parkes for allowing me the privilege to be here. I thank my staff. I particularly thank my wife, Robyn, who is at my side all the time. If I went under a bus, I think the people of Parkes would choose her in a heartbeat! I pay tribute to the Governor-General and wish her well in her retirement.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (17:31): On 25 October 2010 I stood in this place for the first time to deliver my maiden speech. Our maiden speeches to the parliament act as yardsticks of our aspirations and aims. They deserve to be reviewed regularly so that we can recall the priorities with which we came to this place. Over the last 3½ years I have had parts of my speech quoted to me, and I have also on occasion myself revisited it. During my maiden speech I thanked the people of McPherson for the trust they had put in me to represent their interests both on the Gold Coast and here in this place. I thank them again today for the support they have given me and for re-electing me as their representative in federal parliament. I have never taken the trust and support of the people of McPherson for granted, and each and every day I do my best to represent them and the electorate and to achieve good outcomes nationally and for the Gold Coast.
As an incoming government we face many challenges. We come to government after a period of political instability and division. We come here saddled with the biggest national debt in our nation's history and with a sluggish economy. But we also come here with great resolve, great hope and great determination to deliver better government for the people of Australia. I look forward to working in the coalition team to bring about positive change and to explaining the tough decisions we will have to make. Australia was not served well by the previous government, which did not make the tough choices, which weakened border protection to appease special interest groups and which bickered amongst itself while spending ever larger amounts of taxpayer funds—most of which were wasted on poor policies which did not deliver. On this side of the House we are determined to do much better. In my maiden speech three years ago I spoke about three specific issues—infrastructure, business and veterans—and I will speak about these three issues again today as well as a couple more.
I start with infrastructure—specifically, transport infrastructure. In my view, the Gold Coast has not properly come to terms with its transport infrastructure needs, because answering the question for whom we need to provide services is a real balancing act. The Gold Coast is unique in that it has a population of around 527,000 people and a population which is estimated to be growing at a rate of around 1,500 people per month due to interstate migration, yet we are visited by over 11 million tourists each year. Just think of that—there are around half a million local residents on the Gold Coast, but we are visited by over 20 times that number of tourists every year. Tourism expenditure on the Gold Coast is a whopping $12.1 million per day. Our regional economy is worth an impressive $18.2 billion annually, and this figure has doubled over the last decade.
We have a relatively small resident population base, so it is clear that tourism is the lifeblood of our local economy. It is also clear that we need to ensure that we are meeting the needs of tourists, because without tourists many of our city's businesses would struggle if not fail. It is important to remember that many of the businesses involved in the tourist trade are not large international or national chains but small businesses. Accommodation providers, restaurants, cafes, specialty stores, surfboard shapers and local tourism operators are all largely run by dedicated individuals who put in the hard work both to provide a quality service to visitors and to put food on the table for their families.
So we know that much of our city is reliant on tourists and the tourism dollar and that we should be doing all we can to encourage tourists to visit the Gold Coast and, preferably, to return each year. But in meeting the needs of tourists we must be careful to ensure that we do not neglect the needs of our residents. We should be identifying opportunities for transport to provide a service to both residents and tourists where possible. The southern Gold Coast in particular seems to be a distant end of the line for public transport which becomes less well-serviced the further south you go from Brisbane. The Gold Coast has specific transport issues which are different to those of most cities because, unlike other cities, the Gold Coast does not have a central business district with roads leading directly to and from the outer suburbs. The Gold Coast is a long coastal strip made up of individual villages which have grown over time to join together. This fact is particularly evident on the southern Gold Coast around the Tugun, Bilinga and Kirra areas.
The Gold Coast is constructed along three main thoroughfares: firstly, the M1, which links the Pacific Motorway south of the Queensland-New South Wales border to Brisbane; secondly, the Gold Coast Highway, which runs the length of the Gold Coast coastline from the border to Labrador; and, thirdly, Bermuda Street, Bundall Road and Ferry Road, all of which run through the centre of the M1 and the Gold Coast Highway, largely from Burleigh and Reedy Creek to Southport. The Gold Coast Highway and the road whose name I will simplify by referring to it as Bermuda Street cater primarily to local traffic, both resident and tourist. The M1 is the main route for freight vehicles and traffic heading to and from Brisbane and the surrounding areas. It caters to over 100,000 vehicles each day. It is also important for commuters to Brisbane and for residents in enabling them to get to and from where they need to be in the most direct and timely fashion.
There is a long history to the M1. In 2007 the Howard government committed to providing over $400 million worth of funds to upgrade the M1, with the section between Tugun and Nerang identified as a priority area. This commitment was matched by the Rudd government. However, after Labor took office in 2007 the priorities were downgraded and the priority areas became those north of the Gold Coast. Despite this, though, some progress has been made over the last couple of years. In particular, the upgrade between Worongary and Mudgeeraba has been completed six months ahead of schedule and the upgrade further south is proceeding. This is the priority to complete, and I will be working closely with the Deputy Prime Minister to deliver the upgrades in the shortest possible time frames.
The other transport options that deserve further consideration are the extension of the heavy rail from Varsity further south to the airport and the extension of the light rail. We already know that to extend the heavy and light rail comes with a multibillion dollar price tag. So the issue becomes, how do we meet the current and future needs of residents and tourists, who we know wish to stay within one kilometre of the beach? This is where we need to look at the existing bus network and supplement it with a rapid bus that will operate north from the airport to connect with the heavy rail at Varsity and also provide rapid transport to Burleigh Heads, Broadbeach and Surfers Paradise. Clearly, the existing network needs to be maintained to service local areas, so the rapid bus system would be in addition to, and not instead of, existing services. The last thing that I want to see happen, with the Commonwealth Games fast approaching, is that visitors fly into Brisbane and commute south to the Games venues, with the result that the Gold Coast misses out on an enormous option to boost the local economy.
Meeting the Gold Coast's transport infrastructure needs is crucial to maintaining local economic growth and all levels of government need to work together to this end. The Gold Coast is not just a tourism mecca—it is also one of our nation's fastest growing large cities, with a five-year annual average growth rate of 3.2 per cent, compared with 1.8 per cent population growth for Australia. I recommit myself today to working with my colleagues at the state and local government level to work for better infrastructure on the Gold Coast. While we are better placed, with coalition governments at all levels, we also have state and federal governments that are trying to pay back massive debts left by Labor. We desperately need to balance the books in order to ensure our ongoing economic stability, so spending must be done wisely and with purpose.
Let me turn now to business and particularly small business. I spoke earlier about the types of small businesses that make up the Gold Coast economy. We have a huge concentration of mum-and-dad small businesses. These are the types of businesses that are most hard-hit when the economy is sluggish and consumer confidence is down. These are the types of businesses that really do it tough when the government fails to create a robust economy, especially on the Gold Coast, where we rely on many inter- and intrastate visitors. The family holiday is often something that gets cut or scaled back when family budgets are stretched. And family budgets were certainly stretched under the previous government, with record hikes in electricity and gas bills due to the carbon tax and other creeping taxes that add to the cost of living. The best thing any government can do for business is create the thriving, stable economy that is needed. That is something we are very determined to do. As part of our plan we will cut red tape by about $1 billion a year, freeing small businesses and our communities from this burden. I certainly look forward to 'Repeal Day' later this month when we get a chance in this place to vote to get rid of some of the 21,000 new regulations that Labor put in place during their term. Red tape is a constant source of frustration and an ongoing business cost, so I am pleased we are moving swiftly to start cutting it.
I am also very pleased that, as promised, we have elevated the position of small business minister to cabinet and located it within the Treasury department. This is a clear reflection of the value and importance that the coalition places on the role of small business as central to our economy. I note that the Minister for Small Business has owned and run his own small business, just as I and many other members of this place have, and I know he is a passionate advocate for small business. I look forward to working with him over the coming term and introducing him to some of the hardworking local small businesses on the Gold Coast.
I think it is also worth mentioning the role that our local chambers of commerce play in organising, networking and advocating on behalf of businesses. I am very fortunate in my electorate to have several very active chambers of commerce. To the members, and particularly the executive, of the Gold Coast Central Chamber of Commerce, the Southern Gold Coast Chamber of Commerce, the Creek to Creek Chamber and the Mudgeeraba Chamber of Commerce—I thank you for your time and dedication in representing the interests of small business. I look forward to continuing to work with you over the coming term. I will, of course, also continue to work closely with the Small Business Association of Australia, an organisation that advocates strongly for small business.
The third issue that I would like to speak about today is our veteran community, and I take this opportunity to say how much I have appreciated the opportunity to work closely with our veteran community over the last three years. I mentioned in my maiden speech that my father was a World War II veteran who served in the RAAF. He later went on to be a strong advocate for veterans as national secretary-treasurer of the Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex-Servicemen and Women, the TPIs. He was a warrior for his country and for veterans' rights, and I have vowed to continue his work in supporting the veteran community in any way I can. As we approach the Centenary of Anzac I am sure there will be many more opportunities for closer engagement. Already I have received several applications under the Centenary of Anzac Grants Program, and over the coming weeks and months my committee and I will be working to ensure the best outcome for the electorate.
I also look forward to delivering our promise, in our first budget, to implement fair indexation of military superannuation. All DFRB and DFRDB military superannuants aged 55 and over will have their pensions indexed in the same way the age pension is indexed, rather than just based on the CPI as it currently is. It is only fair that we deliver this equity measure as a reflection of the value we place on those who have served in our nation's military. We have to remain vigilant and ensure that the legacy of our veterans continues to be recognised.
There has been some speculation, as part of the debate on our national curriculum, that elements of our military history have been 'crowded out' of the school curriculum. The review of the national curriculum is very important, and I welcome it, as a way of giving parents and educators more say in what should be taught. The curriculum needs to be focused on the students and the skills they need to succeed, not on the latest fashionable ideology.
I am also hopeful that as a part of the ongoing debate we can put a focus back on the value and importance of maths and science. Unfortunately, Australian graduation rates in the mathematical sciences are only half the OECD average for men and one-third for women. More than 30 per cent of secondary maths classes are taught by staff not trained as maths teachers. As someone who had a love of maths and science and went on to become an engineer—which was certainly not a career path that many women chose at that time—it really saddens me to see how the teaching of maths and science in our schools has declined. Once again, the coalition's focus on teacher training and providing more flexibility, particularly through our independent public schools initiative, will, I hope, allow us to address this decline, which has resulted in a skills shortage which is only likely to worsen in the years ahead. I have certainly seen how it can work with Varsity College in my electorate, which became an independent public school this year and at the same time established a specialist program for maths and science.
I am very certain that my own background in engineering, as one of only two qualified engineers in this parliament, means that I bring a unique perspective to this place. Engineering is an important profession and, due to the lack of students studying maths and science, one in which Australia has a very real shortage. The work of engineers really forms the link between scientific discoveries and how we apply them to improve our quality of life. Our advancement as a society really depends on encouraging more people into the disciplines of maths, science and engineering, and it is certainly something I will continue to do in this place over the coming term.
I also have the unique opportunity to put some of my knowledge of engineering and project management to use as chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works. I was very honoured to be asked to take on the chairmanship of a committee that oversees spending on public works. In 2012 the committee examined projects worth a combined total of over $3.2 billion. I look forward to working diligently and effectively to ensure that public works spending is well placed and accounted for.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of McPherson for having confidence in me and re-electing me for a second term as their federal member. To the members of the Liberal National Party who have supported me and campaigned so hard for a coalition government, I say thank you. To the Liberal National Party president, Bruce McIver, and the executive and staff of the Liberal National Party: thank you for your continued support and assistance, particularly during the election campaign. My thanks also go to the McPherson FDC executive: chairman Peter McKean and his wife, Lesley McKean; vice-chairman Keith Maitland; treasurer John Leff and his wife, Esther Leff, and secretary Ben Naday. I cannot thank you enough for your tireless campaigning over such a long period of time. To the literally hundreds of campaign volunteers who helped me in so many different ways: thank you. I could not have done it without you. To Wendy Perrins, Nola Mattei, Bruce and Muriel Duncan, Janelle Manders, Hamish Douglas and Natalie Douglas, I say thank you. To our booth captains, scrutineers and booth workers: thank you. I could not have done it without you. To my staff, for their professionalism and their willingness to go that extra mile, I say thank you. To my patron senator, Senator the Hon. Brett Mason: thank you for your support and encouragement and for launching my campaign. To Madam Speaker, who helped me enormously during my first term, I say thank you.
To my sister, Ann, who once again made the trip back to help with the campaign and spent so many hours on pre-poll: how lucky am I to have you as my sister. To my mother, Moya Weir: what can I say to the person who never wants to be the centre of attention but makes such an enormous contribution? Thank you just does not seem to be enough. To my father, William Weir OAM: I wish you were here today and every day. To my husband, Chris: I just do not know how you do everything that you do. I never have to ask for your support; it is always there. I hope you know how much I appreciate you. As they were in my first speech, my final words today are to my three daughters: Emma, who is 18, Jane, who is 13—almost 14—and Kate, who is 10. Girls, you are such special people, with a wonderful future ahead of you, and I am so very proud of you. Thank you for letting me be a part of your lives. I thank the House.
Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa—Deputy Speaker) (17:49): I rise on this address-in-reply to the Governor-General's address, and I start my speech by recognising the Governor-General's contribution as Governor-General of Australia and the way that she has conducted herself in such a dignified manner throughout her term, not only across Australia but in many other parts of the world. She has done that with great dignity, and I know from my own constituency that she is highly respected. She also fulfilled the role of Governor of Queensland prior to being appointed Governor-General of Australia, so for many years now she has had a very important vice-regal role. I say to Her Excellency the Governor-General and to her husband, Michael, who was always there with her: thank you for what you have done. You have always carried out the role with your own charm, and that has, I think, always been admired in so many parts of my electorate. I have been in a number of small communities in my electorate where you have not only taken the time to visit those communities and perhaps open a particular building or other structure but also been prepared to spend the night. That is another feature and quality that I will long remember, and I know my constituents will always be grateful for the attention that you have given to so many people in rural Queensland, including my electorate, and to those very many small communities where you have ensured you have made time to be with them.
I want to also thank my electorate for re-electing me for the ninth time to this place. I always say you do not fatten a pig on market day, so your campaign goes on from the moment you are re-elected until the time of the next election. You do not do that without wonderful staff. I must say thank you to my staff because they are always fielding the calls that perhaps I cannot receive. Given that my electorate is some 43 per cent of the land mass of Queensland, it is not possible always to give personal attention to my constituents. Often the way I am able to talk with many of the people is over the telephone when I receive a call to the office saying that they would like to talk to me about a particular issue that is of concern to them. But my staff are always there, and they always look after not only my best interests but also the best interests of my constituents and of course the policy of the Liberal National Party in Queensland.
My campaign team are extraordinary. I think there are some 180 polling places in the electorate, pre-poll booths, postal votes and all of those things that have to be addressed in that very short space of time between when the election is called and polling day. We had a wonderful campaign team. They were always out there and had people at those pre-poll booths, and there were many throughout Maranoa, including one right out on the far western boundary of the electorate, out at Birdsville.
Why was it at Birdsville? Election day was in fact the day of the Birdsville races, the Birdsville Cup, and the Electoral Commission and the returning officer for the division of Maranoa were well aware that there would be some 5,000 to 6,000 people who, as they do, would turn up from many parts of Queensland—in fact, from many parts of Australia—during the week leading up to the races. So they established a pre-poll booth at Birdsville prior to the race day, and they were open for the week commencing on the Monday. I think they had something like 3,000 to 4,000 people from many parts of Australia pre-polling in the lead-up to the race day.
So I thank the returning officer and those people at the divisional returning office for the seat of Maranoa, based in Dalby. We know what has happened in Western Australia, but the staff there and across the electorate have been magnificent. They often do not get recognised, but I just want to recognise them here this afternoon. I thank them for the wonderful effort that they put in not only during the election time but throughout the year, making sure that enrolments are correct; making sure that, for those who enrol during that period between when the election is called and the close of rolls, it is accurate; and making sure that people who seek to be enrolled in the division of Maranoa because they have located there have had the opportunity and it happens, so that, when it comes to voting day, they are not denied the opportunity to vote, because they are in fact enrolled in the division of Maranoa.
During the lead-up to the campaign I developed, in conjunction with my coalition partners the now Prime Minister, the now Deputy Prime Minister and the leadership team, policy initiatives that were important to the seat of Maranoa and important to the communities across the electorate. One of those that I want to now pursue—and I know that the Deputy Prime Minister is well aware of it—is the continuation of the upgrade of the Warrego Highway. We committed some $500 million of additional funding to the Warrego Highway to upgrade it, and it is absolutely important because it is that major thoroughfare from the south-east corner of Brisbane right out through to western Queensland and on through to Darwin on the Landsborough Highway. Why is it important? We have had unprecedented growth in the resources sector in the electorate of Maranoa, and it just was not coping with the massive infrastructure build that was occurring as a result of the development of the coal seam gas industry in Maranoa.
The other one was our commitment to the second range crossing at Toowoomba, a vital piece of infrastructure because right now I think that something like 2,000 to 3,000 trucks a day—the member for Groom may correct me; it may be more—have to go through the city of Toowoomba across the range to get into Brisbane and to travel into the west. We just have to get those trucks out of Toowoomba and onto this second range crossing. It would not only speed up transport; it would reduce costs for the transport sector, and of course it would bring the south-east corner of Queensland much closer to the Darling Downs and to the Maranoa region.
The other one is a road that is important. We all know that the Prime Minister has said repeatedly that he wants to be known as the infrastructure Prime Minister, and these are clear examples of our commitment to road infrastructure. This one is the Killarney to Woodenbong road. It connects the very south-east corner of the electorate of Maranoa, Killarney, just east of Warwick, down into the Northern Rivers in the seat of Page, in New South Wales. It is a very critical road. It is a road; it is not a highway. It is carrying a lot of traffic now, but, once again, it cannot cope with the increased traffic that is feeding from that region of the Northern Rivers of New South Wales into the Darling Downs and vice versa.
The other point about the Killarney to Woodenbong road and the money we need there is that it is another strategic road. In fact, it was the only road across the Great Dividing Range that remained open when we had the massive deluge that affected the Lockyer Valley through to Kingaroy. The D'Aguilar Highway, the range crossing at Toowoomba and the Cunninghams Gap road were all closed. There was no way that traffic could go between the Darling Downs and into the south-east corner. The member for Blair, whom I see at the table, would be well aware of it. All those access roads were cut off.
I remember when they were cut off for several days because of the massive deluge that just scoured out those major crossings. I remember going to my own home town of Roma, into the supermarket. You could not get food and you could not get petrol. I went to try and fill up with diesel, and there was no diesel in town. When you go into a supermarket and there is nothing on the shelves, you say, 'How long will this go on before we have to perhaps fly food in—before we have to fly fuel in?'
Luckily, we were able to get one of the roads open enough to start to bring important supplies in, but it demonstrated to us—to the federal and state levels of government and to local government as well—the strategic importance of having alternate routes across the Great Dividing Range when natural disasters such as floods like that occur. They do occur in this country, and they will occur again in the future. We need to have a relief valve, you might say. In this case, I am pushing the development of the Killarney to Woodenbong road as one of those opportunities that, whilst there is a lot of work and it would need a lot of money spent on it, could be that very relief valve, should another event occur such as it has in the past.
I would hope that, if it does occur—and let us hope we do not have tragedies like we had with the loss of life with those massive deluges—perhaps the upgrade that has occurred will not see it close as it has in the past, such as the one at Toowoomba or the one going up to Kingaroy or Cunninghams Gap. But we must be prepared for things such as that. It was the Killarney to Woodenbong road that gave us that opportunity to continue to bring supplies in. Although it was not used much, it was there in the case of an emergency.
The other one is Eight Mile Crossing, where the New England Highway meets the Cunninghams Gap Highway just north of Warwick. There have been too many deaths at that Eight Mile Crossing. It is still a dangerous intersection. Road traffic authorities have reduced the speed of traffic moving through there. That is a very positive step. It was 80 kilometres per hour, but has now been reduced to 60. I question whether even that is enough. I think it still needs more signage. We made a commitment during the campaign that we would give that a priority for black spot funding. That will require the state government, through the local government in the area, to apply for black spot funding. We will do whatever we can to find the solution to improve the safety at Eight Mile.
The other road I wanted to touch on is the Outback Way. That is the link from Winton through Boulia out into the Northern Territory and right through across to the other side of Australia, to Western Australia. It is called the Outback Way. There is a group of wonderful people from Western Australia through to Queensland who have been promoting this road for many, many years. I am supporting it and I know that the money that we made a commitment to during the election campaign will be announced very shortly. I certainly look forward to that. It is a strategic link between west and east. It will be important to the beef industry. It will be important for tourism. It will open up an area of Australia that has been neglected for too long because the road access was nothing more than a bush track. I certainly look forward to that announcement. It is a step in the right direction. It is not going to build the entire road across the centre of Australia, but it will start at Boulia in Queensland and head to the Northern Territory border. It will take the combined efforts of the Queensland, federal, Northern Territory and Western Australia governments. They have agreed to start the process of the upgrade of what is called the Donohue Highway.
I am also committed to ensuring we roll out a communications budget. We committed some $100 million to a mobile phone black spot program. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd-Green government did not spend one dollar addressing mobile phone black spots. Yet when we were in government under the leadership of John Howard, we spent some $143 million addressing mobile phone black spots. There has been a deficit for seven years when nothing was done to address mobile phone black spots. I am certainly looking forward to seeing that money roll out. There are a number of black spots where we have called for expressions of interest from many councils. One I wanted to mention was at Eromanga. They have a shovel-ready project now. They are going to have skin in the game. They have got money that they are going to put up from the Royalties for the Region programs. It has been provided by the state government. They have money from resource companies and I believe they will possibly be putting up some of their own council money. That demonstrates that these small communities know the value of mobile phones. It is important not just for tourism but in many cases for emergencies where there is no other telecommunications link.
The other one is the rollout of our high-speed internet. Our policy leading into the election was that we would build from the least serviced areas to the areas to those that are probably well serviced today. One of the initiatives in our policy was that we would be prepared to provide co-funding of up to 50 per cent of optical fibre backhaul. That is very important in my electorate because I have the Barcoo Shire and the Diamantina Shire in the far west of my region, right out on the edge of the Simpson Desert and the Northern Territory and below Longreach. They are connected via a single channel microwave radio link. They are prepared to put in some $5.5 million of their own local government money. They have got $5.25 million from the state government from the Royalties for the Region program which brings them up to $10 million. They have called for tenders already to roll out the optic fibre backhaul to connect these communities to the mainframe, to the optic fibre network out of Longreach and Boulia to bring them into our networks. The importance of that cannot be underestimated in this place. The access to good backhaul means telemedicine, education, tourism and extending mobile phone coverage into these areas. It is shovel-ready but it needs another $10 million. I am certain we will be pursuing that under our policy with the communications minister as we go through this term. I know that will see some of the council members and those pursuing that down here in the next little while. I am certainly letting the minister know that we have a shovel ready project now. We have completed the review of the NBN. I want to see this rolled out.
The other issue we have already announced is the natural disaster drought package. The Labor Party walked away from the exceptional circumstances drought policy and put in what was called an agricultural restructuring package. There was no transition from having a policy to address drought through to restructuring of agriculture. That is what we have done. There will be some out there who say that it is still not enough. But I have got to say that, in these times of budget constraint, it is a lot of money. I will be out in Charleville in Western Queensland next week to meet some of the pastoralists and graziers out there. I want to gauge how they are accessing this. Is it working? Is the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority delivering this well or are there still problems? I will be out there listening to them next week.
The real problem started when the Labor Party unilaterally cut the live export of cattle into Indonesia, cutting off the beef industry overnight. They had no market to go to. That has had the effect of devaluing the capital value of assets. It has meant that many cattle had to come into the domestic market in the eastern states and down into the eastern part of my electorate. It also put greater pressure on the existing markets. If I could quote the figures from the Roma sales last calendar year, the average sale price of cattle in the Roma saleyards was 30 per cent less than the previous year. That gives you some idea of the impact that that decision of the Labor government had on the beef industry. This has had a dramatic effect on the beef industry, on the pastoralists, because it devalued their properties, which meant they had greater debts. On top of that, this natural disaster, drought, has impacted on their ability to even be in production in order to manage their debts.
I just want to touch on the issue of the sustainability of my electorate, particularly in parts of the Surat coal seam gas area. I think that we all have to take a warning from what was mentioned only yesterday at the ABARES Outlook conference. The warning is from the National Australia Bank chief economist, Alan Oster, who said that he expects mining investment to halve from eight per cent of gross domestic product to four per cent and result in the loss of 100,000 jobs over the next 12 to 18 months.
In my constituency in the coal seam gas area we have had some of the greatest growth, with new wealth and new opportunities we have not seen since closer land settlement. But now we have got to address a situation where demand is being met and construction is nearly complete and we move from construction to production. Not all those jobs are associated with the Surat Basin, but I am just saying that that is a warning that we should listen to and heed. We want to make sure that we have got a plan as to how we deal with the reduction in numbers and make sure that other industries that will be developed can take up some of that loss of jobs that is going to occur across Australia from the mining industry as it moves from construction to production—and this is not just in my own area of Maranoa in the Surat Basin.
The Prime Minister has visited my electorate twice since the election and I thank him for that. I have had the Deputy Prime Minister in twice as well and I thank him for that, and I think that he will be with me next week in the electorate. Both of them show a great interest in rural and regional Australia. I will not have a bar of some of the people who say that they are not interested in rural and regional Australia—they are. There have been two visits by the Prime Minister in what might be considered a safe electorate, showing real commitment to the people of rural and regional Australia, and I thank him for that.
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (18:10): I must say that I did enjoy listening to Bruce, my neighbour from Maranoa. This is my second term. I came in with the Deputy Speaker in 2010 and it has been a great experience for me. It has been a better experience for me looking after the electorate of Flynn, which is quite a large electorate. It is not as big as Maranoa but is a very diverse electorate indeed.
At the last election it consisted of 105 polling booths and I could not really start to mention by name the number of people who helped me, staff included, to get to where I am today—settling into my second term in the government. But I would like to single out one person, Donny Holt, who perhaps manned those 105 polling booths! He is the only one I will mention apart from my immediate family: Shirley, my partner, and Ben and Amber, my son and daughter.
Flynn covers a large area—133 square kilometres—more than twice the size of Tasmania. It is bordered by Hinkler, Wide Bay, Maranoa and Capricornia. It is approximately 800 kilometres from the south-east corner, which is down near Kingaroy and Wondai, to the north-west corner, Capella, a distance that takes about nine hours to drive. From east to west it is 500 kilometres and that takes me about six hours from one side to the other. Of course, as you know, you always have a lot of stops in between and it takes you quite a while to get from one end to the other end.
Flynn was named after John Flynn, the founder of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. We have approximately 129 schools, 26 hospitals, 51 Anzac Day sub-branches, 24 agricultural shows—and I actually attend the first show for the season this weekend and I go to Proston which is in the south-west corner of the electorate. I have three coal-fired power stations—at Gladstone, Callide and Stanwell. Gladstone is the biggest part of the electorate. It takes in lots of towns: Agnes Water, Banana, Biloela, Biggenden, Blackwater, Boyne Island, Calliope, Duaringa, Eidsvold—it sounds like I have been everywhere!—Emerald, Gayndah, Gracemere, Miriam Vale, Monto, Mount Morgan, Moura, Mundubbera, Perry, Sapphire, Tannum Sands, Taroom, Theodore, Wondai and Woorabinda—and I think I have missed out a few there too! It includes eight regional councils: Bundaberg—or part thereof—Central Highlands based at Emerald, Gladstone, North Burnett, Rockhampton—partially, including Mount Morgan and Gracemere—South Burnett, which is mainly Wondai and Proston. There is the Banana Shire, which is Biloela and Moura and Theodore et cetera, and the Woorabinda Aboriginal Council.
We produce a lot of commodities in Flynn. The big money-spinners are coal and gas. We have gold and sapphires. There are the beef cattle of Queensland. We have aluminium and we have grain, wide open orchards and citrus, cotton and timber. The Port of Gladstone is the major export facility for Australia.
As for our beef industry, we are proud to present every three years an international beef convention in Rockhampton. This attracts visitors from all over the world. As the member for Maranoa has just stated, the beef industry has been hard hit by the banning of the live cattle export and that has had many repercussions for the industry. On top of that is the drought, which has not helped, and at the moment a lot of the Flynn and Maranoa areas are in desperate need of good solid rain. This will not bring instant relief to the farmers. Even with this rain, it will be a good 18 months before cash can return to the industry.
On dairying, there are about 29 dairy farmers left in Flynn and these guys are struggling. The demand for milk in Queensland has been increasing by seven per cent per annum. Our farmers are in a real battle with the processors and the big stores like Woolworths and Coles, and it is all over 10c a litre. If they were to get another 10c a litre, it would make things much more bearable and keep those existing dairy farmers in business. At the moment, they are dropping out at an alarming rate.
We have a very strong citrus industry. We have the largest mandarin farm in the Southern Hemisphere at 2PH farms at Emerald. There are also huge citrus plantations in Mundubbera, Gayndah and Gin Gin, and at Eversley Farm at Wallaville, where there is a very big planting. We have good grain crops—wheat, sorghum, sunflower and chickpea et cetera. Capella, Emerald, Comet, Gindi, Springsure, Bauhinia Downs, Moura and Biloela along the Dawson River form a productive food bowl.
We have large piggeries around Mulgildie, Wondai and Proston. The fishing industry has been facing cutbacks and regulations. We do import a lot of fish, which I find amazing. We also import a lot of pork products; sometimes up 80 per cent for pork and 70 to 75 per cent for fish. This staggers me. We are quite capable of producing all our pork products and all our fish products.
The aluminium industry is based in Gladstone, with bauxite coming from North Queensland. The industry is facing some hard times. The renewable energy target is affecting the industry. The Chinese are building aluminium refineries quicker than we can pour a cup of tea. It is very important that the aluminium industry in Gladstone is maintained. It is one of the few manufacturing giants left in Australia. In Gladstone, the industry employs 6,000 people, directly and indirectly. Australia cannot afford to lose this industry.
We have sugar cane, fruit, vegetables and macadamia nuts in the Bundaberg region. Around Theodore, we produce high-quality, low-cost cotton. Cotton is an up-and-down crop because prices fluctuate but, fortunately, this year the cotton price is very good. We have to hope and pray the cotton does come off and we do not get persistent rain that will keep mildew in the cotton. They need sunny clear days to get the cotton off. But the cotton crops I have seen are beautiful.
The coal industry is big in Central Queensland, but of late we have seen the price of coking coal and thermal coal plummet to very low levels. The large coalminers and the overseas investors in coal are in the Bowen Basin. Prices have retracted and we hope that one day the coal price will rebound and the 6,000 jobs that have been lost in my area alone will be returned. Coal is a godsend for our area. It supplies plenty of good-paying jobs. There are huge international companies working in the Bowen Basin—BHP Billiton; Anglo American Coal; Caledon Resources; Ensham; Mitsui, a Japanese company that is very much involved; Glencore, a new company that has taken over all the Xstrata mines; and Yancoal is another group at Yarrabee.
On gas, we are just seeing the last stages of the three plants that are being built on Curtis Island. It is a $60 billion investment. You have to see the size of the industry to take it all in. I have taken people to Gladstone to see it because it is amazing. The gas comes from Maranoa—major pipelines from Maranoa to Gladstone, some 500 kilometres. That is a sight to see. The member for Riverina will be with me next Wednesday and we will open an oil products refinery, a $55 million investment by guys who have another plant at Wagga Wagga. They have finished their plant at Yarwun, outside Gladstone. It will be a great pleasure to see this plant open up. It will process the used oil from engines, take all the impurities out and turn it back to pure oil, and then burn off the residue in the cement plant alongside.
The issues around roads are endless. There is always a need to spend plenty of money on any road in my electorate. We must remember that we had major floods in 2008, 2010 and 2012-13 that caused untold damage to the roads. Both state and federal governments have provided some money to do repair work. I will talk more about that tomorrow, detailing the list of roads we have fixed, improving the Bruce Highway and other associated roads in the arterial system around Gladstone.
There is certainly a skills shortage in rural areas and Flynn is no exception. There is a lack of aged-care facilities. Small retailers are finding it very hard to exist. I think the IR laws and regulations need to be tweaked, especially when it comes to weekend work. When you go to most rural country towns, no coffee shops or cafes are open on weekends the way they used to be open in the good old days. When people are prepared to work and employers are prepared to give them jobs, why can they not work on the weekend? It would suit university students and young people and would give them a grounding for their future life. I cannot justify the fact that when people want to work for, say, time and a quarter, an employer has to pay time and a half, double time or triple time. That is just out of the question.
Commodity prices are still low in a lot of areas. Our dollar remains relatively high. It has dropped by five per cent in the last few months but needs to drop further. Aluminium prices are very low thanks to the Chinese overproducing. These things might turn around in the next five to 10 years because we are the country with the most bauxite. We hold 25 per cent of the world's bauxite and it is good quality stuff, as is our coal. At the moment, our cement industry still has to compete on the global market. This is why the carbon tax is such an obnoxious tax. I cannot see how anyone can support it—anyone at all. It has to go and it has to go quickly because it is the No. 1 enemy when it comes to jobs.
The floods in those four to five years have really affected insurance for homes in towns like Emerald, Bundaberg, Mundubbera and Gayndah. Theodore was the first town in Australia to be totally evacuated and the insurance premiums these people are being asked to pay are so high they just cannot insure. Gladstone is a town of 60,000. The region covers Gladstone, Tannum Sands, Boyne Island, Calliope and Mount Larcom. We have a TAFE college and we have the Central Queensland University campus; that is Rockhampton based but its facilities reach out to Emerald, Mackay, Bundaberg and Gladstone. We have well-developed infrastructure and services. Through our good port we transfer aluminium, cement and coal. We hope in future to export live cattle, which would be a big boost for our industry. Graziers in the area are getting the same price now they got 10 years ago for their beasts because of lack of competition. If we could introduce live cattle exports from Gladstone to places like China and Korea, that would strengthen the cattle industry no end.
We have a huge and developing LNG industry, as I mentioned before. This will come on line in nine to 10 months. Once that industry gets going and we start exporting to Asia, the whole of Queensland and Gladstone, and the Maranoa area, will benefit from those sales because they will be huge. The Gladstone power station is the largest power station in Queensland. Because of power prices and main usage occurring between January and March, the Boyne smelter cuts back so many cells that it affects the price of electricity in Queensland by 24 per cent. That is how much electricity they use. They could not afford to buy Queensland electricity for three months during the period of high usage, so they cut back. The price dropped by 24 per cent. We are really fighting an uphill battle with electricity prices, and the carbon tax is a big component of that. We need to get back to having cheap power and cheap water. That will get the towns, no matter where they are in Australia, back to a competitive edge. The carbon tax has to go.
The Central Highlands is a very interesting rural producing area. It lies on the Nogoa River just south of the Tropic of Capricorn, with towns like Blackwater, Bluff, Dingo, Capella, Tieri, Springsure, Rolleston and Comet. The region extends from the Arcadia Valley in the south to the Peak Ranges in the north. Industries include mining, agriculture, grain, cotton and tourism. The gemfields are an interesting place to go. I quite often take a lot of my visitors to the gemfields. They are absolutely amazed. The gemfields have been going for many years and the standard of housing might not be the best in a lot of areas—there is a bit of a shanty town—but it is what the people love. For over 100 years, the many millions of dollars of sapphires pulled out of the ground at Rubyvale, Sapphire and Anakie have been sold to Thai buyers.
There is natural beauty in Carnarvon Gorge, on the Blackdown Tablelands and Peak Downs. Fairbairn Dam is a big dam supplying most of the area—the coalmines, the towns, the cotton crops et cetera.
Just off Gladstone—I should not admit this—there is a lovely island called Heron Island that is better known to international tourists than it is to the locals, which is amazing. You would be surprised how many locals have not been to Heron Island. It is the best kept secret. There are turtle research laboratories and beautiful underwater diving and snorkelling there. You could not get better in the world. International travellers come to Gladstone and take a short ride in a helicopter or in a hovercraft out to Heron Island. It is well worth seeing. The banana shire has a lot of things going for it especially towns like Moura and Taroom. Major industries include beef and coal.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Minister for Defence) (18:30): It is a great pleasure to follow my friend and colleague the member for Flynn as he spoke passionately about his electorate and some of the great things around Gladstone. I have been to Heron Island and remember my experience fondly. It is a beautiful part of the world he represents.
I will first of all thank the men and women, boys and girls but especially the voters of the northern Gold Coast seat of Fadden for once again entrusting me with their vote and their representation in this House of Representatives of the Australian parliament now for a third term. It is an honour to represent them and I look forward to working as hard as I can to represent their hopes and dreams, their aspirations and their challenges in this great place of democracy. It is certainly an honour also to be a member of the government as the Prime Minister's Assistant Minister for Defence.
I think it is appropriate that I start my address in reply to Her Excellency the Governor-General on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen of Australia. It is important also to recognise Fadden school leaders. The world runs because leaders step up and do what they are asked to do. Leadership can be a lonely path. I have got hundreds and hundreds of new school leaders who, like me, will be working very hard to represent not just their schools but also their communities, their families and all of the northern Gold Coast. I know these new school leaders will do us exceptionally proud as we hope to see them serve our country proudly. I believe that each and every one of them will do a great job. I know that their schools and families are proud of them.
Make no mistake, these young leaders of our schools today represent 100 per cent of the future of our nation. Their exciting leadership journeys have just begun. I look forward to seeing, one day, one of those young leaders, if not more of them, taking a role in this House. As parliament begins and we debate the great issues of our nation, let me say to these young leaders: leadership means speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves; it means asking the tough questions and asking them when others will not; it means difficult decisions and making them when others will not; and it means realising that the popular choices are rarely right and that the right choices are rarely popular.
Everyday leadership begins with the 'I will' challenge: I will achieve things; I will take ownership when things go wrong; and I will look to give credit when things go right. Leaders should mentor, they should encourage, they should lend support and they should care for the less fortunate. We say to these young leaders on the Gold Coast: people do not care how much you know until they know how much you care. It is more about others than about self. If these young leaders of the Gold Coast, these extraordinary young men and women, can grow into all that we proclaim in this place then I think the nation can be proud of them. Right now they are learning what it means to sacrifice their time and their talents to do what is right. They are learning to be role models and to lead by example. They are learning to inspire and be creative. They are learning to have a go.
John Quincy Adams once said: if your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader. Let all of us, especially in this place, remember that as we get down to business in this parliament and as our schools get down to the business of educating the next generation of future leaders. Congratulations to our Fadden school leaders. I shall be watching their leadership with enormous interest, and I will table the names of my school leaders so that their names can fill the halls of this place, their potential can be recognised and their journey can be watched.
As we praise our school leaders, it is also important to recognise that, in my part of the world, the northern Gold Coast, we are indeed in paradise. It is a beautiful area with great potential, from the waterways of the broadwater as it touches the hinterland and reaches into Mount Tambourine to the great suburbs where many of our more senior Australians have decided to live and the more family areas where people are having a go. With SeaWorld, Whitewater World, Wet'n'Wild, Movie World and the RM Williams show, we are the theme park capital of the country. There is an enormous amount the northern Gold Coast has got going for it, and it is a great pleasure to represent it.
During the last two terms it has been my pleasure to do a range of initiatives and to achieve a range of goals for the area. We have been running for the last five years our Fadden Seniors' Expo, which is a one-stop shop for senior Australians to come along and receive information about the services that are on offer and what they can expect. The former opposition leader, now the Prime Minister, has been twice. The then shadow minister for seniors, now our esteemed Speaker, has been three times. The former deputy leader of the opposition, now the Foreign Minister, has come along. Over 10,000 individual seniors have been through our Seniors' Forum with 12,000 sausages cooked by community groups including Lions and Rotary; 50,000 bottles of water; well over 300 exhibitors; thousands of muffins; and I am sure well over 5,000 pieces of fruit consumed. We try and provide not only a free lunch and morning tea but an avenue to connect in friendship, to learn about services and to enjoy our latter years.
It has been my pleasure over many years to run our Fadden Volunteer Awards recognising the hundreds and hundreds of the great unsung heroes in our community: those people who are the glue that keep the community together; those people who have over 300 times donated blood; those people who have spent 60 years of their life advocating for road safety; and those people who have served the likes of St Vincent's, the Red Cross or the Salvos for over half a century. These hundreds of local volunteers in our community do an outstanding job, and the Fadden volunteer awards are all about recognising that.
It has been a pleasure to give over 100 local sporting grants to recognise wonderful young people who are reaching, and trying to reach, their maximum potential in sport. Each received a $500 grant. I have signed over 5,000 birthday and congratulatory cards, and as many anniversary cards, and other terms, to say: 'Well done. Thank you for your help and community'. I have been proud to provide $70,000 to the local Men's Shed at Labrador for the great work they do in reaching out. They reach out not only to the men in their community, but also, on school days on certain afternoons, they bring in marginalised students from the community and engage with them, involve them and assist them.
It was a pleasure to give $45,000 to the local Labrador cricket club, which is on an iconic piece of ground that, frankly, needed a fence. For those of us who enjoy a good game of backyard cricket—it is a good game because the backyard stops the ball from getting out, except for every now and then when that mighty stroke puts it through the neighbour's window. The Labrador cricket club does not have a fence, and getting the ball from the local trees and swamp is particularly painful. All politics is local; we are going to build them a fence.
It has been great to give thousands and thousands of dollars to Australian Business Week, and I will continue this year to be the major platinum sponsor for Australian Business Week, which is about taking a program into schools to teach them business principles, financial principles—this year it is all about manufacturing.
It is great to give thousands of dollars to various P&C committees for their fetes. I think last year it was $1,000 to support Biggera Waters P&C fete. There was money for the scout group Easter raffles and for the Livingstone Christian College spring fairs. It was fabulous to buy a vehicle—worth over $9,000—for New Life Food Barn. They run a food bank that provides food parcels free—or for about five or 10 bucks—for families that cannot afford it. They wanted to deliver to more senior Australians and other families that could not get down to the food bank, but they did not have a refrigerated vehicle. So we all dug deep and bought them a refrigerated vehicle. Now they can increase their food parcels from a couple a week to hundreds and hundreds of food parcels a week to Australians in the northern Gold Coast who are not able to travel to get their food parcels.
Like all things, if there are community groups that do not have shade on weekends, we are more than happy to provide marquees—as we did for the Pacific Pines Netball Club, for the migrant centre, and for the Ugandans in Queensland—to assist with their community activities.
It has been a joy over the last few years to preside over ceremonies for 300 people becoming citizens. I enjoy running the northern Gold Coast citizenship ceremony with the Helensvale Lions, who do an absolutely amazing job. They do all of the work pulling it together, all of the work with the community, all of the work liaising with the department of immigration. And they allow me the opportunity to run it on the day as the presiding officer, only because of the magnificent work that the Helensvale Lions Club does. It is the biggest citizenship ceremony now in the Gold Coast, which is the nation's sixth-largest city, which is really quite phenomenal.
I want to thank some people who were instrumental in terms of the last election; the election where the Abbott government got a resounding victory and where the Labor Party reached its lowest primary vote in—goodness!—almost 100 years. So many people were involved. I thank those who manned booths: Peter Grant; Glenn Snowdon; Horace Wright; Robert Schweizer; Peter Stinchcombe; Bev Gordon; Kyle Shapland; Bill McMahon; Pam McMahon; Natalie Davis; Richard Towsen; Neil Lennie; David Callard; Elena Gold; Mark Tull; Rick Martos; Michael Mills; Rae Mills; Geoff Rossman; Kerry Knight; Phil Hunniford; David Huth; Dominque Lummus; Howard Ellems; Grant Kemble; Phil Lovell; Peter Corcoron; Allan Smith, who is also the FDC chair and did a fabulous job; Adam Brereton; Jane Stackpool and her husband, Allan Blaikie, who did an amazing job out on the western side of the electorate; Greg Zipf; Ross Linton-Smith; De Aneel Nihal; Ross Clement; Deryl McConaghy; Con Pandelakis; Gunter Pfitzer; Jan Monument; Craig Monument; Mark Hatton; Paul Shelley; and Karen Robertson. They went out of their way to assist during the campaign. They worked hard and they assisted with another great victory on the northern Gold Coast.
I thank the fabulous team at New Life Food Barn who also came around and fed and watered volunteers and those working on the day. We intentionally packed enough food and enough water for every single volunteer from every single political party at every single booth. Whether you were with the Liberal-National Party, the Labor Party, the Greens, the Katter Party or Clive Palmer, you were fed and you were watered by our team, because democracy is important. We want people to come out. We want them to participate in democracy, and it was a great pleasure to feed them all, the whole lot. It was great to see New Life Food Barn—that every day feeds the homeless and the hungry and the disadvantaged—and to be able to pay them well-and-truly over market price because I wanted that money to go back into the services they do. That was intentional. I wanted them to feed everyone and to send the message that that is what we do in Australia.
I thank Peter Campbell and Kay Hobson, who were instrumental in getting out and about and making things happen. And there were over 400 other supporters I want to thank; volunteers who worked day in, day out, believing in us as a government and believing that there is a better way of governing our nation.
As the Assistant Minister for Defence, my job now is to work with the Minister for Defence and the Prime Minister to ensure our Defence force is capable of achieving a disproportionate strategic combat effect on the battlefield. The first priority of any government is national security. It pains me to say that the last six years of Labor saw that first priority relegated down. During the latter years of the last government, into the campaign, we produced a book, The Little Book of Labor's Defence Backflips,just to highlight the sheer difference between what the last government brought and what this government brings. I was proud to do the Defence launch with the now Prime Minister and the now Minister for Defence with the Aviation Brigade down at Luscombe Field at Holsworthy, as we stood there and nailed our colours to the wall. We, as a political party seeking government, said that we would not cut Defence expenditure; that any savings we found in Defence we would reinvest in Defence, and we would take the budget back to two per cent of GDP by 2022. What that means in dollar terms is that we will put up to $25 billion back in, to take the budget back to two per cent of GDP, because right now it is 1.58 per cent of GDP, the lowest level since 1938, and the former Labor government ripped out $25 billion.
The last Labor government said that they would give budget certainty but they reduced the level of GDP spend to 1938 levels. They said they would have a completely committed and funded white paper, but the funding for their white paper in 2009 was 1½ pages and their white paper in 2013 was, generously, a joke! We will have a properly funded white paper delivered by March 2015. We will have a force structure review properly attached to the 2015 white paper. The Labor government's last white paper had no force structure review attached to it. It had no approved Defence Capability Plan. In fact, the Defence Capability Plan right now is the one from 2009, because Labor could not even get around to endorsing one in 2013.
We will ensure that we will get that funding guarantee back up to two per cent of GDP. We will ensure that what we put in place is properly costed and properly funded. We will ensure a generous military superannuation system and we will index DFRDB pensions to the level of male total average weekly earnings or, indeed, the new living cost index. The Labor government indicated that they would do that in 2007 and delivered nothing. We will deliver it. We will deliver indexation for our veterans. We will do it in the first half of this year. It will be budgeted for. It will be in the May budget. It will start on 1 July.
We have not only announced but also implemented the coalition's commitment for free Australian Defence Force health care. As of 1 January this year any out-of-pocket costs for Medicare for any dependent spouse or other dependants, be they children or an aunt or an uncle who is classified as a dependant, will be paid for by the system. There will also be $400 per dependant per year to spend on ancillary health care—podiatry, physiotherapy, chiropractic and dentistry—and you can pool it. If you are serving member—for example, a female sergeant in one of our regiments—and you are married with, say, three kids, the four of you can pool that $400 and that gives you $1,600 to get little Johnny's teeth fixed.
In 2007 Labor promised to build 12 health centres, which they never did. They then promised a trial in terms of providing health services on bases. The trial went forever. In their last budget they cut $50 million out of the program. We promised it and we have delivered it. It is live right now. People were receiving the benefit on day one, 1 January. Navy Health as the provider is doing a fabulous job.
We committed to giving Australian industry the opportunity to compete for project work as much as possible. Unfortunately, something like 5,000 local Australian jobs in small to medium enterprises have disappeared over the last six years because the previous government simply ripped money out of defence and has left us with a procurement bow wave that we will have to deal with. The problems in procurement that have been left for us are an unmitigated disaster.
We take the defence of our nation seriously. When we make commitments in terms of the defence budget we will keep them. When we make commitments in terms of Australian Defence Force health care we have already implemented them. When we make commitments in terms of properly indexing DFRDB we will legislate for that in the coming months to allow it to be in the budget and to allow it to start on 1 July. When we make commitments that we have backed up subsequently for defence industry and giving defence industry a level playing field we mean it. When we spoke about Operation Sovereign Borders and committed a single chain of command through Minister Morrison through to a joint agency task force headed by a three-star, and when we said that we would force assign military assets to achieve the effect we wanted in the North of Australia, we did it. We committed those assets and kept them committed there to achieve the strategic effect which today, I think, is 76 days with no successful people-smuggling ventures. We will continue to keep our commitments in terms of defence.
It is a great privilege for all of us to be here in the House of Representatives, and I know every member here in the House—all 150—count it as a privilege and seek to serve their constituencies as best as possible. I am no different from others. I seek to do my very best here to represent my constituents to the best of my ability and to represent the government as a minister to the best of my ability.
I once again thank the constituents of the northern Gold Coast for their hard work, their commitment and their faith in me. I certainly will not let them down.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): I thank the assistant minister. Is the assistant minister seeking leave to table some documents?
Mr ROBERT: I do, and I have, and I have done.
Ms Macklin: You haven't, but I will grant leave.
Leave granted.
Mr ROBERT: Thank you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the address be agreed to. I call the honourable Minister for the Environment.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (18:50): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a real pleasure to be able to present the address-in-reply in your presence. I want to start from perhaps a slightly different place than one would ordinarily imagine in a speech such as this. I want to begin with four personal goals for the term of government. We each come to this place as representatives of an electorate, and we each come with a focus on what we can do under the Constitution for those whom we represent. I want to begin with a focus on assistance for, firstly, vision-impaired children; secondly, children of parents with a mental illness; thirdly, overcoming Indigenous blindness; and, fourthly, adult literacy. Then I want to present my plan for the electorate of Flinders.
I begin with a real tribute to success. Over the last half decade, I have had the great joy and privilege of working with Alan Lachman and his wife, Maria. Alan and Maria approached me about the fact that their beautiful daughter Francesca, who has profound blindness, did not have access to specialist teaching care. They had returned from living in Europe and were surprised and distressed that there was no equivalent teaching facility in Victoria for vision-impaired children. They believe that each parent should have the choice to mainstream their child or, where necessary, to have specialist teaching. So they set about on what seemed to be an impossible task, and that was to establish an individual school for vision impairment. There are 80 specialist schools in Victoria but not one of these is dedicated to the needs of children with vision impairment or profound blindness. It seems an extraordinary gap in the system—and it is.
It has been one of the great privileges of my time as a parliamentarian to work with Alan and Maria and the team they established in creating The Insight Foundation. Prior to the coalition government's victory in the Victorian election I worked with my state colleague, the Hon. Martin Dixon, and he pledged $2½ million for assistance to The Insight Foundation. They were successful in attaining government and those funds were allocated. Prior to the current election, I worked with the member for La Trobe, Jason Wood, and, in particular, with Senator Mitch Fifield, who is now the relevant minister with a great personal interest in and passion for those with differing degree of disability and challenge. We were able to secure, with the grace of the now Prime Minister, $1½ million for Insight. These two grants together have allowed Insight to become a school. There is now a school for the blind in Victoria—a school for those who are vision impaired. It has been an absolute joy, thrill and labour of love and it has been challenging and painful in many, many ways—but what an outcome! If there is nothing else that is achieved in my time in parliament, that alone will have made it worthwhile to have been here.
I wanted to update the House on where we were at and the goals going forward. I spoke with Alan Lachman just before commencing this address. The school has been operating since early last year. It has been doing it in difficult digs. The families, students and teachers have all put up with substandard accommodation as they have been working on the construction. But we are now less than four weeks away from a new permanent, purpose-built, bespoke facility on the grounds of the Monash's Berwick campus. Monash University, to their eternal credit, has joined with Insight and provided the land. I believe that is being done at a peppercorn rent rate. I hope that is a correct statement to the House, but I understand it is. They have also offered the services of some of their professorial and other staff to work in building the strength and quality of the teaching program. So it is not just the physical space. It is not just the buildings; it is not just the school. It is the capacity to make this Insight centre for education an Australian leader—indeed, a world leader—in education for these absolutely magnificent children.
So where are we at now? We have a specialist primary school offering an expanded core curriculum—braille; orientation and mobility; social interaction; independent living; recreation and leisure; career education; assistive technology; sensory efficiency; self-determination; extracurricular activities; and therapies. There has also been engagement with the Hugh Williamson Foundation. That is to assist mainstream enrolled students of all ages and incorporates four programs: Insight support skills—offering students at mainstream schools extra support and assistance; parent support; early learning, for those aged nought to six; and life transition, which is all about providing assistance for children moving from Insight to mainstream secondary, and from secondary to work. I hope that at some stage we can further expand the facilities available to Insight.
This has been a great dream, driven by two parents—and many, many other parents whom I have encountered along my way—who have created something real, magnificent and important and borne out of a deep sense of love for their daughter Francesca. It has been one of the great honours of my parliamentary career to have in some small way assisted the establishment, development and funding of the Insight school for vision-impaired children.
Going forward, there is a second great task that I wish to pursue over the course of this term which builds on the work from my last term in office, and that is to assist those children of parents with a mental illness. For the first time, last term I acknowledged that I came from a home where my mother had suffered mental illness. She had bipolar and schizophrenia. On the scale of things, it was nowhere near as bad as that faced by many families, but it was significant and for her it was deeply traumatic. I had a happy childhood—I do not want to any way seek to derogate from that—and I was given enormous support, love and care from both my father, who passed in the last year, and my mother. My mother struggled with mental illness for many of her last years. When this was made known I was asked to become a patron of the Satellite Foundation.
The Satellite Foundation is a Victorian based organisation dedicated to assisting the children of mental health sufferers. They are a wonderful group of people. They are really first class. They provide an absolutely critical service in helping the children of mental health sufferers cope with, understand and make their own way forward from very difficult family circumstances—as I say, far more difficult than any circumstance which was faced in my own upbringing. In particular, Satellite deals with stigma, shame and prejudice through peer group activities, which I have been part of, have attended and observed and through which I have engaged with many of the teenagers, in particular, but also younger children of parents with significant mental illness. The support offered by the Satellite Foundation represents a lifeline to these teenagers and children. They can be isolated and confused. Many times the cared-for becomes the carer. The support of the Satellite Foundation means that that these children and teenagers can be given a path so that it is not inevitable that they suffer anxiety, stress or depression and can make their own way forward. The Satellite Foundation has found success with the support of board members who juggle full-time work and parenting responsibilities.
I want to achieve bipartisan support for working with the Satellite Foundation to establish a national program for the children of mental health patients. We could do this across the table in good faith, with nobody seeking to achieve any personal advancement from it and in the recognition that at our best as a parliament we are able to work together. There are many good examples of such bipartisanship. I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Health of the terms of reference for the review of mental health services and programs. My goal for the review is to in some small way ensure that there is a line of funding to assist organisations such as the Satellite Foundation to help the children of mental health victims. It would be a worthy outcome. But it is personal; I am not in any way professing that the finding of such funding is a policy outcome guaranteed by the government. But the finding of such funding is incumbent upon me in my role as a member of parliament.
The third personal objective for this term of government I want to achieve is the eradication of blindness among Indigenous youth. There are so many challenges for young Indigenous Australians—whether it be eliminating substance abuse or improving educational attainment and economic conditions—but Indigenous blindness in Australia is to an extent unavoidable. Having worked with Professor Hugh Taylor, who is the Harold Mitchell Chair of Indigenous Eye Health at the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health at the University of Melbourne, I would like to work towards eradicating avoidable Indigenous blindness by the end of this decade. It may be that we have to extend the achievement of this goal to 2025, but my understanding is that there are 1,400 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are needlessly vision-impaired from diabetes—which is a disease we can address—and 3,000 Indigenous people who have lost their vision as a result of avoidable cataract blindness. This last figure is 12 times the national average. Professor Taylor believes that 94 per cent of vision loss among Indigenous Australians is avoidable, so my personal goal is to have the eradication of avoidable Indigenous blindness included among the outcomes in the next assessment of Closing the Gap. I think that, by 2025, as a nation and as a people and—above all else—as a community we can legitimately aim to eradicate avoidable Indigenous blindness. There are many other issues in Indigenous Australia, but we can potentially control this one.
The fourth and final personal objective for this term of government I want to achieve is the improvement of the rate of adult literacy, particularly within the electorate of Flinders in the Mornington Peninsula and Western Port. Functional literacy is a silent problem, and there is a great deal of shame and stigma associated with it. Functional literacy can be a result of family background, of educational background, of issues such as dyslexia or of growing up in a non-English-speaking background either here in Australia or overseas. The most recent Australian adult literacy statistics were released in October last year. They show that 12.6 per cent of adults in Australia attain only level 1 or below in literacy proficiency. That means they have only the most basic grasp of reading and writing. This makes their lives hugely difficult: it affects their work; it affects their social life; it affects their ability to read; and it affects their sense of self. This 12.6 per cent of adults in Australia needs our help, so one thing I would like to develop over is a renewed focus on adult literacy within the parliament. Improving adult literacy is both a state and national goal—in its essence it is an Australian goal. I believe that we should work both across the chamber here and between the Commonwealth and the states for an adult literacy compact building on what is already in place.
The four goals I have spoken about represent the real work I want to do in this parliament—beyond, of course, the work I do in my fortuitous role as a minister of the Crown with responsibility for the environment and, in particular, the great joy of the work I do in representing my electorate.
I will now set out briefly some of my goals for my electorate. I want to make sure that we protect and maintain the long-held green wedges which are part and parcel of the Mornington Peninsula. I worked with the community there on protecting Arthurs Seat and Red Hill from the construction of a tip, and it was very satisfying. I am working with the Mount Martha football and cricket clubs on an upgrade of facilities for them, and the life saving club is about to commence a program of tearing down their old clubhouse and building a new one. Many people have been involved in finding the funds to do so. The same goes for the long-held goal of an aquatic centre for Rosebud, something I believe in. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people on the Southern Peninsula support it and we will just keep going until that is done. We want to keep going on the Point Nepean task of a national centre for coastal climate or equivalent activity, protecting Shoreham and working on the environmental outcomes through the Green Army for Mt Martha, the Southern Peninsula foreshore, for the Red Hill biolink and the Mornington Peninsula war on weeds.
In terms of Western Port, we will just keep going until there is a 24-hour police station at Somerville, which will also serve the people of Baxter and Pearcedale. We want to work with Tyabb and Pearcedale on the same task of protecting against inappropriate development and also to ensure that there are more jobs, investment and technical training for Hastings and Somerville, protecting the unique character of Flinders and Shoreham and ensuring that the fire station project in Crib Point is done. I am delighted that the residential project in Hastings for those with disabilities has been completed.
In terms of Phillip Island and Bass Coast and the nearby areas in Cardinia, the Kooweerup bypass is underway. We want to work to ensure there is adequate flood protection for Koowerup, Bayles and Lang Lang. On Phillip Island we just have to keep going until hospital facilities in terms of a progressive upgrade are in place. We have $2.5 million ready to co-invest with the state and we are having productive discussions with the state.
The new schooling model which the Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, announced maybe allows us to work towards a secondary school link to one of the primary schools through the independent schools model on Phillip Island. Similarly we are going to work for additional police facilities in Grantville and reticulated gas for Phillip Island and the Bass Coast. These are tough challenges but they are achievable. I do not want to overpromise, I want to set the goal and the task and the target.
Against that background, it is always a privilege to stand at the dispatch box in this parliament, not just because we can speak but because we can represent our community. I end by returning to the beginning: one of the great privileges of my time has been to work with people such as Alan and Maria Lachman, to see the way in which two inspired parents can unite a community, can create a legacy and establish a school born of the deepest feelings of love and support for their magnificent daughter, Francesca, and to establish something such as the Insight school for the vision impaired. I thank the House for the opportunity. I thank the electors of Flinders for the opportunity and I look to people such as Alan and Maria when I say they represent the very best of Australia.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Government Whip) (19:10): I take the opportunity to associate myself with the words of the previous speaker, the member for Flinders, in an accurate assessment that it is truly a privilege to stand in this place. I am humbled to be re-elected by my electorate to return to this place for a second term. What motivates me is the fact that if this was not my address-in-reply speech and it was a speech I was giving because I had lost my seat and I was coming back for a valedictory, would I be able to sleep at night knowing that I had given my all during my term? Would I be able to sleep at night knowing that I had helped as many people as I could during my term? I know that the effort that one goes through during the election cycle is a journey one does not take on one's own. You take the journey with your staff, with your family, with the mountain of volunteers who assist you to get back here so that you can stand in this chamber, debate issues that are relevant to your electorate and hopefully, just hopefully, influence the direction of the nation.
The electorate of Wright was named after a poet, Judith Wright. My electorate is approximately 7,500-8,000 square kilometres and borders at the top the Toowoomba range. It encompasses some of the most picturesque, beautiful landscape, ranging from horticulture to the Gold Coast hinterlands. It borders up to the New South Wales border, with reference to geography. We border up to Blair in the north and Forde, MacPherson and Moncrieff in the east. It is really a picturesque electorate and I am truly blessed to be able to be the electorate of Wright's representative. It is an extremely diverse electorate: vegetable growing, dairy, beef, tourism and new areas under housing, a developing area such as Yarrabilba, where there is expected to be no less than 50,000 people residing in that community over the coming years. That is an entire state electorate in its own right. In addition to Yarrabilba there are Flagstone and the Bromelton industrial park—all positive influences that are changing the dynamics daily within our electorate.
The return trip to the parliament for a second term is not made on your own. Yes, you may be the face on the billboard, but behind that campaign there is an enormous amount of work that gets done by extremely generous volunteers. I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge some of those in my FDC, my federal executive. The chairman, Rod Venz, is a dairy farmer, a man who is grounded in the electorate, a man who spent most of his professional career as a high school teacher and principal working in regional and remote parts of Queensland. The advice, the mentorship, the steady comments when he would pick the phone up and advise you helped to make me the man that I am, so I acknowledge Rod for his contribution. He and all volunteers give their time freely. Deputy chair Alan Fry is located strategically in the Lockyer Valley, so we have our executive come from different sectors of the FDC, so we get true representation. Alan's discipline and sense of community are outstanding. He is an Englishman, and before coming to Australia he was a high-ranking officer in Scotland Yard, where he sat below the Commissioner of Police and above ranked officers; I think he was either the second or third in charge of Scotland Yard. Those skills also were of enormous advantage—the discipline, the structure and the regimented way in which he assisted with the campaign.
Our secretary, Lynne Bell, from up on Tamborine Mountain—what a wonderful asset she was. You need a diligent set of hands on the books. To you, Lynne, and your husband: I appreciate your contribution as well. My trusty treasurer, Alice Warby, who is on my staff and is also the zone president of the women's association for our party in Queensland, has been a stalwart of the party for so many years. Thanklessly she goes about offering an enormous number of hours for the betterment of the party, and recently she was acknowledged for her contribution by the party when she was the recipient of a life membership. This is the calibre of personnel that I have working collectively with me. I am so blessed and I am humbled.
Once we get past our executive, we have a number of branches throughout our electorate, and I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Beaudesert SEC executive chairman, Glenn Abbott, and his commitment. Glenn is one of the area's predominant horticultural farmers, growing a range of products including beetroots, carrots and onions, but always found time in the middle of planting to get to our meetings and to lead his community. The hardworking branches in Wright include the Fassifern branch, the Lockyer branch, the Tamborine branch, the Christmas Creek-Rathdowney branch, the Beaudesert branch, the Jimboomba-Woodhill branch and, of course, the Beaudesert women's. I acknowledge all of their support.
In addition, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the regional chairs. My area is so diverse that it falls over two regions. I thank James Kennett from the Gold Coast for his contribution and the way that he went about diligently working through the campaign. To the west is a wonderful man by the name of Pat Weir. Pat, I take this opportunity to acknowledge your recent preselection for the state seat of Condamine, which you will contest at the next Queensland state election. I acknowledge what you do and the area that you represent, and I know that there are many people in my electorate that join with me in congratulating you on the fantastic result that you achieved recently at that preselection.
I would like to thank my campaign team, led by none other than Greg Birkbeck, a personal friend of mine. It is as if you cannot work on my staff unless we all share the same birthday. Greg and I share the same birthday, 27 March. I am sure that I would not be here without his support and leadership. I acknowledge the many hundreds of booth workers that come to help out on the day, particularly those who come before the euphoria of the election, when people are able to get enthused—those true diehards who come out and stand at pre-polling centres for the weeks beforehand and those who scrutineer late on polling day. I acknowledge their commitment and all of those who assisted me to be here.
I would like to thank my staff, who like to refer to themselves as Team Buchholz. I am truly blessed. We sometimes see the staff of members in this House acting like a carousel, as staff rotation can be quite high. I wear as a badge of honour the fact that I have taken the same team as when I first entered this place through to today. Those people are Greg Birkbeck, Alice Warby, Ruth Doyle, Hannah Robinson and Jo Dempsey. It is a team effort. As I said earlier, my face is on the billboard but it is the team effort, along with the efforts of those aforementioned, that really owns the right to be able to say that we have an LNP member representing the seat of Wright.
The families of all members in this place make an enormous sacrifice, because it is our families that sacrifice the time that they would normally spend with us so that we can spend it with our communities. I take this opportunity to acknowledge my beautiful wife, Lynn, and my daughter, Grace, who only this week started her first year of university, where she will be studying environmental science in Toowoomba. She will go great guns, because she has her mum's looks and her dad's—well, not much! She is all mum! Mum is a cracker of a—she is all mum! Any skills that my daughter picks up are as a result of my beautiful wife.
Mr Hunt: That was some fast footwork!
Mr BUCHHOLZ: Yes. Big thanks go to the LNP state president, Bruce McIver, who is an absolute standout. Bruce is a personal friend of mine. Thank you for what you do in shaping our organisation and the discipline that you bring to the job. You are truly an inspirational leader. I am sure there will be a resolution put at the next state conference to double your salary next year! To Brad Henderson, our state executive director: thank you for the leadership that you showed during our campaign. From a federal perspective, without Brian Loughnane and the overall macrocampaign I do not think we would have secured the numbers we did on this side of the House.
I have to get out of the habit of calling Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, 'brother' or 'mate'. It is a humbling experience to be able to refer to him now as 'Prime Minister'. His discipline through the campaign was exemplary, and I was honoured when he rang me to ask me to take on the position of Government Whip. That phone call was one that I was not expecting, and the progression path for a relatively new member was evidence that I was not expecting it. But I do appreciate the opportunity that he has given me, and my commitment is that I will act with due diligence and offer as much as I can to make sure I fulfil the duties of the whip.
But, moving closer to the reply speech in trying to find issues and what you achieve for your electorate, I will recap on some of the heartache that we had to endure during the first three years. I was only four months into the job, and Lockyer Valley, on the western side of my electorate, was hit with a devastating flood, an unprecedented amount of water that went through in such a short amount of time. The devastating impacts that it had on that electorate, those scars, will be seen and felt in the electorate for many decades to come. It was a one-in-150-year flood. We lost an enormous number of lives in that period.
I recall, as a new member, not really knowing where my parameters as a member were. I am sure that sometimes I approved stuff well outside my pay grade under the auspices that if I did not do it nobody else would, and as a result our community hastily started its rebuilding phase. We had an enormous number of insurance issues to deal with after the floods. In the relationships that I built with insurance companies, there were insurance companies that were excellent to deal with. There were insurance companies that, through the rest of my life, I will have an opinion on, which I have shared in this House before. From my light, the best form of marketing for an insurance company is to pay the client out. For those that decided to sneak out the back door because of fine print: you do not have any respect from me.
Can I acknowledge in my community those enormous contributions made by our service organisations, which I am so proud to be associated with either indirectly or directly. They are the people from our Rotary clubs, our Lions clubs and our Red Cross. In regional Australia and regional Queensland, they are so instrumental in our communities. They are the blood of our community service. When you find communities that have those strong organisations, you will often find vibrant communities, and you will find that we do not leave our weak behind; we take them with us.
On my RSL clubs: we did an overview of how many RSL clubs we have in our electorate and how long it would take me to attend every dawn service in my electorate. For me to attend every dawn service in my electorate, I would need to be returned to this parliament eight consecutive times, and it would only be after the 26th year of consecutive service in this House that I could then return to the place where I attended my first dawn service.
We have an enormous number of schools. I know they are under state auspices, but I do work closely with my schools because I believe that the job of a federal member is to encourage and lead the next generation coming through. In our school leaders program, where we offer certificates for both our senior leaders and our junior leaders, it is encouraging to see the next wave of talent coming through the electorate.
An ongoing issue for us in the electorate is without a doubt the plight of our dairy farmers and the pain which they endure with reference to the retailers' price-down structure for a dollar for milk. The cost-of-production price in the electorate is just over 50c. A recent survey was conducted by the Queensland dairy organisation, and it was found that just on 80 per cent of our dairy farmers, when they received their monthly milk cheque, could not pay their expenses for the month. The long-term future financial viability of this industry is truly in question.
As a member of parliament I gave solemn commitments that I would fight for a better price at the farm gate. I have given speeches this week in this parliament doing exactly that. I have met with ministers with reference to mandatory codes of conduct. I speak, if not on a daily basis, on a weekly basis with the Queensland dairy organisation, and most definitely on a daily basis to different dairy organisations. I will continue to fight not only for our dairy sector but for our horticultural sector, for our beef industry and for anyone that is suffering, for a better price for their product at the farm gate.
Can I acknowledge the contributions of our chambers of commerce through the electorate and what they do with reference to working collectively with the business groups to enhance profitability.
Additionally, I acknowledge the chaplaincies in our schools and our church leaders. The church leaders in our community are so important because they are the moral compass for our community. Without faith—you do not necessarily have to attend church, but it is the moral compass of a community which assists in where its trajectory is. Recently, St Mary's in Beaudesert had a horrific fire where they lost their administration building. I know that as a community they will rally once again and they will rebuild. It will be an arduous task, but they will rebuild. My thoughts and prayers go to that community.
I would like to acknowledge my local mayors. I have four shires that are encompassed. The mayors are Steve Jones, from the Lockyer Valley Regional Council, who was in the House this morning; Mayor John Brent, from the Scenic Rim Regional Council, who was also in the House today and who also plays a role with AUSVEG; Mayor Tom Tate, of the Gold Coast, where my electorate takes in parts of Mudgeeraba; and Pam Parker, from Logan City Council, who was down here last week. The relationship I have with my mayors is outstanding. They are wonderful people. If we are truly going to make a difference in these communities, we need to understand what the priorities are for a local government and help them help themselves through infrastructure, funding or planning. It is our responsibility as federal members to make sure that we deliver on those commitments.
I would like to also share with the parliament the impact that the carbon tax is having on businesses throughout my electorate. Not one of my business houses has been able to escape the clutches of the carbon tax. We will continue in this House to fight on a daily basis to have that ridiculous piece of legislation repealed so that that financial burden can be lifted off their energy prices. And basically everything they touch has hidden in it somewhere a secret carbon tax component.
I would like to thank the many ministers, too many to mention, who have taken the time to travel to my beautiful electorate.
I would also like to thank our media. We have 13 media outlets throughout my electorate. Some are friendly; some are not so friendly, but they are all honest. To each of our media outlets in the electorate: thank you for the way that you have worked and cooperated with me. In times of hardship, you have been there. When you have thought I have got a little bit too big for my boots, you have snapped me back into gear. The fourth estate is a valuable part of our community, and we should never forget you.
I gave a commitment when I was first elected that I would stand up and represent the voice of the silent majority. Unfortunately, the voice of the silent majority is becoming greater and greater. I have always advocated that the electorate of Wright is the weathervane for our nation. I thank you for the House's indulgence.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! I imagine the member has concluded his remarks. If he has not he will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (19:30): Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Magna Carta
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (19:30): An unassuming document with faded lettering, in a discrete display box, tucked away in a corner of this very building, is Australia's rare and direct link to the birth of modern democracy. Australia has one of the few surviving copies of Magna Carta. Another lies alongside the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States in Washington DC. This ancient document is rightly regarded in the English-speaking world as a symbol representing the freedom and rights of the individual as they exist under the law of the land. Magna Carta states that free men can only be judged by their peers and that the people stand above the government.
Magna Carta, translated from Latin as Great Charter, was sealed under oath by King John at Runnymede on the banks of the River Thames near Windsor on 15 June 1215, and 2015 is the 800th anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta. The Australian government purchased a 1297 copy of Magna Carta in 1952 from King's School, in Bruton, England. It cost 1,250 pounds, yet was valued at more than $40 million only a decade ago. The ink-on-vellum document is one of only four of the final versions of the historic charter that has survived.
You may ask why I bring mention of this 800-year-old document to this place in 2014; for many, the words of Magna Carta may seem strange in our modern world. But as I said to students from the Mole Creek Primary School in my electorate of Lyons when they visited this place: the parliament sits in the hill, not on the hill. This suggests that as elected representatives we are indeed the servants of the people that put us in this place.
What Daniel Hannan, member for South East England in the European Parliament describes so eloquently as 'this secular miracle' is, for the English-speaking people of the world, perhaps, our Torah. In practice, Magna Carta did not generally limit the power of kings in medieval times. By the time of the English Civil War it had become an important symbol for those who wished to show that the king was bound by the same laws as his subjects. In turn this influenced early settlers to the New World, and the ideals and sentiment of Magna Carta inspired later documents, including the constitution of the United States of America.
Written in Latin, much of the charter at Runnymede was painstakingly copied by hand, nearly word for word, from the Charter of Liberties Henry 1 issued when he became king in 1100. My interest and passion for Magna Carta is not for the document itself. Although interesting, to me its significance lies in the relevance of its sentiment and meaning in respect of the freedoms that we sometimes take for granted today. The freedom of the individual to choose, to own property and to be judged only by his peers according to the law of the land, are a fundamental tenet of this document and also of the party which I am a member.
The Liberal Party is the party of choice and the party of freedom. If we stand for nothing else, we stand for a system of government that elevates the individual to a place above the state. It was this notion, conceived so long ago, that set the English-speaking people of the world apart, and charted the course for the rights and freedoms that we take for granted today. Look around the world we live in—be it in Europe, Asia, South America or Africa, we have dictators, we have despots, we have regimes that seek to control their people through fear and threats of violence and abuse by the state. Edmund Burke said, 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.' By elevating the individual above the state, protected by the law of the land, we empower them to rise up and defy the dictator, defy the despot, defy the tyrant. Long may this be so in our great country. Australia's precious, surviving copy of Magna Carta is displayed in a glass box on the first floor of Parliament House to the right of the entrance to the Great Hall. Please take the time to reflect.
Environment
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (19:35): I rise to speak about environmental sustainability in Indi and the importance of planning for the long term use of our resources and ecosystems. I come to this topic neither as a greenie or a conservative, but rather as a farmer, researcher and sixth generation resident. I believe that planning for the future use of our environments must be directed by science, research and community knowledge. I provide this caveat because I know how political the issue of environmental sustainability can be. There are many controversial environmental issues facing my electorate. Water is a big one: how it is used, who owns it, how state legislation affects cross-border neighbours and how decisions affecting different points of the water cycle are made.
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is very important to my electorate as 50 per cent of the water in the basin originates in Indi. Climate change and how we respond is a topic of great importance. My electorate is home to Victoria's ski fields and the effects of a changing climate can be seen most obviously up on the mountains during winter. Environmental tourism in our national parks is a major income earner. How we balance human use with the needs of the ecosystem can be controversial. Bushfires and how communities develop strategies to mitigate and respond to them is also controversial. Agriculture and forestry are the largest employers in the Indi community and we want to maintain our strong manufacturing base.
Other issues raised by my constituents include: the impact of new and existing infrastructure on the natural environment, responding to our growing energy needs, mining and coal seam gas exploration, balancing population growth with the quality of rural and regional life, the sustainability and security of our dams, population pressure on fragile environments, and alpine grazing where science versus tradition.
This diverse list of issues has an equally diverse array of opinions and solutions in our community. Research undertaken in 2013 by the community based organisation Voice For Indi found that people love living in Indi because of the natural beauty, the four distinct seasons, the clean air, the natural environment and the sense of community. People told us that the proximity to Melbourne and Canberra is important, but having a rural lifestyle still rich with community and cultural activities, with great food and wine, amenities and services that were affordable, make Indi a great place to live.
The people of Indi fundamentally care about their environment. They choose to live close to the mountains, rivers and valleys, where there is clean water and fresh air. They want a sustainable future for their children and they want the beauty of the environment to be maintained. It is my belief that the time is right to engage in a conversation with our communities, our businesses and our government representatives with the aim of creating a comprehensive, long-term strategic plan to direct our use of our environmental resources into the future.
Currently no such plan exists. It is much easier to polarise and to blame our political adversaries. One thing I know for sure: the answer to our environmental challenges does not lie in doing this. We need to plan for the future in Indi and we need these plans to be based on our best science and research and community participation.
A plan needs to acknowledge that we have multiple uses for our land and multiple expectations—leisure, manufacturing, farming, mining, timber, grazing and water harvesting, to name a few. I believe these are all essential to our future and can be compatible. A plan needs to be realistic and innovative. I know that the process of building consensus can be challenging but it must be achieved to secure our future prosperity. I know that my community has the knowledge and the passion and as we plan for our environmental future we must bring our communities with us.
The people of Indi want to work together with the government. We want to base our environmental planning and policies on the best science and research available to us. The communities of Indi know that a plan is needed for our long-term industry and businesses and the quality of our life to be preserved. With these comments in mind, I ask that the government, when it makes its decision on grazing in our national parks, considers the wishes of the people of Indi, considers the science, the research and the long-term sustainability of our environment. Thank you.
Diabetes
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (19:40): There are one million Australians who have been diagnosed with diabetes and diabetes is the fastest-growing chronic condition in Australia. Up to half of the cases of type 2 diabetes remain undiagnosed. By 2031—just 17 years away—it is estimated that there will be more than three million Australians who have type 2 diabetes. This is a challenge for policymakers. It is going to be a challenge for future health budgets for state and federal governments.
There are two areas we can focus on. The first one is the area of prevention. Up to 58 per cent of the cases of type 2 diabetes are preventable. The Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute have developed an AusDrisk tool. It is a risk assessment tool for diabetes. It is based on a Finnish one but adapted for Australia. It is a useful tool and it is available online. It is a test which all adults should take especially those over 40. There are some things which you cannot change, like your age, your sex, your genetics, your family history. But there are many other things that you can change, such as your diet and whether you have 2½ hours of moderate physical activity each week. Being overweight or having excess weight around the waistline increases the risk of progressing to type 2 diabetes. Losing even as little as five to 10 per cent of your body weight and keeping it off, can help reduce the risk. There is enormous potential if we can focus on these people who have pre-diabetes or who are at risk of developing diabetes, because delay or even preventing the onset of diabetes is possible with early intervention and is critical to ensuring that state and federal governments are able to pay their health budgets into the future.
The second area where I think there is great potential concerns the incentives which are available to treat diabetes under Medicare. At present there is a practice incentive payment. There is a sign-on payment of $1 for practices who have a register of diabetic patients. There is an outcomes payment of $20 where 50 per cent of diabetic patients have completed a cycle of care, and there is a service incentive payment of $40 per patient for each cycle completed.
When you have a look at the results, they are pretty dismal. The percentage of people with diabetes who received the diabetes annual cycle of care were only about a quarter on the most recent figures, and less than half of general practices even participate in the PIP Diabetes program. Numerous studies have shown that between 22 and 50 per cent of Australians with diabetes do not undergo eye examinations at the recommended frequency. Only 12 per cent have consulted a chiropodist or podiatrist in the last 12 months and only 10 per cent of those have consulted an optician or optometrist in the last 12 months.
The way it is structured, the practice incentive payment is focused on encouraging a process without measuring results. We need to look at introducing a genuine quality measure into Medicare and into the PIP. Part of the cycle of care involves measuring the HbA1c for each diabetic. My concern with the PIP, as it is structured at the moment, is that it rewards process over results and it is not necessarily a quality measure. The UK has more than 20 years experience of something called the Quality and Outcomes Framework. It is a detailed payment system which rewards clinical outcomes. In Australia we could use the existing framework of the practice incentives payment to reward GPs on the level of diabetic control they achieve. It would be a first step but it would be a genuine quality measure, and having a true measurable quality objective would be a good way to make Medicare even better.
Abbott Government
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (19:44): Most people in this place know I come from the arts sector. I spent most of my life before this place working there. In the arts industry, there was a really interesting debate on the nature of arts and the nature of entertainment. Essentially, it came down to a very simple thing. On the arts end of the spectrum, you decided what you wanted to create first and then decided how you might sell it; on the entertainment end of the spectrum, you decided who you could sell it to and then decided what you wanted to create. The reality for most artists, if they want to earn a living in their lifetime, is that they need to be somewhere on that spectrum immediately away from either end.
When I moved into the field I am in now, politics, I found the same kind of argument—the argument between what is governance and what is politics. Again, most of us will sit somewhere on the spectrum between those who decide what is the right thing to do and then work out how to sell it and those who look for what is a popular view and then deliver on that view. Somewhere between those two is where most of us live. Watching the current government, I have come to the rather unfortunate conclusion that we have a government that is entirely and totally at the political end the spectrum. They consider first and foremost and only the political advantage of their actions before they determine what those actions might be.
You only have to look at the behaviour of the government when it comes to our major businesses, our manufacturing sector and Qantas to confirm this view. We had the spectre of the Treasurer back on 27 November undertaking what can only be called a random walk-through of possibilities in a public space—raising the issue of Qantas, talking about debt guarantees, talking about bailing the company out, talking about relaxing the foreign ownership rules and literally all the possible options. That is the kind of action that a government that is actually concerned about its role in government would never do. A government that is concerned with outcomes for industry would never take the kind of public random walk-through of policy options that we have seen this government undertake through November, December, January and February as they threw out thought bubbles on all the different options and raised havoc with the Qantas share price.
We saw the same thing when the Treasurer trashed the reputation of Holden in this place and in public over several days while the government decided what the best political position would be on the future of Holden. I cannot help but agree with the journalists who have been writing in the last few days that it is becoming increasingly clear that the government's entire approach to Qantas is not actually about Qantas at all; it is about trying to wedge the opposition politically. This is an astonishing approach for a government to take. This is a major public company—
Mr Hunt: It is the right thing to do.
Ms OWENS: Well, Minister, I do not think it is the right thing to do to throw out thought bubbles over every possible option over three months and dramatically impact the way people think about a company in the way this government has done. If the government were serious about considering the future of Qantas, it would do what a real government would do: carefully and transparently raise the issues in a way which did not actually cause the kind of extraordinary response and outcry that we have seen in the community. Unfortunately, this is not a government at all concerned with governance; it is a government purely concerned with politics and it probably does not deserve the title of government.
We have also seen the Treasurer and the Prime Minister make some extraordinary statements that demonstrate absolute lack of understanding of the issues. We have seen the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in the last few days, for example, with their outrage over what the Qantas management said about the price of carbon. They made some extraordinarily ignorant statements about Qantas's lack of need for funding because of the statement they made. That is an extraordinary attack on a public company—a company that this government should be working quietly, meticulously and seriously to assist through a difficult time. This is not the time for rhetoric, it is not the time for politics; it is actually the time for government and it is about time they got on with it. (Time expired)
Tasmania State Election
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (19:49): Tonight, I want to speak about something that is extremely important—that is, the decision that will be made by the Tasmanian electors on 15 March. Let me describe the state Tasmania is in after 16 years of Labor government, aided and abetted over the last four years by the Tasmanian Greens. We have the highest unemployment rate of any state in the nation—made even worse, I suspect, by the somewhat hidden and growing number of fly in, fly out workers. We have the lowest workforce participation rate in the nation. We have the lowest proportion of private sector employment compared to public sector employment. We have, unfortunately, the lowest gross state product per capita in the country. We have the lowest proportion of adults in Australia who have attained a year 12 qualification and the lowest retention rates to year 12 of any state. We have the highest proportion of population with a low-income card or receiving an age pension, a disability support pension, a Newstart allowance, a parenting payment and so on.
In short, over the last four years alone, Labor, in the political bed with the Tasmanian Greens, have overseen a reduction in employment to the tune of 10,000 jobs. That is an extraordinary number in a population of only half a million people. I cannot stress enough how this election will probably be the most important election in the history of Tasmania. This election is going to be about restoring confidence. It is going to be about providing certainty. It should be about being trustworthy. It should be about embracing the character of good people not manipulative people and it should be about delivering hope. We need confidence. We need businesses around the nation to see certainty restored to the great state of Tasmania, where they will revisit their plans to invest, where they will revisit their plans to take even an interest in what is a great state with great potential. This is also about trust.
As many in this chamber would know, I spent eight years as a member of the Tasmanian parliament and, unfortunately, lost my seat in the 2010 election. Let me tell you about the days and weeks leading up to the fateful election where the previous Labor Premier looked straight into the camera, looked thousands of people in the eye and said that under no circumstances would he do a deal with the Tasmanian Greens, that he would either rule alone or not at all. But what did we see when the result came in—10 seats, 10 seats, five seats? We saw a Labor Premier blatantly lie.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! I would ask you to withdraw the word 'lie'.
Mr WHITELEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not referring to anyone in this chamber but I will withdraw the word 'lie' and say that a Labor Premier blatantly told a mistruth. The reality is: a deal was done, and the Tasmanian people do not need me to tell them the disastrous results which have come about as a direct result of the uncertainty of that minority government. Make no mistake: despite recent so-called assurances by current Premier Lara Giddings that she would not do any deals with the Greens, I can assure the Tasmanian people that, on past performance and given the desperation they now face, Lara Giddings and Labor will, given half a chance, govern with the support of the Greens. My cry to the people of Tasmania tonight is to elect a majority government. Do not play around with minority parties, Independents, Labor or the Greens. Give Will Hodgman the opportunity to provide a brighter hope for the future.
Holt Electorate: Youth
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (19:54): Today I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of Casey's youth who are participating in the City of Casey Australia Day Study Tour. One of the best things you are able to do as an MP is to engage vibrant, intelligent young people in dialogue. I know the member for Flinders has met with the City of Casey study tour people and kids in the past. It is exciting and challenging to talk about young people and about Australia's future, particularly with young people who have passion, energy and ideas. After our discussions today, I am very sure about the future of our region, given the quality of the young people and the conversation we had.
The questions put to me were probing and intelligent. I sincerely hope that a number of these young people, who are learning about community leadership and participation, will want to get involved in the political process. One of the things that did concern me was the disenfranchisement and the disillusionment they felt with the political process. For such a young, talented group of people to be feeling that about the political process does not bode well for future political participation by young people in our region, but the conversation was a good starting point.
I thank all the students who participated in this discussion and in the Australia Day Study Tour. For the record, they were Stephen Capon from Maranatha Christian School; Samantha Chapman from Casey Grammar School; Kelsy De Prada from Beaconhills College; Sarah Dunstan from Casey Grammar School; Sitarah Mohammadi from Narre Warren South P-12 College; Mason Peatling from Beaconhills College; Nelson Phan from Nossal High School; Arnhie-Marie San Juan from Narre Warren South P-12 College; Asanga Seneviratne from Haileybury College; and, Wali Sultani from Cranbourne Secondary College.
This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Australia Day Study Tour program. I specifically congratulate the City of Casey for running this program. It is a great program which runs through all levels of government and gives 10 young students an insight into how each level of government works. That would not happen without the City of Casey. I congratulate them for their great endeavours over 30 years.
Students participating in the Australia Day Study Tour program this year met with Prime Minister Tony Abbott and with my colleague Jason Wood, the member for Latrobe. One of the key issues they raised was delivering mental health services for young people in the region. It is a challenge we have confronted for some time. Through their efforts and their endeavours, pushing the politicians in the region, they are responsible for the establishment last year of Dandenong headspace. We should keep in mind that the people I represent are representing 60,000 young people in the Casey region. It is absolutely vital that we have a similar headspace in Fountain Gate to service their very large youth population. Our campaign has been strongly supported by Casey's youth and by vibrant, young spokespeople like Dani Rothwell, who has been part of the Headspace for Fountain Gate campaign. I understand the Minister for Health is strongly supportive of the establishment of headspace in Fountain Gate and I encourage the government to ensure that the best possible headspace will be built there before the end of the year.
In the time remaining I wish to recognise, as I do at the end of each school year, students who make their community a better place and their school a better school to be a part of. They are not the kids who put themselves forward, they are not necessarily the school captains, the star sportspeople or the star academic students. These students make a difference by helping other students, leading by example. In December 2013, I was proud to present what I call the Holt Community Spirit and Leadership Awards at the Cranbourne Community Theatre where 50 students from 49 local schools participated. The awards ceremony was attended by over 200 people including award recipients, parents, teachers and family members.
Casey's youth has an incredibly vibrant future. Casey's youth can, on many issues, speak with one very powerful voice. I am very glad to honour to the outstanding young people I met today and all the young people who have participated in the Casey study tour over 30 years. (Time expired)
Debate interrupted.
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Truss to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Qantas Sale Act 1992, and for other purposes.
Mr Truss to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and for related purposes.
Mr Joyce to present a Bill for an Act to provide financial assistance to farmers and their partners, and for related purposes.
Mr Joyce to present a Bill for an Act to deal with consequential and transitional matters arising from the enactment of the Farm Household Support Act 2014, and for related purposes.
Mr Robb to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997, and for related purposes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 09:33.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Moore Electorate: Ocean Reef Marina
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (09:33): The Ocean Reef Marina development in the Moore electorate is estimated to generate $800 million of investment that includes a mix of residential, commercial and retail uses as well as provision for up to 850 moorings for recreational boats. The proposal covers 91 hectares, with 57.8 hectares of land based development and 33.6 hectares of development off the coast or on reclaimed land. A vibrant marina precinct will create local employment—in particular, diversified jobs in the hospitality and tourism industries. Public support is extremely high, with 11,728 responses received to a survey by the City of Joondalup and 93.9 per cent of respondents being in favour of the marina development.
Unfortunately the project has to be assessed under the two-tier system of state and federal approval processes, which has considerably delayed progress since 2004. For example, the project was determined a controlled action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act on 13 July 2009 due to potential impacts on listed threatened species and communities. While the project is a controlled action, it is not possible to determine the appropriate assessment approach under the EPBC Act until the Western Australian government has decided on its assessment approach under state legislation. Similarly, the complex and bureaucratic approvals process must deal with issues relating to the Marmion Marine Park, Bush Forever and Carnaby's black cockatoo. At a state level, in July 2013 the City of Joondalup submitted a Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission together with technical information relating to detailed studies of the environment, water quality, landscape, traffic and transport. An amendment is required to rezone the area from parks and recreation purposes to urban purposes and to create additional waterway access zones and new parks and recreation reserve lands. In summary, the Ocean Reef Marina development is a significant source of investment, local job creation and amenity for residents. What is needed is a more efficient approvals process to ensure the timely progress of the project without the bureaucracy and red tape of the current two-tier state and federal system.
Gellibrand Electorate: Polish Club Albion
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (09:36): I rise today to acknowledge the efforts of the Polish Club Albion and their soccer team, the Western Eagles Football Club. I recently attended the 45th annual Polish Sports Festival on a sunny Sunday morning in Melbourne's west. It was a wonderful day marked by two of Melbourne's west's great passions—delicious food and great sporting contests. I was particularly proud that the Western Eagles beat Polonia Adelaide to take the Polonia Cup—a well-deserved outcome, regardless of what the member for Adelaide may think. The Polish club committee, led by president Andrew Korab, should be congratulated for organising such a fantastic day.
The festival was also another example of achievement in Melbourne's west—the sharing and celebration of different cultures to create a modern Australian identity. The Western Eagles Football Club was started by Polish immigrants who looked for a way to share something they loved from their community back home with their new nation. After decades of hard work to build the grounds and facilities of the Polish club for their community, the Polish club and Western Eagles have now welcomed players from new African-Australian communities in Melbourne's west to their junior teams. One generation of migrants in Melbourne's west are not only maintaining their own valuable cultural heritage and making a contribution to the strength of their broader community but also reaching out to a new generation of migrants and showing them, through practical example, how Australian multiculturalism works. Australian multiculturalism is a brand of multiculturalism that blends a celebration of different cultures with tolerance and respect for the civic responsibilities that we all share as Australians. It is a brand of multiculturalism fostered by crucial programs such as Western Eagles Football Club, for it is in pursuit of a shared goal—in this case a literal shared goal—that differences fade and friendships are formed.
The previous Labor government wanted to assist the good work of the Polish Club Albion by the award of a grant through the Building Multicultural Communities Program to improve the club's facilities. Notably, it would have allowed for improved girls' toilets so that the inclusive nature of the club would extend to girls as well, ensuring that neither gender nor race would act as a setback to inclusion. The Polish club was thrilled to receive news of this grant. Draft agreements were enthusiastically pored over when they arrived from the department. It was unthinkable to the Polish club that the new government would not honour this commitment, considering the money had been allocated in last year's budget. But the Polish club, like so many other community associations around Australia, were informed of the cancellation of this grant in December of last year. Now the committee must look to other sources to find the $160,000 required to make essential repairs to the roof of the club. It is a hardship that the Polish club should not have to experience.
Labor is taking the removal of these grants very seriously. On 20 January, the shadow minister for multiculturalism, Michelle Rowland, visited the Polish club with me and saw firsthand the difference the grants would have made. She noted:
The best way that governments can help build inclusive, harmonious communities is from the bottom up, by supporting grassroots programs like this.
I share this view. Cancelling these grants was a breach of faith for the multicultural communities of Australia. The Prime Minister needs to explain to the Polish club why this government's policy is that the club's work is not worth supporting.
Gladstone Transport, Logistics and Electro Trades Skills Centre
Port of Gladstone
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (09:39): Today I wish to talk about the Gladstone Transport, Logistics and Electro Trades Skills Centre at Gladstone State High School. We welcome the $3.4 million of federal funding to establish this trade centre. It will help to serve the training needs of industry in Gladstone now and into the future. The project will include construction of a large simulated warehouse, theory rooms, an electrotechnology workshop, staff resource space, amenities, an outdoor workshop, portable simulators and other equipment. It will deliver qualifications to address skills shortages in electrotechnology and transport and logistics. The local schools that will benefit include Gladstone State High School, Miriam Vale State School, Mount Larcom State School, Tannum Sands State High School and Toolooa State High School.
The port of Gladstone is a very busy port, and 10 per cent of Australian exports go through it. I can see it becoming even more of a hub for transport into the future. It already exports a lot of coal, aluminium products and grain, but there is big future for export of beef from the three meatworks in our area, at Rockhampton and Biloela, and there is also a possible future for live cattle exports into China and South-East Asia. I think there is a definite need in the area for expansion of our port facilities. There should be a facility that will help with the heavy lifting of products coming into Australia. At the moment, Gladstone does not have the infrastructure to unload heavy ships and it does not have the road infrastructure to transport the heavy equipment that comes in. You might have noticed that, in the construction of the three LNG plants on Curtis Island, a lot of the equipment brought in—some big, wide, heavy gear; modular type equipment—had to be barged up from places like Sydney. That would add to the expense. If we could have facilities in the Gladstone port to have this type of equipment unloaded in the Gladstone harbour and then transported to the rest of Queensland or even to New South Wales, it would be a great help. (Time expired)
Regional Development Australia Hume
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (09:42): It is my belief that the key to rural and regional Australia having a strong, long-term sustainable and happy future lies in a coordinated approach to regional development. We need a clear vision for our future, and we need mechanisms for coordination, planning and advocacy. Last Friday I had the pleasure of meeting with the Hume Regional Development Australia committee, RDA Hume, and learning of the excellent work they are undertaking to bring such a future to the people of Indi.
Regional Development Australia is an initiative of the Commonwealth government. It brings together all levels of government to support the development of regional Australia. It is based on a national network of 55 RDA committees made up of local leaders who work in a voluntary capacity with all levels of government, business and community groups. In Victoria, RDAs are a joint initiative of the Commonwealth and the Victorian government department of regional development.
I am proud to report to this House that RDA Hume has a strong history of success in advocating for our region's interests; encouraging greater connection between all levels of government, community, business and industry; supporting implementation of regional priorities; and facilitating advancement of growth and development opportunities. In a practical way, RDA Hume is helping the community adapt to a future with less water; planning for a low-carbon energy future; revitalising our regional cities, centres, towns and villages; developing our tourism facilities; building strong manufacturing and agricultural sectors supported by a capable workforce; positioning the Hume region in the global food economy; linking communities through building transport capacity and capability; and taking collective action and developing strategies for our digital future and building digital readiness across the region. I would like to draw to the attention of this Chamber five important reports that have been authorised by RDA. Freight directions in the Hume region, Digital Hume: a digital strategy for a smart region; Hume Regional Tracks and Trails Strategy; Food opportunities in Northern Victoria;and, importantly, Aspirations and destinations of young people: a study of four towns and their communities and schools in central Hume, Victoria.
RDAs do really important work. They have proven to be the pivotal point in planning regional development. In Indi and the Hume region they are playing a vital role in coordinating regional planning. They need our continued support and resources.
In closing, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Hume RDA for their outstanding work.
International Women's Day
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (09:45): International Women's day is marked around the world on 8 March and celebrates the economic, political and social achievements of women past and present. International Women's Day has been observed since the early 1900s, a time when women were fighting against oppression and inequality. There is no question that the world has come a long way since those days; however, around the world, women are still seeking equality in education, health, wages and personal safety.
In Bennelong I meet and engage every day with remarkable women like Helen Crouch, who is dedicated to helping the disadvantaged in our community through the North Ryde Community Aid & Information Centre; and Sue Dennett, Principal of Karonga School, who cares for and teaches children with special needs, equipping these children and their families with life skills to ensure they can participate in the community. Throughout Bennelong there are remarkable businesswomen who have displayed innovation and entrepreneurship by establishing unique businesses like Sweetness the Patisserie and Bubcakes, to name only two.
My mother was devoted to her children and also a devoted schoolteacher who respected the potential of each individual, spending much of her teaching time reading to the slow learners and disadvantaged students. She was always encouraging of her children—even when her little boy decided to go into politics! I am the youngest of four children, with three older sisters. I learnt from a young age that girls can do anything. There certainly was no challenging of their authority—until I grew bigger than them! I have two beautiful daughters, Georgia and Emily, now young women—although they are still just my little girls—and they challenge me every day but support me when it matters most. Both girls, along with my son, Charlie, dedicated many hours to being with me during the 2013 election campaign.
On a day-to-day basis my Bennelong electorate office is run by a dedicated team, most of whom are women These modern women organise my diary, keep me up to date on issues and manage important projects. In addition, each of these women connects on a very personal level with the constituents in our electorate. Later this week I am hosting a private International Women's Day morning tea with the women who have helped shape my life's journey as well as those who keep me in line each day.
There is no question that over the past century the focus of International Women's Day has changed. Initially it served as a reminder of gender equality and the struggles of being born female. Today we are proudly celebrating the achievements of women around the world. So, on International Women's Day, think globally and act locally. Do your bit to ensure that the future of our girls is bright, equal, safe and rewarding.
Sydney Multicultural Community Services
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (09:48): I wish to pay tribute to the enormously valued volunteers and staff of the Sydney Multicultural Community Services in my electorate. Established in 1981, Sydney Multicultural Community Services, formerly known as the Botany Migrant Resource Centre, is a not-for-profit organisation that provides assistance and care services to people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. For community development strategies Sydney Multicultural Community Services seeks to empower individuals and communities to actively participate in Australian society. The centre, which is located at Daceyville, is committed to the direct relief of suffering among people who because of barriers such as poverty, isolation and disability are not able to participate fully in our society. The centre is committed to enhancing the quality of life of people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities, including the aged; newly arrived migrants and refugees; and those in crisis, suffering from language barriers, frailty, sickness, dislocation, disadvantage, destitution, misfortune and helplessness.
The centre's main objectives are to encourage and facilitate development and empowerment among ethnic communities; to promote and facilitate participation and cooperation; to develop and enhance, amongst funding bodies and local service providers, a greater understanding of the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse communities and ethnic groups; and to provide direct aid and support to culturally and linguistically diverse members of the community, including the aged and newly arrived refugees and migrants. Late last year I had the wonderful pleasure of opening the expanded facilities of Sydney Multicultural Community Services. It was wonderful to meet some of the clients and the fantastic volunteers and staff who do a wonderful job there. I pay tribute in particular to the CEO, Rosa Loria, and to the board, led ably by Mary Pinzone.
Some of the programs that are run by SMCS include multicultural community aged-care packages, CALD centre day activities, CALD community visitor schemes, settlement grants programs, humanitarian settlement services, energy accounts payment assistance, an emergency relief program, a material assistance program and support groups. Unfortunately, Sydney Multicultural Community Services has not received any information from the government regarding their next round of funding. Normally, they would receive information in November regarding their ongoing funding. The funding will expire at the end of this financial year, in June. They have not been notified. They deserve to be notified by this government about whether or not they will be able to continue to provide these vital services in our community.
Solomon Electorate: Schools
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (09:51): I rise this morning to talk about three wonderful school in my electorate that have fabulous staff and outstanding students. The Manunda Terrace Primary School advises me that they have selected their house captains after the nominees gave some wonderful speeches. Through a democratic process, the following students were elected as house captains. For Neptuna house, Elisa Niki and Tamikah Lister were elected. For Peary, it was Cody Kane and Thaianne Edwards. For Tulagi, Levi Nichaloff and Ieasha Friel were elected. Student representatives to the SRC were also elected from rooms 7, 8, 10 and 11, so congratulations to Jasmine Winter and Charlotte McLauchlan from room 11, Aisha Hayashi and Jonathan Li from room 10, Bella Reynolds and Geza Cifra from room 8, and John Friel and Jacinta Friel from room 7.
For Jingili Primary School, student representative council members for 2014 are, from class 2/3 Baldock, Patience Hampton-Tungutalum and Alyiah Rivas; from class 3/4 Bradley, Evie deJager and Jack Clemmens; from 4/5 Chellew, Ningali Ward and Bernaldy Tawa; from 5/6 Dixon, Flynn Rowlands and Phoenix Riggs; and from 5/6 Grills, Hayley Higgins—who was the Australian Day award recipient—Madison Lodge and Jarvis Wilson.
One of my other favourite schools is Driver Primary School. I have spent quite a bit of time at this wonderful school. The school captains who have been selected for 2014 are Taylah Johnston and Jesse Hansen and the vice-captains are Tahni Rowe and Jack Briskin. Elected as student leadership council representatives were Mystique Mason, Brendan Hart, Renee Nichols, Scott Sutherland, Chloe Wright, Nathan Crosthwaite, Skye McPharlin, Denzel Tomlins, Samantha Hart, Ricky Tomlins, Lorraine Randall, Cameron Hyde, Bailey Howard and Ashanti Morgan. The sports house captains for Chaney are Lyle Byrne and Sarah Forrest, with Pavlos Mastronikolas and Rianna Carlson the vice-captains. For Nelson, the captains are Patrick Chester and Anna Thai and the vice-captains are Sam Murray and Autumn Sengpho. For Archer, the captains are Brodie Lake and Erin Lasker, with the vice-captains Darcy Simpson and Aaliyah McCourt. Finally, for Johnston, the sports house captains are Jackie Huang and Charli Nomoa, while the vice-captains are Jake Spencer and Toya Norris.
It is wonderful that the schools have democratically elected these wonderful people and I hope they get the support they need from their classmates to be great leaders.
Tactile Banknotes
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (09:54): It gives me great pleasure to bring to the House's attention a fantastic idea that will make a difference to the lives of many. It has been thought up by a young man from the Chifley electorate to help boost the independence of vision-impaired Australians. Connor McLeod, from Oakhurst in Chifley, has come up with this idea, and I saw it in our local paper, the St Mary's Mount Druitt Star, when Kylie Stevens wrote about the campaign that he and his mum are starting to kick off, which I think will, as I said, help the lives of many vision-impaired Australians.
Connor himself is vision impaired. He started high school this year. In the Star article, he talked about the fact that he is confronted with the challenge that he can only use coins to make his purchases at school—for example, going to the canteen—for this very simple reason: if any of us were to close our eyes and try to distinguish between notes, it would be hard for us to do. In Australia, we do not have tactile banknotes that allow vision-impaired people to differentiate between notes. So he and his mum, Ally Lancaster, have started a campaign. They have started a Facebook page and have already got 1,200 to 1,500 supporters who have signed a petition to try and get the Reserve Bank of Australia to do something about this. To quote Ally in the article:
It means nothing to me but it would mean a lot to my son and the other 300,000 visually impaired people across Australia …
That figure is expected to double within 10 years. Connor is fine with coins but notes completely do his head in. He's a bright boy but we have a system that is ineffective and inequitable.
So she has started this campaign, to her credit. The article said:
Connor said tactile markings would make a big difference in his life.
I don't always have someone around to help me …
I'm already independent but tactile markings would make me more confident. It would also make other vision impaired people more independent.
As I mentioned, they are on Facebook, at facebook.com/tactilebanknotesaustralia.
The important point to bear in mind is that this is not a change that would be hard to do. The Reserve Bank of Australia could do this, because they are already using the technology to print tactile notes for Chile, Mexico and Thailand, yet they do not do it here. Ally Lancaster said that, while she applauds the fact that the RBA might be able to do something, it is not doing enough and that now they are updating notes they should address this. The RBA governor, Glenn Stevens, is appearing before the economics committee later this week, and I look forward to taking up Connor's case with him, because I think it is a case that is worth pursuing.
Lyne Electorate: Local Sporting Champions Program
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (09:57): Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting with a number of local young sporting champions in my electorate who have continued to excel in their chosen sports. In fact, this year, 15 local individuals and teams have been successful in obtaining assistance to further pursue their sport at a high level, thanks to the federal government's Local Sporting Champions grants scheme. The program, administered by the Australian Sports Commission, recognises the additional costs that parents and families are confronted with when their children pursue their chosen field in representative sport. This year's recipients have used this help to advance their performance. This program does nothing but good for our community, and we need to continue support for this program so that our young athletes with potential have the opportunity to travel and compete. Nurturing local talent is the way to go if we want strong, capable sportspeople in the future. These Local Sporting Champions grants are available to all junior sportspeople and athletes who compete in state or national and international competitions. Participants prioritising their time and effort is difficult enough without added financial pressures, and that is exactly where the Local Sporting Champions grants come into play.
In my recent presentation to local recipients, I was informed of how helpful the grants are in supporting both individuals and teams in covering travel, accommodation, uniforms, equipment and other costs. I take this opportunity to again congratulate our local elite athletes as recipients of these important grants. The recipients include Elliot Starr in basketball, Oliver Nosworthy in rugby league, Kearyn Eastwell in athletics, Nickaela Malby in equestrian, Bradley Paterson in hockey, Liam Magennis in cycling, Connor Dewbery in hockey, the Port Macquarie Hastings Hockey Association clubs, Reid Bourke in hockey, Kane Pollard in soccer, Lucas Mepham in soccer, Patrick Hamilton in soccer, Taylor Sergeant in surf-lifesaving and Annobel Starr in basketball.
Congratulations, again, to them all. They certainly have the potential to become our nation's future sporting stars. We want as many young people living up to their potential as possible, and Local Sporting Champions grants are one important and valuable way of achieving that.
Newcastle Electorate: Job Security
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (09:59): I rise to voice my serious concerns about recent job losses and ongoing challenges for the manufacturing sector in my electorate of Newcastle. Newcastle has seen tough times in manufacturing before—the closure of the BHP steelworks is perhaps the most notable. We have become a strong and resilient region with a highly skilled workforce; a great track record in research and development; and a willingness to embrace new science, technology and innovation—value adding to everything we do. Newcastle has undergone massive social, economic and cultural transformation in recent decades, but there has always been a sense of direction, an overarching plan to support jobs and industry, and a plan to create new jobs for the future. Significantly, these plans have required the support of all levels of government to be effective. Regretfully, this Liberal government has no plan on the table for combatting job losses in our region.
In recent months we have seen the closure of businesses, declining opportunities and significant job losses in Newcastle. Cuts and closures at Brindabella Airlines, Bluetongue Brewery, Sensis, Westrac and UGL have all had an impact locally. And just last week Newcastle shipbuilder Forgacs warned that they will have to close their Carrington and Tomago shipyards within 18 months, laying off more than 900 highly skilled tradesmen and women, unless the federal government expedites decisions on future naval shipbuilding projects.
The government's response so far is to put all decisions on hold. That is not good enough. Our defence manufacturers do not have the luxury of being able to wait another 12 months or more for the government to release yet another defence white paper. The last two defence white papers clearly mapped out Australia's need for more than 40 new ships. We do not need another review to tell us that. What we do need, however, is a government that is willing to stand up for Australian manufacturing and Australian jobs. Forgacs are not asking for a handout; they are ready, willing and able to build these new naval ships here in Australia. But they need this government to act now—to bring forward these naval projects so they do not have to lay off skilled workers and we do not lose our capacity to build ships in Newcastle.
In 2013, Labor made a commitment to bring forward the contracts to replace HMAS Success and HMAS Sirius. Unfortunately, this new government has made no such commitment, so the future of shipbuilders like Forgacs in Newcastle, BAE Systems in Melbourne and ASC in Adelaide remains uncertain.
As opposition leader, Tony Abbott said he did not want to lead a country that didn't make things any more. He embarked on a photo opportunity tour of mining and manufacturing sites around the country—high-vis vest and hard hat donned—pretending to be the 'best friend' of Australian workers. That was before the election. After the election it is a very different story. Unemployment has risen to its highest level in more than a decade and the Prime Minister's promise to create a million new jobs within five years seems more far-fetched by the day. I call on the government to act now to ensure that shipbuilding has a future in Australia. Bring forward the naval shipbuilding contracts before it is too late.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! Before I proceed, under standing order 193 members' statements is for 30 minutes. But if it would suit the convenience of the Federation Chamber, and there being no objections, we will continue with members' statements.
Feszczuk, Superintendent Zenio (Ben), APM
Filewood, Superintendent Raymond
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (10:04): Today it gives me great pleasure to recognise the service of two esteemed gentleman: Superintendent Zenio (Ben) Feszczuk APM, Commander Penrith Local Area Command, and Superintendent Ray Filewood, Commander St Mary's Local Area Command. Ben and Ray marched off together at the 23 August 2013 attestation in Goulburn.
Ben began his career at Police Training Centre Redfern on 19 February 1968, with his first post being to the No. 18 Division in Parramatta to perform general and traffic duties. Ben's many years of service included postings to Warragamba station followed by a career in the criminal investigation unit, where he worked across the Blacktown, Penrith and St Marys areas. In 1998 he was appointed the local area commander for Campbelltown and in 2002 he was appointed the local area commander for Penrith. As a commander he established long, professional and personal relationships right throughout the Penrith community. He has been awarded the national medal with a third clasp, the New South Wales Police Medal with a seventh clasp, and the National Police Service Medal. In 2004, in the Queen's Birthday honours, he received the Australian Police Medal for distinguished service. He has served our community in Western Sydney for 45½ years. I thank you, Ben, for your service, advice and friendship. Even though now retired, Ben remains of an active member of our local community, devoting much of his time to Rotary and other community services. His work during the Blue Mountains bush fires was phenomenal.
I recognise also Superintendent Ray Filewood's remarkable service of 40 years in the New South Wales Police Service. Ray joined the Police Force on 21 May 1973. He was posted to No. 6 Division at North Sydney police station. In August 1984 he was posted to Surry Hills and police headquarters, assisting the assistant commissioner. Ray was finally sent west to the Penrith LAC in 1983, working right across our region in general duties, patrol, anti-theft, the tactical intelligence unit and the state intelligence group. He was promoted to commander in 1997. In 2003 he came back to our region to serve as the commander of the St Marys Local Area Command. I recognise his service and his awards. Ray has received the National Police Service Medal, the national medal with a second clasp and the New South Wales Police Medal with a fifth clasp. On behalf of the Lindsay community, which I represent, I thank both of these gentlemen for their wonderful service, the advice they have provided me and the gift that they have given my community well into the future. Thank you, both.
Ukraine
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (10:07): When former Prime Minister Rudd was in Belgrade at the NATO summit in 2008 I was in Kiev, probably the only Australian parliamentarian ever to have visited the Ukrainian parliament. I stood with my friend Brian Mellzer on the outskirts of Kiev at the terrible place known as Babi Yar, where 100,000 Jewish citizens of the USSR were murdered by the SS Einsatzkommandos. I have had a longstanding interest in Ukraine, having great Ukrainian friends such as Senator Catryna Bilyk, in this parliament. We have moved resolutions supported previously by this entire parliament on the terrible famine that took place under Stalin in the 1930s in Ukraine, when six million poor Ukrainians died.
But our focus is on recent events in Ukraine, particularly the recent economic history that led to the current situation. Ukraine is effectively an oligarchy, where much of the wealth is in the hands of people who could fit into one elevator. The son of the President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, suddenly became one of the wealthiest men in Europe. Tens of billions of dollars disappeared from state budgets. But if a leader steals so much that the state goes bankrupt then the leader's power is diminished, according to Mr Tim Snyder of the New York Review of Books. That is what caused a large part of the recent problem. Struggling to pay Ukraine's debts last year, the Ukrainian leader had two options acording to Snyder:
The first was to begin trade cooperation with the European Union. No doubt an association agreement with the EU would have opened the way for loans, but it also would have meant the risk of the application of the rule of law within Ukraine.
That is because the Europeans do not give their loans without caveats. The alternative was to take money from another authoritarian regime, Russia. That is what happened. In December last year, Mr Putin, with all the money acquired from the sale of hydrocarbons, offered a loan of $15 billion. Ukrainians went into the streets to object to the fact that their country was being turned away from Europe, from modernity and the rule of law.
We all know the events that took place in the streets of Ukraine. On 20 February, the key event happened. An EU delegation was due to negotiate a truce. The riot police fell back from the square called Maidan, or Euromaidan, in the middle of Kiev. Protesters were followed and shot; 70 of them were shot by snipers. That was a terrible event. I think Australia should take an important role by opening an embassy in Kiev. It is a country of 50 million people. We are a big, strong country and we should have representation there. That would be a good way of associating ourselves with the democratic views of the people in Ukraine.
Corangamite Electorate: Carbon Revolution
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (10:10): I rise to pay tribute to a company operating in my electorate called Carbon Revolution. Carbon Revolution is a privately owned Australian company that has developed the world's first full, one-piece carbon fibre composite wheel. The company's core business is in advanced materials and research and development, and it has formed many partnerships around the world for its technology development and product testing. The company originated seven years ago as a research and development project in partnership with Deakin University in Geelong—a great member of the Geelong community. Its founders include past members of academic staff, a PhD and undergraduate students. Early collaboration with high-performance vehicle manufacturers confirmed the viability of this technology. From the outset, the company has adopted a clear strategy of understanding, fulfilling and ultimately exceeding original equipment manufacturer requirements and standards prior to launching products into the automotive product market.
It is with great pride that yesterday we heard the federal and state governments announce that Carbon Revolution will receive a $5 million grant as part of the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund. This grant is part of an investment in a $23 million project to take the company from currently producing 4,000 wheels through to a production run of 50,000 wheels. What this is going to do is put Carbon Revolution on a platform where it becomes a tier 1 auto component supplier to the world. When it made its application, it was predicting it would develop 108 new jobs, but yesterday we heard that that number has now risen to 150. The company is now looking, with its growth plans, at a further 150 jobs. That is great news in my region of Geelong, which has taken some hits lately, such as Ford going 12 months ago. The end of car manufacturing has been a very big blow to my community. It is with great pride that we nurture and we look forward to many more wonderful stories of advanced manufacturing in the Geelong region and across Corangamite.
I also want to commend the leaders of this company; the chief executive officer, Mr Dingle; and the chairman, James Douglas. They have led this company, they are great local leaders in our community and I greatly commend the work they are doing to take Geelong innovation to the world.
Griffith Electorate: Schools
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (10:14): Since the Griffith by-election I have visited a number of schools in my electorate. I visited Balmoral State High School for its leadership investiture ceremony. Principal Ms Allison Crane was kind enough to show me the school's facilities. As we walked the campus, I was struck by how the students reacted to her. They are obviously very fond of their principal. Ms Crane, her students, the staff and the P&C are rightly proud of their school.
Norman Park State School is also the heart of a loving school community. The school has a new library, built under Labor. The school is pleased with its facilities, though of course there is always more to be done. At Norman Park's investiture ceremony, Principal Ms Janine Leach gave a touching speech about leadership, including telling the children about our Australian of the Year, Adam Goodes. Norman Park's new school leaders modelled great behaviour throughout the ceremony.
I recently attended the P&F barbecue at St Joachim's School, a primary school in Holland Park. At the barbecue, I was fortunate to meet Principal Mr Chris Thomas who told me of the steep growth in enrolments at the school in the preceding few years. Mr Thomas has been working on quickly improving the school's facilities. I note that, in addition to the new facilities that have already been completed, the school is working on adding another prep classroom, an outside-school-hours care room, artificial turf and an early-years amphitheatre. It is an ambitious program and the school community is proud of its achievements.
Greenslopes State School is a small, close-knit school. The school leaders at Greenslopes take on responsibility for caring for the most junior students—the prep students. At the school leader ceremony, each school leader's prep buddy brought out his or her badge on a little white lace cushion. It was absolutely beautiful. The principal, Ms Kathy Canavan, held the whole school community's attention throughout the ceremony that she conducted.
I am grateful to have been invited to Camp Hill State Infants and Primary School's investiture ceremony. The principal, Ms Deborah Driver, is justifiably proud of the school hall with its custom flooring, built with funding that the former Labor government allocated. Camp Hill is a very large school, making it all the more impressive that there are such strong bonds between staff, parents, students and the broader community.
I am proud of Labor's record when it comes to schools. Most recently, 44 schools in the electorate have benefited from the BER investment. There were 124 projects across those 44 schools, including 17 multipurpose halls and 25 libraries. In total, an $88 million investment went into local schools across the south side of Griffith. I am honoured to represent our local schools. That the school communities in Griffith are thriving is clear from: the dedication of the P&Cs and P&Fs; the enthusiasm from parents, grandparents, friends, representatives of other schools and the broader community for, and participation in, school events; the principals, deputy principals and staff members' care and leadership; the students' respectful and attentive behaviour, and the quality and confidence of each of the student leaders I have had the privilege to meet. (Time expired)
Economics Committee
Mr HOGAN (Page) (10:16): I have the pleasure of being on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, and twice a year we get the Governor of the RBA to come and have an audience with us where we ask him questions about the state of the economy and what is happening. We are meeting him on Friday this week. He has enabled us to ask some school students to come along and ask questions of him. I had a competition in my electorate where I asked any high school student in year 11 or year 12 doing economics or business studies to put a question to the Governor of the Reserve Bank. I then said the winners could come along with me on Friday and ask their questions.
I am very happy to inform the parliament that the two winners have been chosen. I want to share with you all today the questions that they asked. First, we have Jeremy, who is studying economics. His question was the following: 'Governor, in around five years from now I will have graduated from university and will be looking for postgraduate employment. What I would like to know is what effect you think the potentially unsustainable levels of sovereign debt of the US, Europe and, indeed, Australia will have on the Australian economy in the medium to long term, especially in regards to employment?'
What an insightful question from an 18-year-old who is very aware of the debt levels of countries around the world and wants to know the ramifications of that. In conversation with him I learned that he is aware that our interest bill per year is $10 billion. So while we will spend money on social services and infrastructure in Australia, wouldn't it be lovely if we did not have the hundreds of billions of dollars of debt and did not have to pay $10 billion a year in interest that we do not get anything for? That interest bill happens year in and year out.
The second question is from a young lady called Josie. She lives in Wyrallah. Again, she had a really insightful question. Her question to the governor was: 'If the unemployment rate heads over seven per cent and inflation moves above your three per cent comfort level, would you raise the cash rate to fight inflation first or keep the cash rate low to support greater employment?'
That is a great, insightful question. I pay tribute to the students and their teachers. They are obviously getting very well taught, based on their knowledge of economics and their insightful questions. I look forward to seeing them on Friday to ask the Governor of the RBA these questions and to sharing time with them.
Adelaide Electorate: Building Multicultural Communities Program
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (10:19): I am proud to represent a community that is both diverse and multicultural, in beautiful Adelaide. I know that it is the responsibility of all members of parliament, and indeed all levels of government, to make sure that these communities settle well and have appropriate access to services and support. That is in the best interests of all in the Adelaide community. I was incredibly proud that we were able to announce a number of grants for Adelaide multicultural groups, under the Building Multicultural Communities Program—a program which was fully budgeted and not subject to election promises; it was a government announcement. I had great pleasure to go and speak directly with community leaders in Adelaide to tell them that their hard work had paid off, that they had been successful and that many projects which had been in the pipeline for a long period of time would finally be able to take place. Unfortunately, we saw with the election of the Abbott government that the overwhelming majority of those programs have now been halted and those grants have been taken off the multicultural communities to which they were granted, often leaving them with some expense that they had already incurred.
Last Friday, I had the opportunity to visit the Middle Eastern Communities Council of South Australia with the shadow minister for citizenship and multiculturalism, Michelle Rowland. This community group had a grant of $100,000 given to them, which was then cut by the Abbott government. The $100,000 was for the upgrade of their community hall—a community hall that was providing services to an ever-growing number of people in Adelaide. I know, particularly in my electorate of Adelaide, that we have a rapidly growing Afghan community, who offer much to their local community and whom we would like to be able to support with the kinds of facilities and resources they need.
We met with the manager of the Middle Eastern Communities Council, Mr Hussain Razaiat, and he told us how, when he had gone to the hundreds of people in the Middle Eastern community who had been told of the success of that grant, he felt personally embarrassed. As their community leader, he felt that he had failed them somehow by not being able to go through with this project and get access to the funding to upgrade the community hall. I want to make it very clear to that community and indeed to this parliament that it is not Hussain—it is not any of the community leaders—who has let down the Middle Eastern community in South Australia; it is the Abbott government, and solely the Abbott government. They cut a program which we know saves government money. When we invest in community leaders to get out there to support people to invest in aged care facilities and community support we all win. (Time expired)
Zaro, Mr Enemarki
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (10:22): I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable elder of the Torres Strait Islands, Mr Enemarki Matthew Zaro, who passed away on 7 February of this year, aged 96. Known as 'Papa Zaro', the proud Dauareb and Meriam elder was one of the few remaining members of the Torres Strait Light Infantry Battalion, which helped the Australian Defence Force and Allied forces in their fight to protect Northern Australia from 1942 through to 1945. Of the 880 men originally in the battalion, there are only three today who are still with us, and the late Mr Zaro was the last surviving member of the 116 Mer volunteers.
I have long held an interest in the accomplishments of these servicemen. The unit was unique, being the only Indigenous Australian battalion ever formed by the Australian Army. Mr Zaro stood proud alongside his compatriots and Australian soldiers in defence of Australia against the looming invasion by the Japanese Imperial Defence Force during the darkest days of WWII. On 14 March 1942, Japanese fighter planes targeted Horn Island as part of their campaign to cripple military positions in Northern Australia. The island's aerodrome was a strategic but vulnerable operational base for Australian and Allied forces. Coast-watchers in New Guinea managed to send an alert of the impending raid and during the ensuing mid-air duel the Allied forces were outnumbered but still managed to ward off the attack. Horn Island was attacked eight more times by the Japanese over the next 16 months. Five hundred bombs were unleashed and more than 150 servicemen were killed, but the troops in Australia's most vulnerable military outpost managed to thwart the relentless attempts at invasion.
In 2002, on the 60th anniversary of the first bombing of the island, my good friend and Torres Strait historian Vanessa Seekee and I were successful in getting the government to award Star Medals to members of the Torres Strait Light Infantry. In 2012, on the 70th anniversary, Vanessa and I again called for more recognition of the event and an acknowledgment of the role that Torres Strait Islanders played in defending Australia. This month is the 72nd anniversary. We commemorate the life of Enemarki Zaro, a man dearly loved by his family, of strong Christian beliefs and integrity. He is survived by an extended family who can be very proud of their heritage and treasure their memories of a man who served his country in a very unique way.
Holt Electorate: Manufacturing
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (10:25): Last month I paid a visit to a local company in Hallam, Coolon LED Lighting, which is an innovative local manufacturing company run by Svetlana Zatsepin and Alex Zatsepin. Coolon LED Lighting was formed in 2001 in Oakleigh; it is now based in Hallam. Coolon LED Lighting has 40 employees. The secret to its success, given it is a small-to-medium sized company in the particularly challenging environment of manufacturing, is its investment in R&D. What it did was basically look at LEDs and how they could be used in mining and other services. Coolon's turnover last year was $7.5 million, and it is trending towards $8.5 million this year.
I want to say how proud I am of this company and its people, because the products from its research are now used on a daily basis around the world. Coolon's LED lights are electronically highly sophisticated and are, in fact, probably closer to an onboard computer than to conventional lamps. The company has competed successfully in the global market because it is constantly modifying and adapting its products to ensure that it is one step ahead of its competitors, which is invariably Philips but also other large companies in China and Europe.
Coolon LED Lighting's clients include mining companies, architectural firms and local governments like the Melbourne City Council, which has Coolon lights installed in many public projects. Some of Coolon LED Lighting's largest and most prominent projects have won many industry recognition awards and have even become recognised on a world scale.
By redirecting their expertise towards mining and heavy industrial applications, Coolon was able to create a range of industrial products that are now well known and globally recognised for being virtually indestructible and, particularly in these economically challenging times, energy efficient. Coolon has since become an established supplier to many international mining leaders like BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Glencore, AngloAmerican, Barrick—just to name a few. The release of their first industrial product coincided with the GFC, but because of their research, commitment and innovation they managed to prosper in a very challenging environment.
We know that our local manufacturing sector is encountering very challenging times, but I would like to point out to this chamber that the way forward in terms of jobs in the future are companies like Coolon LED Lighting. They are an amazing company. Their people have come from overseas and so are not Australian born, but they have made their mark on their community; they are employing people. Our job at any sort of level of government is to provide support to these sorts of companies because they are the way of the future. They are not necessarily competing on a level playing and so we as a government have to provide them with the opportunities to continue to go forward. I congratulate the owners of this great company and look forward to their ongoing and continuing success.
Local Government
Mr IRONS (Swan) (10:28): I rise to speak on an issue in Western Australia which is not necessarily a federal issue but which concerns my electorate and the five councils within it, and that is local council amalgamations. In 2005 the Labor minister for local government and regional development commenced an inquiry into local government structure and electoral reform in Western Australia. The findings of the board were that some local governments were facing severe demographic pressures and that they were threatening community sustainability. A specific recommendation was made for the amalgamation of local governments in metropolitan Perth and regional areas. The coalition government has continued with that. There is not a lot of disagreement with the Barnett coalition government but I do not think it has got this issue right, and here I particularly want to speak on the South Perth and Town of Victoria Park proposal. In a media release, John McGrath, the MLA for South Perth said he has:
… urged ratepayers in his constituency to stand up against a State Government proposal under its Local Government amalgamation agenda that will see the City of South Perth come under the control of the Town of Victoria Park for a period from July 1, 2015.
This is a result of the Minister for Local Government putting forward a submission to the Local Government Advisory Board to abolish the City of South Perth and absorb it into the Town of Victoria Park, which to me seems strange, as the City of South Perth is the larger of the two entities; and the Town of Victoria Park has little or no reserves, whereas the City of South Perth, on behalf of its ratepayers, holds reserves of $53 million.
But what they have done is change it from an amalgamation to a boundary change to avoid scrutiny, because their amalgamation guide actually says that all stakeholders should be part of the process—the principal stakeholders of the local government should be involved in the process, and they are the electors, residents, non-resident landowners and business owners. They have been cut out of this process by having this boundary change instead of an amalgamation. The two councils had made submissions for a simple amalgamation, which would see both dissolved at the same time, but the Minister for Local Government has decided to go to a boundary change, which cuts out the opportunity for residents and ratepayers to have their say in the amalgamation, something that I spoke to him about. He said to me that he thought that it would be the City of South Perth that takes over, but since then he has come out with a different argument that now the Town of Victoria Park will take over the bigger entity, the City of South Perth.
So I would say to all my residents and ratepayers in the City of South Perth, where I happen to live as well: write to the LGAB by 13 March, make your thoughts known—that you oppose this boundary change and that the government needs to get it right—and, I hasten to add, go to the meeting at the City of South Perth on Thursday night.
Qantas
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:31): I rise to speak in response to appeals from Qantas workers living in my community. Once again, and it is becoming a sadly familiar occurrence, I am being contacted by anxious members of my community, worried about their futures. As recently as last night, one of my constituents contacted me, concerned about jobs being sent offshore—not Qantas jobs but call centre jobs and public service jobs, because there is a roll-on effect. It seems, in the short time I have been in this place, I have spent most of my time advocating for workers in my electorate who, under the Abbott government, have lost their jobs or are in peril of doing so. And it is not just the workers I worry for; it is their families, their children, their husbands, their wives. We on this side understand the role government plays in job creation and keeping a community stable and flourishing. This is why, under Labor's watch, nearly one million jobs were created.
The sense of deja vu is overwhelming, standing here saying the same thing I said two weeks ago and yet it has had no impact. There is still no plan. There has been no action taken to avoid the Qantas losses, and the figures do not include the cruel state of anxiety that the workers have endured for weeks while Qantas went public with the plan to cut 5,000 jobs but did not share specifics with the workers. I am not inured to the pain of my neighbours in the face of such an announcement or to the cumulative impact of the rolling job losses occurring in my community. These are real people with real feelings and pressures. These are families with mortgages, school costs and children to rear. I empathise. I remember well the shock of suddenly being reduced to one wage, and part time at that, while raising three children. I know personally the anxiety of income stress, mortgage stress, the worry about the next bill.
Paul Keating described this Prime Minister as economically illiterate. I fear the truth is far worse. His lack of action shows no empathy or feeling for his own country men and women. Those opposite seem to enjoy the sport of parliament, winning petty points and cheering each other's smart alec comments. What they do not seem to have an interest in is the wellbeing of the 23 million people we are here to represent. The fact that 63,000 jobs have been lost since September seems to be a point of pride. We all remember the astonishing day when the Treasurer actually goaded General Motors Holden, one of Australia's most loved and respected companies, to leave our shores. And they did, as did Toyota, as did Alcoa, and, tragically for my community and many others in Australia, so did 63,000 jobs—and counting. When the Prime Minister promised he would create a million jobs in five years, perhaps he was telling the truth, but we are all waiting for actions to match the rhetoric. I urge the government to act on Australian jobs for the people of my electorate.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 10:34 .
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Defence Expenditure
(Question No. 45)
Ms Brodtmann asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 11 February 2014:
For each electoral division from 1 July to 31 December 2013, and as contained in the Defence Expenditure by Electorate year to date first quarter for 2013-14 within the Chief Finance Officer Group, what was the financial expenditure for:
(a) Military Employee Expenses;
(b) Civilian Employee Expenses;
(c) Facilities—Capital;
(d) Facilities—Operating;
(e) Grants;
(f) Major Capital Equipment; and
(g) Supplier Expenses.
Ms Julie Bishop: The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) Defence expenditure by electorate for the period 1 July 2013 to 31 December 2013 is at Attachment A.
Attachment A
Defence Spending by Electorate for the period 1 July 2013 to 31 December 2013 |
|
|
|
|||||||
Electorate |
State |
Financial year |
Military Employee E xpenses |
Civilian Employee E xpenses |
Facilities C apital |
Facilities O perating |
Grants |
Major capital E quipment |
Supplie r E xpenses |
Total |
|
|
|
$'000 |
$'000 |
$'000 |
$'000 |
$'000 |
$'000 |
$'000 |
$'000 |
Adelaide |
SA |
2013-14 |
11,398 |
1,626 |
- |
3,359 |
34 |
3,919 |
35,628 |
55,964 |
Aston |
VIC |
2013-14 |
0 |
- |
- |
0 |
- |
905 |
7,147 |
8,052 |
Ballarat |
VIC |
2013-14 |
1,411 |
67 |
- |
4 |
- |
2,053 |
215 |
3,750 |
Banks |
NSW |
2013-14 |
0 |
0 |
- |
24 |
- |
6 |
774 |
804 |
Barker |
SA |
2013-14 |
138 |
- |
2,029 |
3 |
6 |
49 |
118 |
2,344 |
Barton |
NSW |
2013-14 |
244 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
724 |
968 |
Bass |
TAS |
2013-14 |
485 |
719 |
6,444 |
87 |
- |
301 |
1,231 |
9,267 |
Batman |
VIC |
2013-14 |
0 |
0 |
- |
117 |
- |
414 |
252 |
783 |
Bendigo |
VIC |
2013-14 |
830 |
430 |
- |
76 |
- |
30,777 |
589 |
32,702 |
Bennelong |
NSW |
2013-14 |
70 |
- |
- |
337 |
62 |
20,290 |
105,503 |
126,261 |
Berowra |
NSW |
2013-14 |
0 |
0 |
- |
0 |
- |
66 |
8,702 |
8,769 |
Blair |
QLD |
2013-14 |
134,684 |
6,742 |
85,550 |
144 |
36 |
119 |
10,043 |
237,316 |
Blaxland |
NSW |
2013-14 |
4 |
- |
- |
2 |
- |
1,005 |
10,406 |
11,417 |
Bonner |
QLD |
2013-14 |
1 |
- |
- |
174 |
- |
114 |
35,863 |
36,152 |
Boothby |
SA |
2013-14 |
2,895 |
600 |
- |
1 |
- |
639 |
562 |
4,696 |
Bowman |
QLD |
2013-14 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
11 |
1,623 |
1,634 |
Braddon |
TAS |
2013-14 |
348 |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
32 |
115 |
497 |
Bradfield |
NSW |
2013-14 |
2,001 |
60 |
- |
- |
- |
7,201 |
8,172 |
17,434 |
Brand |
WA |
2013-14 |
101,375 |
12,048 |
515 |
5 |
29 |
4,231 |
27,006 |
145,210 |
Brisbane |
QLD |
2013-14 |
208,130 |
16,786 |
13,297 |
36,324 |
- |
76,616 |
412,012 |
763,165 |
Bruce |
VIC |
2013-14 |
- |
- |
- |
48 |
- |
89,248 |
17,947 |
107,243 |
Calare |
NSW |
2013-14 |
1,398 |
34 |
- |
11 |
- |
0 |
10,236 |
11,678 |
Calwell |
VIC |
2013-14 |
1,476 |
426 |
- |
19 |
- |
11,539 |
1,994 |
15,455 |
Canberra |
ACT |
2013-14 |
37,960 |
18,288 |
8 |
5,778 |
3,518 |
73,297 |
246,696 |
385,545 |
Canning |
WA |
2013-14 |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
4 |
27 |
161 |
194 |
Capricornia |
QLD |
2013-14 |
564 |
75 |
9 |
212 |
- |
11 |
2,402 |
3,275 |
Casey |
VIC |
2013-14 |
- |
0 |
- |
2 |
- |
98 |
2,136 |
2,237 |
Charlton |
NSW |
2013-14 |
- |
6 |
- |
10 |
- |
45 |
329 |
390 |
Chifley |
NSW |
2013-14 |
176 |
3 |
- |
12 |
- |
1,323 |
1,368 |
2,882 |
Chisholm |
VIC |
2013-14 |
85 |
- |
- |
10 |
- |
209 |
7,642 |
7,946 |
Cook |
NSW |
2013-14 |
0 |
65 |
- |
21 |
- |
2,291 |
2,181 |
4,559 |
Corangamite |
VIC |
2013-14 |
1,603 |
1,874 |
- |
- |
- |
14 |
1,068 |
4,559 |
Corio |
VIC |
2013-14 |
364 |
2 |
- |
19 |
- |
0 |
1,530 |
1,916 |
Cowan |
WA |
2013-14 |
5 |
- |
- |
2 |
- |
125 |
344 |
476 |
Cowper |
NSW |
2013-14 |
246 |
- |
- |
4 |
- |
0 |
207 |
456 |
Cunningham |
NSW |
2013-14 |
1,597 |
4,309 |
- |
5 |
- |
272 |
416 |
6,598 |
Curtin |
WA |
2013-14 |
49,423 |
2,235 |
205 |
123 |
49 |
3,037 |
21,233 |
76,304 |
Dawson |
QLD |
2013-14 |
336 |
0 |
- |
1,439 |
- |
22 |
1,562 |
3,359 |
Deakin |
VIC |
2013-14 |
1,588 |
38 |
- |
- |
- |
1,774 |
4,657 |
8,058 |
Denison |
TAS |
2013-14 |
6,157 |
1,987 |
- |
461 |
22 |
126 |
643 |
9,396 |
Dickson |
QLD |
2013-14 |
1 |
- |
- |
19 |
- |
1 |
1,123 |
1,144 |
Dobell |
NSW |
2013-14 |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
- |
2 |
12,268 |
12,270 |
Dunkley |
VIC |
2013-14 |
13 |
224 |
- |
- |
5 |
24 |
226 |
493 |
Durack |
WA |
2013-14 |
3,800 |
1,345 |
- |
660 |
3 |
37 |
1,330 |
7,174 |
Eden-Monaro |
NSW |
2013-14 |
37,562 |
6,827 |
- |
333 |
- |
207 |
5,309 |
50,238 |
Fadden |
QLD |
2013-14 |
0 |
1 |
- |
- |
3 |
18 |
1,250 |
1,271 |
Fairfax |
QLD |
2013-14 |
246 |
- |
- |
1,014 |
- |
28 |
21,605 |
22,892 |
Farrer |
NSW |
2013-14 |
209 |
156 |
- |
15,947 |
91 |
3,069 |
2,575 |
22,047 |
Fisher |
QLD |
2013-14 |
75 |
- |
- |
350 |
- |
6 |
5,731 |
6,163 |
Flinders |
VIC |
2013-14 |
43,463 |
2,480 |
- |
30 |
55 |
0 |
396 |
46,424 |
Flynn |
QLD |
2013-14 |
83 |
- |
- |
14 |
- |
30 |
364 |
491 |
Forde |
QLD |
2013-14 |
243 |
4 |
25,521 |
- |
- |
6 |
205 |
25,979 |
Forrest |
WA |
2013-14 |
191 |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
45 |
237 |
Fowler |
NSW |
2013-14 |
62 |
0 |
- |
48 |
10 |
20 |
4,449 |
4,590 |
Franklin |
TAS |
2013-14 |
258 |
253 |
- |
414 |
- |
2 |
424 |
1,352 |
Fraser |
ACT |
2013-14 |
330,524 |
422,149 |
25,945 |
38,358 |
77 |
22,641 |
237,283 |
1,076,977 |
Fremantle |
WA |
2013-14 |
2,702 |
5,093 |
- |
21,799 |
- |
73,501 |
94,040 |
197,135 |
Gellibrand |
VIC |
2013-14 |
1,787 |
492 |
- |
37 |
54 |
45,629 |
84,722 |
132,721 |
Gilmore |
NSW |
2013-14 |
53,311 |
11,487 |
6,918 |
413 |
39 |
312 |
19,277 |
91,756 |
Gippsland |
VIC |
2013-14 |
19,398 |
3,496 |
18,661 |
216 |
35 |
36 |
367 |
42,209 |
Goldstein |
VIC |
2013-14 |
296 |
- |
- |
2 |
- |
9 |
1,200 |
1,506 |
Gorton |
VIC |
2013-14 |
41 |
0 |
- |
147 |
- |
13 |
307 |
508 |
Grayndler |
NSW |
2013-14 |
- |
0 |
- |
1,467 |
- |
8 |
970 |
2,445 |
Greenway |
NSW |
2013-14 |
0 |
- |
- |
9 |
- |
1,115 |
2,424 |
3,548 |
Grey |
SA |
2013-14 |
299 |
180 |
13 |
1 |
- |
7 |
2,712 |
3,213 |
Griffith |
QLD |
2013-14 |
3,517 |
2,622 |
- |
236 |
- |
100 |
15,322 |
21,797 |
Groom |
QLD |
2013-14 |
32,862 |
7,351 |
- |
127 |
32 |
- |
2,485 |
42,858 |
Hasluck |
WA |
2013-14 |
647 |
443 |
- |
11 |
- |
- |
1,647 |
2,749 |
Herbert |
QLD |
2013-14 |
220,490 |
10,753 |
17,142 |
23,218 |
- |
220 |
38,823 |
310,646 |
Higgins |
VIC |
2013-14 |
1 |
- |
- |
6,747 |
- |
371 |
41,969 |
49,088 |
Hindmarsh |
SA |
2013-14 |
0 |
42 |
- |
0 |
- |
2,254 |
13,880 |
16,176 |
Hinkler |
QLD |
2013-14 |
20 |
- |
- |
15 |
- |
- |
56 |
90 |
Holt |
VIC |
2013-14 |
1 |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
26 |
638 |
666 |
Hotham |
VIC |
2013-14 |
2,272 |
29 |
- |
453 |
- |
660 |
2,533 |
5,946 |
Hughes |
NSW |
2013-14 |
124,269 |
8,007 |
133,724 |
112 |
- |
20 |
12,716 |
278,848 |
Hume |
NSW |
2013-14 |
71 |
9 |
- |
104 |
- |
195 |
1,066 |
1,445 |
Hunter |
NSW |
2013-14 |
14,772 |
693 |
1,258 |
80 |
- |
665 |
42,899 |
60,367 |
Indi |
VIC |
2013-14 |
43,153 |
8,414 |
6,846 |
10,995 |
- |
847 |
26,465 |
96,720 |
Isaacs |
VIC |
2013-14 |
575 |
151 |
- |
0 |
- |
835 |
2,571 |
4,132 |
Jagajaga |
VIC |
2013-14 |
28,464 |
3,128 |
258 |
757 |
54 |
723 |
818 |
34,201 |
Kennedy |
QLD |
2013-14 |
1,128 |
85 |
- |
21 |
- |
3 |
335 |
1,572 |
Keppal |
QLD |
2013-14 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Kingsford Smith |
NSW |
2013-14 |
25,143 |
1,433 |
3,548 |
387 |
1 |
1,708 |
83,518 |
115,738 |
Kingston |
SA |
2013-14 |
85 |
- |
- |
0 |
- |
79 |
249 |
414 |
Kooyong |
VIC |
2013-14 |
1,642 |
146 |
- |
25 |
1 |
1,711 |
24,406 |
27,930 |
La Trobe |
VIC |
2013-14 |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
- |
165 |
1,084 |
1,249 |
Lalor |
VIC |
2013-14 |
10 |
609 |
- |
11 |
- |
107 |
3,253 |
3,990 |
Leichhardt |
QLD |
2013-14 |
42,031 |
2,724 |
- |
253 |
48 |
13 |
14,029 |
59,098 |
Lilley |
QLD |
2013-14 |
16 |
3 |
87 |
149 |
- |
15,006 |
23,916 |
39,177 |
Lindsay |
NSW |
2013-14 |
6,807 |
11,423 |
41 |
36 |
- |
13 |
33,038 |
51,357 |
Lingiari |
NT |
2013-14 |
25,053 |
856 |
2,652 |
13,807 |
60 |
15 |
3,003 |
45,448 |
Longman |
QLD |
2013-14 |
176 |
- |
- |
116 |
- |
0 |
631 |
922 |
Lyne |
NSW |
2013-14 |
175 |
- |
- |
6 |
- |
417 |
683 |
1,281 |
Lyons |
TAS |
2013-14 |
22,166 |
17,011 |
- |
0 |
- |
1 |
80 |
39,258 |
Macarthur |
NSW |
2013-14 |
- |
- |
- |
7 |
- |
1 |
886 |
894 |
Mackellar |
NSW |
2013-14 |
96 |
0 |
1,654 |
79 |
- |
2,268 |
4,544 |
8,641 |
Macquarie |
NSW |
2013-14 |
88,401 |
9,650 |
3,450 |
6 |
- |
3,078 |
40,844 |
145,430 |
Makin |
SA |
2013-14 |
216 |
0 |
- |
111 |
57 |
7,350 |
55,558 |
63,292 |
Mallee |
VIC |
2013-14 |
257 |
- |
- |
4 |
- |
0 |
89 |
350 |
Maranoa |
QLD |
2013-14 |
148 |
175 |
- |
21 |
- |
13 |
2,575 |
2,933 |
Maribyrnong |
VIC |
2013-14 |
488 |
90 |
- |
191 |
- |
117 |
1,585 |
2,470 |
Mayo |
SA |
2013-14 |
11,958 |
218 |
- |
24 |
- |
113 |
785 |
13,097 |
McEwen |
VIC |
2013-14 |
15,001 |
4,278 |
11,936 |
30 |
96 |
57 |
409 |
31,807 |
McMahon |
NSW |
2013-14 |
0 |
0 |
- |
1 |
- |
1,534 |
2,297 |
3,832 |
McMillan |
VIC |
2013-14 |
116 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
795 |
911 |
Mcpherson |
QLD |
2013-14 |
405 |
1 |
- |
23 |
- |
102 |
1,808 |
2,339 |
Melbourne |
VIC |
2013-14 |
9,548 |
46,398 |
- |
14,956 |
2 |
5,725 |
138,728 |
215,357 |
Melbourne Ports |
VIC |
2013-14 |
15,663 |
64,011 |
119 |
28,765 |
- |
11,948 |
207,540 |
328,047 |
Menzies |
VIC |
2013-14 |
- |
0 |
- |
- |
- |
47 |
474 |
522 |
Mitchell |
NSW |
2013-14 |
1 |
54 |
- |
2 |
- |
149 |
1,349 |
1,555 |
Moncrieff |
QLD |
2013-14 |
417 |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
22 |
2,652 |
3,093 |
Moore |
WA |
2013-14 |
152 |
- |
- |
8 |
- |
1 |
101 |
261 |
Moreton |
QLD |
2013-14 |
11 |
- |
- |
707 |
- |
15,997 |
4,634 |
21,349 |
Murray |
VIC |
2013-14 |
573 |
1,452 |
- |
31 |
- |
18 |
611 |
2,684 |
New England |
NSW |
2013-14 |
5,693 |
243 |
- |
19 |
- |
- |
7,892 |
13,847 |
Newcastle |
NSW |
2013-14 |
113,703 |
17,185 |
11,178 |
9,487 |
18 |
967 |
45,935 |
198,473 |
North Sydney |
NSW |
2013-14 |
26,946 |
2,283 |
1,230 |
1,951 |
- |
17,862 |
233,847 |
284,118 |
O'Connor |
WA |
2013-14 |
67 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
10 |
12 |
89 |
Oxley |
QLD |
2013-14 |
0 |
- |
- |
6 |
- |
10 |
7,412 |
7,429 |
Page |
NSW |
2013-14 |
1,664 |
80 |
- |
5 |
- |
1 |
192 |
1,942 |
Parkes |
NSW |
2013-14 |
91 |
14 |
- |
8 |
- |
- |
247 |
360 |
Parramatta |
NSW |
2013-14 |
5,840 |
726 |
- |
2,104 |
27 |
2,491 |
2,658 |
13,847 |
Paterson |
NSW |
2013-14 |
1,089 |
4,811 |
- |
3 |
- |
206 |
14,883 |
20,991 |
Pearce |
WA |
2013-14 |
16,145 |
1,544 |
178 |
143 |
2 |
0 |
1,273 |
19,285 |
Perth |
WA |
2013-14 |
1,386 |
45 |
- |
6,918 |
- |
90 |
60,890 |
69,328 |
Petrie |
QLD |
2013-14 |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
1 |
578 |
580 |
Port Adelaide |
SA |
2013-14 |
1,685 |
5,088 |
- |
7,391 |
22 |
291,344 |
251,922 |
557,451 |
Rankin |
QLD |
2013-14 |
1 |
2 |
5,121 |
40 |
- |
0 |
156 |
5,320 |
Reid |
NSW |
2013-14 |
809 |
457 |
- |
82 |
- |
11,364 |
18,482 |
31,196 |
Richmond |
NSW |
2013-14 |
307 |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
1 |
246 |
555 |
Riverina |
NSW |
2013-14 |
53,670 |
3,458 |
31 |
286 |
47 |
4 |
797 |
58,293 |
Robertson |
NSW |
2013-14 |
296 |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
30,191 |
30,488 |
Ryan |
QLD |
2013-14 |
18,009 |
4,264 |
93,998 |
41 |
- |
104 |
3,600 |
120,017 |
Scullin |
VIC |
2013-14 |
0 |
- |
- |
25 |
- |
25 |
133 |
183 |
Shortland |
NSW |
2013-14 |
0 |
19 |
- |
128 |
- |
0 |
255 |
402 |
Solomon |
NT |
2013-14 |
214,657 |
21,709 |
71,930 |
26,799 |
210 |
25 |
88,752 |
424,082 |
Stirling |
WA |
2013-14 |
1 |
- |
- |
695 |
- |
106 |
768 |
1,570 |
Sturt |
SA |
2013-14 |
1 |
17 |
- |
128 |
- |
1,782 |
20,653 |
22,580 |
Swan |
WA |
2013-14 |
843 |
67 |
- |
39 |
- |
62 |
2,555 |
3,565 |
Sydney |
NSW |
2013-14 |
30,239 |
11,574 |
- |
64,045 |
- |
2,325 |
396,710 |
504,893 |
Tangney |
WA |
2013-14 |
0 |
- |
- |
920 |
- |
21 |
397 |
1,339 |
Throsby |
NSW |
2013-14 |
- |
0 |
- |
0 |
- |
0 |
1,220 |
1,220 |
Wakefield |
SA |
2013-14 |
131,849 |
97,510 |
6,743 |
5,548 |
- |
9,620 |
121,899 |
373,168 |
Wannon |
VIC |
2013-14 |
47 |
- |
- |
2 |
- |
1 |
35 |
86 |
Warringah |
NSW |
2013-14 |
10,375 |
409 |
10,495 |
391 |
- |
3,670 |
4,940 |
30,279 |
Watson |
NSW |
2013-14 |
0 |
20 |
- |
0 |
- |
69 |
1,099 |
1,188 |
Wentworth |
NSW |
2013-14 |
249,229 |
16,173 |
2,953 |
4,566 |
- |
17,521 |
95,207 |
385,650 |
Werriwa |
NSW |
2013-14 |
85 |
1 |
2,882 |
116 |
- |
36 |
13,044 |
16,163 |
Wide Bay |
QLD |
2013-14 |
279 |
- |
2,286 |
4 |
- |
6 |
308 |
2,883 |
Wills |
VIC |
2013-14 |
- |
6 |
- |
2 |
- |
1,711 |
2,472 |
4,190 |
Wright |
QLD |
2013-14 |
10,105 |
2,228 |
189 |
3 |
5 |
8 |
704 |
13,242 |
|
|
TOTAL |
2,695,662 |
914,796 |
577,047 |
364,646 |
4,811 |
915,068 |
3,784,783 |
9,256,813 |
1. The spend by electorate report is sourced from internal reports and are based on the mapping of expenditure by postcode.
2. The postcodes are based on information pertaining to supplier vendor data.
3. Employee expenses do not include superannuation, payroll tax, fringe benefits tax or non-directly paid allowances (eg: housing).